Legislature(2009 - 2010)Anch LIO Rm 220
08/25/2009 09:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Reports/updates by Department of Education and Early Development (eed) | |
| HB206 | |
| HB33 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Anchorage, Alaska
August 25, 2009
9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Vice Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Peggy Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Wes Keller
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Bettye Davis
Senator Lyman Hoffman (via teleconference)
Senator Joe Thomas
Representative Kyle Johansen (via teleconference)
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Bob Herron (via teleconference)
Representative Michael "Mike" Kelly (via teleconference)
Representative Scott Kawasaki (via teleconference)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): REPORTS/UPDATES BY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT (EED)
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ANNA FAIRCLOUGH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated as the Chair of the House
Education & Early Development Finance Subcommittee.
LARRY LEDOUX, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the overview on the
Department of Education and Early Development (EED).
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked questions during the overview.
CYNDY CURRAN, Director
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the Department of
Education and Early Development (EED) overview.
PAUL SUGAR, Head Start/Parent Involvement
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the Department of
Education and Early Development (EED) overview.
ERIK McCORMICK, Director
Assessment and Accountability
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
Department of Education and Early Development (EED) overview.
SENATOR JOE THOMAS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked questions during the Department of
Education and Early Development (EED) overview.
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the Department of
Education and Early Development (EED) overview.
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke about the relevancy of the high
school qualifying exam.
MARCIA OLSON, Career and Technical Education Specialist
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions regarding
WorkKeys and the High School Graduation Qualifying Examination
(HSGQE).
SAICHI OBA, Associate Vice President for Students
University of Alaska (UA)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 206.
DAVE JONES, Assistant Superintendent
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of HB 206.
GEORGE TROXAL, Superintendant
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about compulsory
attendance and expressed support for raising the age to 18.
JIM HICKERSON, Superintendent
Bering Strait School District
Unalakleet, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of raising the
compulsory attendance age to 18.
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendant
Anchorage School District
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the amending the
compulsory age to 18.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:03:27 AM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Gardner,
Wilson, Edgmon, and Buch were present at the call to order.
Representative Munoz arrived as the meeting was in progress.
Also in attendance were Senators Davis, Hoffman, and Thomas, and
Representatives Fairclough, Kawasaki (via teleconference),
Johansen (via teleconference), Kelly (via teleconference), and
Herron (via teleconference).
^OVERVIEW: Reports/Updates by Department of Education and Early
Development (EED)
9:04:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be
a report from the Department of Education and Early Development
(EED). He summarized that this would include reports and
updates on graduation rates, single site school districts,
relevancy for the high school qualifying exam, an assessment of
WorkKeys, and pertinent discussion of HB 206.
CHAIR SEATON requested that questions be brought forward
throughout the presentation. He also reported that he and
Senator Davis were appointed to the Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education Legislative Advisory Panel, and
would attend their first panel meeting on September 28-29, 2009,
in Boulder, Colorado. At his behest, the agenda would include
the topic "Consideration of a Needs and Merit Based Combination
Scholarship Program;" a current proposal to the House Education
Standing Committee. In response to a question, he clarified the
intent of the agenda: to cover not only broad topics but
specific issues that have been brought to the committee. He
pointed out that although the Senate Education Standing
Committee issues have not been coordinated with the House
Education Standing Committee, participation by the Senate
members was greatly appreciated, and that the information being
reported should serve a benefit to both committees.
9:09:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ANNA FAIRCLOUGH, Alaska State Legislature, said
that she was participating today in her capacity as the Chair of
the House Education & Early Development Finance Subcommittee,
with interest specific, but not limited, to the department's
report regarding the pilot program introduced last year.
9:11:02 AM
LARRY LEDOUX, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), recognized
the State Board of Education and EED staff members in attendance
who were also available to respond to committee questions. He
directed attention to the Alaska Education Plan [Included in
committee packets], and noted that the plan was a blue print for
moving forward on a number of issues, which he finds essential
to the success of students in Alaska. He opined that the plan
is a coordinated, cost effective, long term approach to school
improvement, and that action teams have formed committees
throughout the state to facilitate the administration of the
plan. Furthermore, a Director of Current Technical Education
had been appointed, and would be working closely with the
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD) to ensure the
appropriate career/skill focus for graduating students. In
conjunction with the early learning pilot program, EED has
established a coordinated leadership effort with Best Beginnings
and the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) to
address the needs of the young child and Memorandums of
understanding (MOUs) defining these contracts were being
formalized, and are slated for completion within the next sixty
days. He included that Military compacts were also moving
forward to address the needs of that population. Governor
Parnell had emphasized his support for the prioritization of
these educational partnerships, he reported.
9:13:57 AM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX continued, stating that a plan for handling
the swine influenza pandemic had received considerable
attention. Protocol and plans for extended closure of a school,
in the face of this type of medical crisis, are being prepared.
The considerations included ways and means for the continued
delivery of educational programs, should a school be closed for
a week or a month. Today's reports would include the
department's on-going work surrounding the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA). He relayed that he had participated in
a national, global education summit to assist the State of
Alaska in partnering with national corporations for achievement
of its goals. The department was in the process of completing a
comprehensive review of all the regulations designed to
implement law, with a goal to streamline and update the
requirements. He mentioned his opportunity to review issues
with the United States Secretary of Education, and deemed it a
worthwhile discussion. He applauded the major effort undertaken
by library staff to reclaim and preserve the important archived
records which had been soaked, and he reported that the
department was in the final stages of completing a capacity
study. Noting that the department's ability to achieve its
mission as established by regulation had come under scrutiny
following the Moore v. State hearing, he said, "We continue to
spend time and energy on responding to ... [this] law suit."
Finishing his report, he stated that the department continued to
monitor correspondence and home school programs throughout the
state. Responding to a request from the chair, he agreed to
provide the committee with copies of the completed MOUs.
9:17:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether the regulatory review had
revealed any that could be repealed.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX answered that it was the department's intent
to eliminate regulations that required excessive paperwork and
staff time without contributing effectively toward the
established goals. Additionally, requirements that were not
clearly defined and problematic to districts were also being
scrutinized.
9:18:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired if the Rural Outreach Coordinator
position was in the recruitment stage.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX said that interviews were being held and a
recommendation should be made to the governor within the next
few weeks.
9:19:15 AM
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS, Alaska State Legislature, asked if the
department had applied for the first phase of funding from the
Race to the Top federal grant program.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX explained that the United States Department
of Education had recently posted the regulations regarding the
Race to the Top program and that the applications were not
expected to be available until later in the year. To a follow
up question, he said that the department will rigorously apply
for grant funds in every category of the federal program. He
assured the committee that these efforts were a departmental
priority, and he opined it would require extensive staff time
and energy.
9:21:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON suggested that a brief outline of the program and
its status would be beneficial.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX explained that the Race to the Top Fund had
been set aside as part of the ARRA to provide seed money and
support for a comprehensive reform of the nation's educational
system. It comprised of two rounds of application, with each
round requiring that state departments and the private sector
were partnering to meet nineteen application criteria. He noted
that there were many attachments necessary to receive points
toward grant awards.
9:22:38 AM
SENATOR DAVIS specified interest in the charter schools aspect
of the grant, and she asked whether Alaska would qualify for
funding.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX directed attention to the committee packet,
and stated that Alaska was not currently inhibited by charter
school limitations. However, he pointed out that should charter
schools become a central focus of national school reform, in
rural Alaska those partnerships may need further scrutiny.
9:24:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to the department's update on the early
childhood RFP (Request for Proposal) and pilot program.
9:25:11 AM
CYNDY CURRAN, Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), directed
attention to the committee packets for review of the briefing
sheet titled "Alaska Pilot Pre-Kindergarten Project" (AP3). Of
the 24 districts which indicated intent to participate, 12
actually applied, and 6 were funded. Each program will create
and implement a parent and community involvement base. This is
a critical aspect of recognizing and promoting the partnership
of parents as first teachers regardless of whether the child
remains at home or attends a public pre-school. A child outcome
evaluation will be administered, utilizing the Dial 3 and the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test to indicate progress in each
program. Additionally, she reported, individual programs will
be evaluated under the Early Childhood Environmental Rating
Scale (ECERS). Finally, she pointed out that the funds not
awarded will be used for districts that are in intervention, or
for program development within those districts. In response to
a committee question, she stated that these programs will also
be developed under the same AP3 goals.
9:27:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether the schools on intervention
are the ones targeted under the Moore v State case.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER called out, "Not necessarily."
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled that, initially, the program
expected to target 500 students, but that only about half of
that number had been reached. She asked whether it was
anticipated to meet the original target number.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX responded that although more than 500
children may be affected, the costs associated with working in
rural Alaska were higher than expected and the number will be
closer to 400. The expectation, he said, was that the parent
resource centers developed by each district would provide a
broad outreach of support, but that the department did not want
to include those children in the report total.
9:28:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to page 2 of the AP3 summary handout, and
read from the seventh bullet point: "support parents that do
not enroll their pre-K child in the school-based portion of the
program." He asked how much of the funding and activities were
used for the not enrolled.
MS. CURRAN explained that each of the grants included a parent
involvement component, either through school enrollment or a
parent resource center. The resource centers were to be
developed with community, school district, and parental input.
Through these centers, parents could access professionals,
either on location or for home visits. The center might also
include games and activities for parents to borrow. The
expectation, she said, was for each community to determine
specific needs and tailor the center accordingly.
CHAIR SEATON expressed his understanding that the program could
apply to any young child, and was not limited to younger
siblings of enrolled students. He requested clarification on
what this meant for coordination with the targeted group, or was
it considered to be an enrichment program for the broader
community.
9:32:22 AM
PAUL SUGAR, Head Start/Parent Involvement, Teaching and Learning
Support, Department of Education and Early Development (EED),
explained that the intent was for each community to determine
its needs and have the freedom to choose from a spectrum of
tools. Further, once the community identified its needs and
goals, it would develop methods and means to implement and
disseminate the array of early childhood resource materials, and
determine how best to engage the early childhood professional(s)
employed at the local center.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the target population had remained
constant, or was to be adjusted to include the broad community;
if expanded, how would the reporting be handled to quantify the
activities.
MR. SUGAR responded that the intent was that the program would
serve the early childhood age range. However, due to the
spectrum of materials available, collateral benefit could be
utilized that would extend beyond the range and scope of the
project. At the end of each year, every program was required to
submit a report of the activities: the schedule and attendance
levels for each activity, an accounting of the use of materials,
and other specific queries regarding the dissemination of the
available resources.
CHAIR SEATON observed that the RFA was designed to measure
improvement within a target population. As the programs
apparently extended beyond that group, he surmised that another
means for reporting and accountability might need to be
considered.
9:38:16 AM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX pointed out that the target population
included school and home based children. The department
anticipated a collection of appropriate statistics to evaluate
the effects of the program.
CHAIR SEATON offered assurance that the committee was also
concerned with every child. The ability and method of reporting
program effectiveness was crucial, he stressed.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for clarification on how the
remaining funds were to be used; as the handout specified that
they would be used to support early childhood work with
chronically underperforming districts, how would these
students/districts be targeted.
9:39:53 AM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX explained that prior to the RFP's, money was
set aside to assure that needs were being met for
underperforming districts. It is not the intent to direct these
funds to districts that already received grants, but rather to
those which did not apply, or whose applications did not merit
funding. Some of the money will be used to improve the quality
of programs, as it had become evident for the need to emphasize
quality. There are a number of programs that exist, but are not
proving to be effective. Despite the millions of federal,
state, and private dollars being spent, these programs are not
delivering results. He pointed out that the department has
become outcome based. The early learning guidelines have been
established, and the department was working with communities to
establish the best pathways for achieving these goals. When
NCLB (No Child Left Behind Act) was passed, the federal
government dictated how the standard was to be attained, but
that the prescribed methods and means did not work for Alaska.
EED was trying to establish goals, with high quality outcomes,
to allow each community to find their own path for achieving the
mark.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX stated that the department intends to assure
that every student whether they are entering a school based
program or alternative facility, comes ready to begin learning.
Parents are the absolute focus of the department's efforts. By
building the program on outcomes, each community can find its
means to achieve the established goals. He listed some programs
already in place, including Head Start, Early Head Start,
Parents as Teachers, various faith-based private programs, and
school based programs, and noted that these are programs for
every community to utilize. He stressed again the focus for
quality programs. He shared that partnerships were necessary to
create programs to fit the needs of any community. He pointed
out that the need for flexibility was evident in the grant
applications. He underscored that the department intends to
work with Best Beginnings to craft a statewide response that
will ultimately lead to the goal of having children ready to
learn.
9:43:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that community programs were not being
duplicated but rather each community tailors its own program
based on the local needs.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX indicated that the established outcomes are
uniform and are to be achieved, however the ways to attain these
high standards will be generated by community implementation of
the best suited programs and resources. Early learning programs
are not new to Alaska, but what is new is to create partnerships
to allow these programs to work together. He stressed his
belief that the state should not have any program that was not
aligned with the Alaska learning outcomes, but that each
community can effectively arrive at a program that works and
will be locally supported.
9:45:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled that legislation had been
introduced to fund Parents as [Teachers] programs that are grant
driven. She noted that many of the successful grant applicants
referenced the local version of a Head Start program, and asked
if any of the applicants are similarly building off of the
Parents as Teachers.
MR. SUGAR responded that there were none that specifically
stated the Parents as Teachers model of home visits, but that
some funded programs utilized other home visit models.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled the success of the Parents as
Teachers program. With approximately 40 of these programs in
existence, and given the common goals and processes, she noted
her surprise that it was not being implemented and dovetailed
into the efforts being discussed.
9:48:00 AM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX offered his understanding that some of the
programs shared practices set out by the Parents as Teachers
curriculum, but, he reported that the data does not indicate
that Parents as Teachers, Head Start, or other programs were
effective alone. He clarified that no criteria excluded the
implementation of this program.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether the grantees would be
providing services this year.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX lauded the efforts of the departmental staff
involved and stated, yes.
9:49:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed to the goals of the various targets in the
RFP's. He asked how the department intended to evaluate
achievement for each program; would each be measured against its
intent, or compared program to program. He asked, if two
communities listed common programs, but indicated a variance of
achievement percentage, what would determine success or failure.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX explained the necessity to maintain a
realistic goal, and that the target would depend on the starting
point.
9:51:56 AM
MR. SUGAR opined that the percentages should be considered
output as opposed to an outcome, and he detailed that these
could be compared to national norms, measured after a seven
month period.
9:53:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered a hypothetical situation, and asked how
objectives would be measured.
MR. SUGAR explained that the output data could be used to guide
the individual instructor, district, or parent and that the day
to day activities could also be guided by this data to assist in
targeting individual needs.
9:55:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON, returning to the variance indicated in the RFP's
by the different grantees with regard for the target growth
percentages, asked if the report would indicate growth compared
to national norm, or whether a community met the proposed
targets. He asked if there was another means to establish
program success.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX responded that, as the department evaluated
the programs, the committee would receive a comprehensive report
which would include whether grantees met their local goals of
improvement, and the overall impact of the program. He revealed
how the department had plans for pre and post testing. He
assured the committee that it would receive information about
the effectiveness of individual programs, site by site,
indicating whether programs met their goals. However, he
stipulated the department intended that every program would
attain 100 percent. The effectiveness of the program was not
necessarily going to be whether they achieved their goals, but
the effectiveness of helping to prepare the children for success
in school. The percentages the districts used to fill out the
application were an internal measuring tool for evaluation, but
the department's goal would remain for 100 percent.
CHAIR SEATON expressed his understanding that the committee
would receive an evaluation based on a growth model for all
students in all of the programs.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX concurred.
9:57:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON expressed her hope that the program
administrators and districts had a clear understanding of the
departmental goals, and how they related to the goals
established in the RFP.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX explained that the constructs used when
applying for a grant were very different than the expectation.
He assured that every principal, teacher, and early learning
specialist involved would be seeking 100 percent success.
9:58:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON expressed similar concerns and expectations.
9:59:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to the RFP handout, and asked
for an explanation of Mediated Learning Experiences (MLE).
MR. SUGAR replied that this was a learning method that fell
between learning by experience and exploration, and learning by
direct instruction; this approach provided output on either the
concept or cognitive function development.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if it was similar to the Montessori
approach and whether it was a trademark name.
MR. SUGAR explained that it was a term that had been used for
the past 35 years, and that the basic approach was through
interaction; a learning style that would become apparent in all
aspects of the child's school life.
10:03:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH inquired if the applications depended
on a certain student to teacher ratio.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX deferred.
MR. SUGAR responded that a 1:10 ratio was expected, and it has
been stipulated that there be no more than 20 students in a
classroom.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH, referring to an application submitted
by the Anchorage school district for two locations, noted that
with staff increases the ratio would be 1:5. She stressed that
this was a worthwhile investment, but that it would prove
costly. In response to a question, she detailed the ratio
calculation and maintained her interest for an explanation to
the 1:5 versus 1:10 result.
10:06:22 AM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX said he would provide the committee with an
analysis of that specific information following consultation
with the Anchorage School District.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH reiterated the staff specifications
that she utilized in analyzing the ratio.
10:07:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON allowed that many programs could be
successful given enough staffing. In evaluating these programs,
staff increases should be kept in mind, as some schools may not
be able to afford the additional staff to attain similar goals.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX concurred, adding that the pilot program was
a learning experience. He reiterated that the target was to
support parents through community based services and to mitigate
the need for expensive school based programs.
10:09:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH pointed out that the Anchorage RFP
also indicated the lowest cost per student ratio.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that Parents as Teachers was
serving 31 communities, but that the measurable outcome may not
match what was stated for the grant fund. However, one of the
benefits of this program, she mentioned, was the three year
training for parents to become certified educators. This was
empowering to a small community, she opined. These programs run
through many of the school districts which have not submitted an
RFP and she pledged to investigate the situation.
10:11:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON recalled the legislation that allocated
approximately $18 million to the Parents as Teachers program.
He asked if there were a cost benefit analysis for existing
programs that were not achieving expectations.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX offered his belief that "the costs will
spread out" as the department learned more about how to deliver
an effective program, and that there was not any assumption of
an open check book to develop a program. He acknowledged the
relationship of early childhood education and experiences to the
graduation rate and he noted the high cost to society of drop-
outs. He reiterated the need for quality programs and he opined
that community based programs would reduce the need for school
based programs. He announced the goal for a cost effective fit
for each community. It was not the intent of the department to
provide a school based program in every community. To a follow
up question, he agreed that many of these questions would be
answered as the program ran its course.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON noted that a school district may encompass
several communities.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX agreed that a district could acknowledge
each school separately, in order to ensure that every student
entered school ready to learn. He stressed that the outcome of
the program would be far reaching, as it forced each existing
program to evaluate its quality and services.
10:16:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON suggested that teen or pregnant mothers
might be served by a parenting class, which may prove cost
effective in the long run.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX acknowledged that young parents were always
a challenge. He declared a necessity for flexible secondary
programs to help young people be successful and individual
programs for students who become parents.
10:20:27 AM
ERIK McCORMICK, Director, Assessment and Accountability,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), explained
that the action team was formed to support the EED education
plan, and was initially divided into four different sections:
schools, students, community, and family groups, in order to
identify the reasons for dropouts within each group. He
reported that every reason was based in engaging students and
rooted in children making connections with a mentor, a peer, or
an activity. He reported that some districts were using
existing data to predict potential dropouts, and he listed these
indicators to include: a student's grade point average (GPA),
credit deficiency, and reading level. He shared that these
identifiers could be helpful to profile at risk students, as
early as middle school. He explained that push-out activities
such as attendance or discipline policies, were being reviewed.
10:22:48
MS. CURRAN added that the group identified specific actions and
determined who was responsible for each action, and its timeline
for implementation. She explained an upcoming community poster
campaign to feature graduation, which would act as a reminder
that each adult of the community was responsible for each
student, and that simple actions, such as saying hello, calling
a student by name, were an important involvement. Additionally,
she reported that letters would be going out to constituencies
detailing specific strategies, including work shadowing, and
targeting intervention techniques, including mentorships, all of
which would show students that someone cares. She stressed that
any student who knew that someone cared was more likely to
graduate. She pointed out that positive behavioral intervention
support and response to instruction and intervention are two
programs that have tiers of support and affect everyone in a
school. She reported that the committee would continue to meet
to move forward with specific actions, and determine what can be
accomplished in a given time frame. She shared that the next
meeting would gather local and national resources about what is
being done to help students graduate.
10:27:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON read from the third bullet point of a
departmental handout: "Examination analysis of policies and
procedures that push-out students, based on the fact that
learning is the constant and time is the variable." She asked
for further details on this statement.
10:27:40 AM
MR. McCORMICK provided an example of a district policy that
administratively dropped a student when they had ten consecutive
days of absence and an example of a suspension policy which
required a student to be off school grounds, which often
resulted in a lack of interest to return. He suggested an
alternative discipline policy to allow a student to serve an in-
school suspension, and he pointed out that these types of
policies were being scrutinized.
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that, around the country,
schools that had high graduation rates and low dropout rates
consistently assigned someone to follow each student's progress
throughout their time in school. National statistics had
indicated the success for mentoring or advisory programs yet, he
indicated, only a few schools in Alaska were implementing this
practice, as it was not a district requirement. He stressed the
need to have a system that actively engaged each student, as
this was the common denominator of schools that had a high
graduation rate.
10:32:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if the action group would have a
policy change proposal for the upcoming legislative session.
MR. McCORMICK did not anticipate having any recommendations for
the legislature that soon.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if an increase of the compulsory
graduation age to 18 tied into the graduation rate.
CHAIR SEATON relayed that the graduation working goals group did
not identify that as one of the solutions.
10:34:43 AM
MS. CURRAN concurred that it was not a solution to immediately
help students graduate.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked about the process for recertification
and how could the legislative committee become involved.
MS. CURRAN affirmed that these requirements were set by the
state board of education. She explained that the department
submitted recertification requirement amendments to the board.
She shared that the current requirement for six semester hours,
three of which must be at an upper division of 300 or above, did
not specifically state a course requirement or standard.
CHAIR SEATON asked for details of the poster campaign.
10:36:22 AM
MS. CURRAN described that the brainstorming process resulted in
the realization that raising a graduate was everybody's
business, and she identified easily accomplished tasks to reach
out to a young person in the community. She declared that the
department was producing a poster for general distribution
throughout the state to help remind everyone to take up the
task. At the request of Chair Seaton, she agreed to provide the
draft poster to the committee.
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the second page of the goals
handout and read: "increase involvement among culturally unique
families and communities in Alaska," and "not only the family
engagement plan but each school develops a comprehensive welcome
plan." He recalled that the biggest disconnect for students was
not being engaged as integral to the school.
10:39:14
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH concurred and underscored that the testimony
by students reflected a lack of connection to the school [they
left]. He emphasized that this needed to be addressed and every
student should be guided towards an attachment to their school.
CHAIR SEATON acknowledged that for some schools, this was going
to be difficult when there was already a high student turnover.
However, it was important, he opined, to make an equal attempt
to connect to these students also, and hope that they bring
positive experiences with them to their new school.
10:41:16
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that many students found school to
be a positive alternative to home. She provided examples of
children arriving early and being let in before hours because of
the need to be some place. These were not necessarily good
students, and they were at risk children, but they certainly
come to school. One school, she recalled, eliminated its tardy
policy because of older siblings need to attend to younger
family members. These children were cared for at the school,
and welcomed, however, they were still at risk of failure and
not graduating, for a very different reason than being
disconnected.
10:43:25
SENATOR JOE THOMAS, Alaska State Legislature, directed attention
to the first goal on the page titled "Graduation Working Group
Goals and Actions," and read the first goal: "to improve the
connectedness and/or flexibility of our schools to meet the
needs of all students." He noted that flexibility should
include the idea of curriculum being individually adjusted to
keep the students' interest, keep them in school, and better
prepare them for what takes place after school/graduation.
There was a void, he opined, that resulted in remediation at the
university level and non-preparedness to enter the work force,
which needed to be addressed, as well.
10:45:02 AM
MR. McCORMICK explained that individual learning plans (ILPs),
as graduation plans, would incorporate curriculum that would be
student specific. He shared that schools within schools was an
intervention model reviewed, and he noted that the commissioner
had suggested the idea of virtual school.
MS. CURRAN disclosed that the department was in the process of
developing and planning a statewide virtual school, which would
encompass many different components.
SENATOR THOMAS noted that the development of a project which
allowed for expansion would prove to be more economical in the
long run, and suggested creating a broad curriculum to maintain
a student's interest. He opined that this would be more
effective for a higher graduation rate. He stated his interest
in offering realistic life-skills classes as a part of such a
curriculum.
10:48:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ spoke of the need for cross cultural
certification to prepare new teachers.
MS. CURRAN replied that the legislature had provided for that
several years prior, and she elaborated that all teachers must
take three semester hours in multi-cultural or cross cultural
communication. She added that many districts were offering
enhancement of this requirement to assist teacher success.
10:49:54
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON indicated a need for new brain and
behavior research to be included with the continued training for
teachers.
10:51:15 AM
MS. CURRAN replied that each district did its own needs-
assessment, when planning in-service training. She relayed that
EED would be working with the teacher preparation institution to
review the training program approval process, which would be
reviewed by the state board.
10:52:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH mentioned that cross cultural training was
highlighted during the group discussions, and that many of the
aspects of the training were determined to be outdated. He
stated his understanding that EED would be reviewing the program
structure to more effectively serve Alaska's teachers,
specifically those in the Bush.
10:54:12 AM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX mentioned that a recent Harvard study
indicated that there was no correlation between student
achievement and a Masters degree by teachers. He expanded that
careful thought to the needs of the teacher and staff
development revealed a correlation to student achievement. He
opined that the old recertification process of six credits over
five years, with the stipulation that half would be upper
division courses, had not proven to increase teacher skills.
The state board was reviewing changes to the recertification
process to assure that teachers attend courses that would
directly relate to their needs. He explained that this can be
recognized from teacher evaluation and review, and to target
specific areas and skill improvement. The salary schedules that
are based on achievement of a Masters degree would be
scrutinized for content and applicability to the individual
teacher, he predicted. Responding to a teacher's ability to
teach within a cultural context, he said, taking a three credit
course in cross cultural communication was inadequate. The
realization was that teachers needed to attend focused
workshops, once they arrive in Alaska, which would better
prepare them for the specific locale where they would be
working. He suggested that this could occur during the summer.
Finally, he underscored the need for everyone to become involved
with students on an intimate level, and to consider that some
students required a smaller school size. These steps were an
important means to improvement of graduation rates and student
success, he opined.
10:58:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY noted the need to improve the system and to
deliver graduates who were prepared to enter the university
without remedial work. He expressed concern that three and four
year old children were going to enter the system, which will put
a further financial burden on the state. Although it had been
indicated that the onus would not be entirely on districts to
pilot this program, he stated his belief that many people see it
as a school based program. He underscored his support for a
parent/family driven system as opposed to a school-driven
system. In the name of pre-K education, he opined, this may end
up being construed as universal early childhood babysitting. He
emphasized his desire for these important cautions to be a
factor for consideration as this project moved forward.
11:05:18 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), clarified
that the pilot target group did not go include younger than
four-year-olds. Additionally, he emphasized that the pre-K
program was focused on the collaboration of what existed
currently in the school district and communities, and bridging
those gaps.
MR. JEANS launched into the topic of single site schools by
describing the system as a whole. There are 53 school districts
across the state, ranging from a student population of 48,000,
in Anchorage, down to a district serving 15 students, in
Pelican. Pelican is a single-site school, as well as a first
class city. Of the 53 school districts, there are 19 regional
education attendance areas (REAAs), which are areas outside of
the organized/incorporated areas in the state. Within those
REAAs, two of them are single site school districts: Annette
Island, the only reservation in the state, and Kashunamiut,
which served 318 students, and was created in 1987 via
legislative action. During that same legislative time, the
Yupiit school district was created as an REAA, serving three
communities. These last two districts are significant as they
represent REAAs within an REAA, an unusual situation, and were
the last of the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) schools to be
transferred to the state.
MR. JEANS continued to explain that there were 16 home
rule/first class cities, which were cities in the unorganized
areas not incorporated as boroughs but holding educational
powers. Finally, there were 18 boroughs/unified municipalities
in the state. In these unified municipalities there may be
first class cities, but those cities do not have educational
powers; that power had been given to the borough on an area wide
basis. The educational powers, assigned to the school
districts, came from two different statutes: Title 29 dealt
with municipalities and described the powers for municipal
schools, and for the unorganized areas, or REAAs, educational
powers were granted through Title 14 - EED. Thus, two systems
were in play, those governed through municipal statutes, and
those under the purview of EED.
11:09:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the powers provided through the two
statutes, effectively for the school districts, were the same,
or were there conflicts.
MR. JEANS responded that the educational duties and powers were
virtually identical. He added that Title 29, under municipality
codes, granted the power of education, taxation, and planning to
municipality. The unorganized REAAs were awarded under Title
14, circa 1977, when the state transformed from state operated
schools to the current system.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that regardless of the education powers
being exercised there was no conflict between the governing
statutes.
MR JEANS assured the committee that both authorities were in
accordance and required a locally elected school board. One
difference was that under the REAAs, Title 14 statute, there was
a requirement to maintain a local advisory council in each
community; an option under Title 29.
11:12:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ offered her understanding that communities
in the unorganized boroughs do not participate towards the cost
of maintaining the schools. She asked if that was also the case
for the single-site districts in the unorganized borough.
MR. JEANS said that he disagreed with that characterization, but
pointed out that the difference lies in the ability of a
community to tax the residents and make contributions to the
local school fund. In the unorganized areas, the impact aide
money was generated in lieu of local taxes. Under the EED state
funding formula, REAAs were required to contribute 90 percent of
their federal impact aide money to education. He explained that
regardless of how that funding was raised, the homes were not
taxable, even if they were to be incorporated into boroughs.
Although many may disagree, he stated his belief that it was a
legitimate means for the REAAs areas to contribute to
educational costs, although it may feel different and have
varying effects from contributions made by a private tax payer.
It does affect the state's funding formula in the same manner.
First class cities are required to contribute a local
contribution to education via a local tax source established by
the community.
11:14:07 AM
MR. JEANS continued, stating that there were 16 home rule first
class city school districts. These included two cities that
served 50 or fewer students, Pelican and Tanana; two with 50 to
100 students, Hydaburg and Kake; four with 100-200 students,
Hoonah, Klawock, St. Maries and Nenana; one with 200-300,
Galena's residential program; two districts with 300-400, Craig
and Cordova; one district with 400-500 Unalaska; and four
districts with more than 500 students, Dillingham, Petersburg,
Nome, and Valdez. The local boundary commission had considered
school district consolidation under a number of different
studies. One was the model borough boundary study of 1979, a
joint effort with the boundary commission and EED in a report
dated February 2004; and there had been resolutions issued from
the legislature requesting the boundary commission to submit
recommendations for consideration. In general terms, he
summarized, the local boundary commission would do a study on
individual areas, submit this to the legislature, and if the
recommendation was accepted then that area would automatically
be incorporated as a Borough. If all of the REAAs in the first
class cities, within those REAAs, were to incorporate as
boroughs, and the rule was strictly borough government, there
would be 37 schools districts, he stated.
11:17:29 AM
MR. JEANS relayed that some of the areas had incorporated as
Boroughs, since the study was completed, and that Skagway had
incorporated as its own separate Borough, but that Haines was
now the only third class Borough in Alaska. He pointed out that
communities had been annexed, noting that Ketchikan and Wrangell
had extended their boundaries. He reported that the Model
Borough Boundary study would have to be updated to move forward
with any incorporation recommendations. He offered his opinion
that the constitution envisioned the entire state divided into
Borough governments. He opined that local boundary commission
staff and some legislators were frustrated that it had moved so
slowly, but that this responsibility lay with the legislature
and the local boundary commission, not the EED.
MR. JEANS, in response to Chair Seaton, clarified that there was
a perceived savings through consolidation of school district
administrations. He referred to a study conducted in the 1980's
which illustrated that the cost of administration would increase
when more communities were served. He detailed that travel
costs for school boards would increase. He opined that
consolidation made sense in some areas, pointing out that Craig,
Klawock, Hydaburg, and Southeast Island School District all
operated on the Prince of Wales, but were not consolidated. He
relayed that many parents and local communities desired to
maintain control of the local schools. He allowed that there
was some sharing of services.
CHAIR SEATON, noting that it appeared counterintuitive, asked to
clarify whether the per student rate of state funding would
increase with consolidation.
11:23:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER confirmed that the funding structure for
small school adjustments could use up any cost benefit of
consolidation.
MR. JEANS offered to investigate that point further. He noted
that the current funding formula was based on the student
population within a school. He explained that consolidating
single site schools into larger areas could affect the
geographic cost differential. He supplied an example of the
Chugach School District, as it had multiple school sites off the
road system.
11:24:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that the committee was seeking a
knowledge base of single sites and the number of school
districts, and then to relate this to any change or benefit for
education in the communities. He emphasized that this was based
on education, not funding.
MR. JEANS relayed that the regional education attendance areas
were required to contribute 90 percent of the impact aid to
education. He explained that there was a calculation for both
first class city and borough that would reduce the amount of
impact aid that the state could deduct. He surmised that state
costs could go up when an REAA was combined with a first class
area that had local contribution, there are not as many federal
dollars deducted, noting that as federal dollars go down, state
dollars go up.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referring to School Consolidation: Public
Policy Considerations and a Review of Opportunities for
Consolidation [included in the committee packets], pointed out
the section on recommendations to the legislature and noted that
page 58, item (e), recommended to remove the disincentives for
school consolidation from the education funding formula.
MR. JEANS, in response to Representative Gardner, reported that
this statement came from the local boundary commission, but he
opined that it was a form of equity across all school districts.
He reflected that without a required local effort, there needed
to be a cap on local contributions to maintain some form of
equity.
11:28:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether any single-site districts
would be under 10 students.
MR. JEANS replied that Pelican had 15 students, but with a
continued declining enrollment. In response to a question, he
replied that the hold harmless bill was passed two years ago to
provide transition funding for the communities with a student
population below 10.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what funding allowed a school to
continue to remain open although its student population was less
than 10.
MR. JEANS replied that the local school board made the decision
to remain open however the funding mechanism did influence these
decisions. He noted that as funding was decreased, the
financial pressure could lead to school closure. He explained
that the transition funding was for four years, and in response
to a question from Representative Wilson, he reported that
district funding diminished each year by an additional 25
percent. In response to a question from Representative Seaton,
he noted that should the Pelican school population drop below 10
students, it would qualify for hold harmless because it was the
only school in the district.
11:33:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if the EED had a role in
redistricting.
MR. JEANS replied that EED did not have a role in redistricting,
and opined that it was strictly based on census. In response to
Representative Gardner, he explained that the two common waivers
were for a small school district with an operating budget of
less than $3 million, and for a school district with an
operation and maintenance budget which was 20 percent of the
total operating fund.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ surmised that a disincentive mentioned in
the report was that the funding formula allowed for more funding
for smaller schools. She pointed out that Kenai Peninsula
schools were faced with closing some smaller schools, but found
that it would cost the district more to close the schools.
MR. JEANS, in response, observed that the Kenai Peninsula
Borough School District was an anomaly, as it had grown very
rapidly, but was now experiencing declining enrollment. He
reported that the funding was an individual school based
formula, so that closing a school was a disadvantage. He
disclosed that the prior funding formula was based on
communities, which would have been an advantage for the school
district, in this case.
11:36:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the task force appointed to
review the funding formula.
MR. JEANS clarified that the task force would review the
geographic cost differentials, and not necessarily the entire
funding formula.
11:37:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to a letter, dated February 18,
2004, from EED to House Speaker Kott and Senate President
Therriault, and noted that it said in part that the
consolidation of ten city school districts would reduce the
state education costs by more than $262,000 each year. She
continued and read that it would increase basic need by $750 per
student, and she asked if this would be paid by local
contribution.
MR. JEANS reported that first class cities are required to make
a local contribution to education. He observed that if the 10
smallest cities on the list were taken out of the formula, this
would result in the $262,000 savings; however, as there were
higher geographic cost differentials, the basic need would
increase. In response to Representative Munoz, he clarified
that basic need was the state contribution.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ, referring again to the letter, asked how
consolidation would free up more than $1 million of local taxes.
MR. JEANS explained that the education control would be placed
in the existing REAA, so that the local tax money would no
longer be required or allowed.
CHAIR SEATON observed that the anomaly was that the state would
now have to pay for the basic need, instead of the local
taxpayers.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ questioned the economic gain.
MR. JEANS offered to research that issue further.
11:41:38 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), spoke about
assessment issues. He spoke first about the relevancy of the
high school qualifying exam. He pointed to the Comparison of
the High School Graduation Qualifying Examination (HSGQE) and
WorkKeys Assessments. [Included in the committee packets.] He
presented that the first important point of HSGQE relevance was
to consider what a state wide assessment did and the balance
necessary. He noted that teachers will teach to the standards
of the test. He discussed the concern of narrowing the
curriculum. He observed that there are many important skills to
attain by graduation, and although some are difficult to test,
such as the ability to show up on time, the schools needed to
assess for them.
MR. MORSE explained that the HSGQE was an exit exam, but that
not all states had exit exams. He observed that there was a
shift in some states from the comprehensive exit exam to end of
course exams, which he defined as a series of exams at the end
of specific courses. He pointed out that although this major
shift was occurring, Alaska was maintaining the HSGQE as
required by law. He relayed that the skills tested on the HSGQE
included reading, and the sub categories: reading comprehension,
identification and support for main ideas, application of multi-
step directions, ability to make and support assertions, and
analysis and evaluation of themes. He opined that relevancy was
if it was important for the students, though he allowed that
things could be missing. He discussed the writing skills
tested, which included writing compositions using conventions of
Standard English, and revising writing to improve expression,
and the mathematics skills, which included computation skills,
reading, interpreting and constructing graphs, principles of
geometry and measurement. He pointed out that these specific
skills were better defined on the comparison sheet mentioned
above. He noted that Mr. McCormick would address statistics on
student performance.
11:50:39 AM
MR McCORMICK pointed out that relevancy was questioned by the
students who passed the HSGQE at the end of the sophomore year,
and he noted that, in 2008, 1500 seniors had completed the
school year, did not get a diploma, but had passed the HSGQE.
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that at the end of two years of high
school, a high percentage of students have passed the HSGQE, yet
they have not taken any of the advanced classes. He asked about
the relevancy of the exam when these same students could not
pass a college entrance exam two years later.
MR. MORSE said that generally, the reading and writing skills
are aligned with the grade level expectation for ninth and tenth
grade; whereas the math skills were a blend of eighth, ninth and
tenth grades. He identified that the question was whether to
measure a guaranteed foundational skill for everyone or build a
test that drives instruction that will place students as to
proficiency and will give greater feedback to a relative outcome
after high school. The assessment could be more challenging but
would offer more information. He presented the dilemma of the
pass rate as a requirement of graduation versus a more robust
assessment of career and college readiness.
11:55:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER observed that 14 states had exit exams
generally targeted to ninth and tenth grade students. She
offered her understanding that the original exit exam proposal
was watered down, and she reflected that, as 90 percent of high
school dropouts had passed all three parts of the exit exams,
they assumed they had mastered what they needed.
MR. McCORMICK, in response, explained that the shift from exit
exams to end of course exams would increase the rigor and
accountability and move toward alignment with national
standards.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the end of course exam would
correlate with the course grade, and if so, why have the exam.
MR. MORSE reported that these exams were graduation exit
criteria for some states, and often a percentage of the course
grade. He shared that he did not know the relative pass rate to
the grade earned separately.
11:59:18 AM
MR. McCORMICK, in response to Representative Johansen, offered
his understanding that 40 percent of incoming freshmen from
Alaska schools needed some remedial course work.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked how this compared to out of state
students.
MR. McCORMICK replied that he would research this question.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked what was being done to determine
why students who passed the exit exam as sophomores did not go
on to graduate.
MR. McCORMICK, in response to Representative Johansen, explained
that this was being researched.
12:02:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ questioned whether the exit exam was being
administered too early, and instead be offered in a later year
as an incentive to stay in school.
MR. MORSE surmised that it depended on the individual student,
as early administration offered multiple opportunities and
support staff for those who did not pass on the first attempt.
He replied to Representative Munoz that data reflected 90
percent of the 2008 class had passed all three exam sections,
and were eligible to graduate. He acknowledged that this did
not account for drop-outs prior to the senior year.
12:04:59 PM
The committee took a recess from 12:04 p.m. to 1:13 p.m.
1:13:13 PM
CHAIR SEATON called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting back to order at 1:13 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked the percentage of students who
passed the exit exam and still needed remedial instruction in
college. She asked for this to include the percentage of
General Educational Development (GED) and high school graduates.
1:15:35 PM
MR. McCORMICK announced that a recent Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) with the Department of Labor & Workforce Development
(DLWD) would correlate a list of GED and high school graduates
with permanent fund dividend (PFD) data, unemployment insurance
(UI) records, and college attendance. He agreed that tracking
remediation for students would be a natural next step.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON expressed the need to better understand
the reasons for remediation.
1:16:37 PM
CHAIR SEATON, referring to the first paragraph, page 2, of
Comparison of the High School Graduation Qualifying Examination
(HSGQE) and WorkKeys Assessments [Included in the committee
packets], read "the proficient score on the examination was
designed to reflect what high school students should know as a
result of their public school experience," and asked if this
meant the end of grade 12.
MR. McCORMICK explained that the language was primarily from
statute and that the test was designed to be high stakes. He
allowed that after the first tests were given, there was
statutory modification, and the exam became a basic competency
test. He opined that the test should reflect that a student has
attained tenth grade essential skills.
CHAIR SEATON asked to clarify that EED did not agree that the
proficiency score on the exit examination reflected the entire
public education career.
MR. McCORMICK agreed.
CHAIR SEATON asked if WorkKeys aligned well with the Alaska
Performance Standards. He provided that the House Education
Standing Committee had worked toward the implementation of
WorkKeys to give students goals for evaluation and preparation
for work without remediation.
MR. McCORMICK responded that it was still not possible to find a
skill level equivalent to HSGQE. He said that a scale score
from the HSGQE did not directly relate to a raw score on the
WorkKeys.
CHAIR SEATON questioned whether the WorkKeys concepts of
application and academic knowledge could be aligned to measure
proficiency on Alaska Performance Standards.
MR. MORSE opined that the use of WorkKeys would require it be
aligned to the Alaska Performance Standards, and to note any
other skills that would appear on the test, so that educators
would know what else was necessary for the HSGQE preparation.
He explained that the Comparison page, of the HSGQE and WorkKeys
assessments, is provided, should it be necessary to choose one
or the other. He noted that the standards tested for in the
HSGQE would still be tested for in the standards based
assessment program, as this was still required under federal and
state regulation.
CHAIR SEATON offered his belief that WorkKeys did not align with
Alaska Performance Standards. He asked if this needed to be
addressed through the education curriculum. He questioned that
the HSGQE is aligned with the Alaska Performance Standards, but
stated his understanding that the WorkKeys is not, and how could
that be accomplished.
MR. MORSE, pointing to page 5 of the aforementioned Comparision,
noted that this preliminary analysis would have to be validated.
He also acknowledged that it needed to be clear which things in
WorkKeys were not in the performance standards, and this was the
beginning of that analysis.
CHAIR SEATON asked if this was the reason for the delay in
implementation of WorkKeys in grade 11.
1:29:44 PM
MR. McCORMICK, in response to Mr. Morse, listed the three
assessments in WorkKeys that lead to certification: reading for
information, locating information, and applied mathematics. He
pointed that out the HSGQE had a writing component which was not
in WorkKeys, although WorkKeys did have a business writing and a
writing assessment which were not part of the certification. He
explained that the "L" in WorkKeys referenced the level. He
pointed out that math [on page 8] did "match up fairly well."
He directed attention to the HSGQE descriptors of Functions and
Relationships, Geometry, and Probability and Statistics, and
said that these did not "line up with WorkKeys."
MR. McCORMICK, in response to Chair Seaton, explained that this
was a linear comparison only, math versus math, and reading
versus reading, and did not include a cross category comparison.
CHAIR SEATON underscored that the House Education Standing
Committee is focusing on preparing students for real world
situations. He observed that whatever measurement tool is used
must have standards, communications to teachers, and progressive
testing to allow for improvement.
1:35:39 PM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative Wilson, pointed out
that the footer stated that the comparison was a preliminary
analysis and would not be used in the curriculum until the
skills were tested for work use.
1:36:44 PM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX stated that one of the most important
components of the state education plan were world class student
graduation outcomes. This plan identified what students needed
to know and do upon high school graduation. He shared that
colleges reported that many students were not ready upon
entrance to college. He reported that the starting place was
the vision for the outcome, and then an assessment of
achievement was developed. He stated that the HSGQE was not a
college exam, but that it was a minimum exam. He stated that a
review of the standards had begun. He presented a need to
measure twenty-first century skills. He explained that these
were the ability to problem solve, to be creative, and to work
cooperatively, as well as the ability to be on time and to
understand ethics. He observed that WorkKeys was a national
attempt to measure some of these skills. He agreed that there
was still a lot of work to be done, and that high standards were
being developed. He cautioned that the standard had to be set
before the assessment.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX allowed that WorkKeys might not be the best
tool, as it was necessary to first identify the standards and
expectations. He agreed that the HSGQE was not rigorous enough,
was simply a minimum, and had no information on the ability to
function in society.
1:41:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether there was any value in
retaining the HSGQE.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX reminded that first there needed to be an
adjustment of the standards. He emphasized that accountability
was also critical. In response to Representative Gardner, he
stated that HSGQE was still useful, but that it needed to be re-
evaluated and adjusted as a measurement for expected knowledge
at graduation.
1:44:03 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked how the HSGQE compared to the measurement of
efficiency for every grade level.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX replied that the most important assessment
was student-based, and that school based assessments in grades
three to ten were very effective for measuring performance and
achieving standards. He opined that Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) was a construct that did not make a lot of sense for
accountability. In response to a question, he explained that
the HSGQE was a high stakes, minimum competency exam.
MR. McCORMICK, in response to another question, said that the
Standard Based Assessment (SBA) were designed using the Grade-
Level Expectations (GLE). He explained that HSGQE was not
initially tied to the standards, but was re-focused to attempt
to match the standards. He opined that the SBA was a more
accurate measure, and was a better tool for analysis than the
HSGQE.
CHAIR SEATON surmised that EED should be able to use the
proficiency and growth models to produce something more valuable
than HSGQE.
1:50:21 PM
SENATOR THOMAS asked how the HSGQE results would compare to a
student's results in the sixth grade.
MR. McCORMICK replied that this had not been done.
SENATOR THOMAS questioned whether there was a similar exam to be
administered earlier to compare to the sixth grade statistics.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX replied that research indicated that early
assessments should be centered on inflection points, which he
described as learnings that must be mastered before the next
skill level could be mastered. He noted that school districts
throughout the U.S. were looking at end of course exams for more
accountability.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if there were a similar program to
WorkKeys that the state did not have to pay for annually.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX established that it would be very expensive
to create. He noted that a high stakes exam, such as the HSGQE,
was always forced to a minimum level, or not enough students
graduated. He said that a high stakes exam did not give any
information about the skills and knowledge for success.
1:56:32 PM
MARCIA OLSON, Career and Technical Education Specialist,
Teaching and Learning Support, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), in response to a question, reported that
there was a delay to WorkKeys assessment implementation for
another school year. She explained that the delay was to "work
out some of the bugs with the actual implementation of the
assessments." In response to Representative Gardner, she
explained that ACT [WorkKeys is a commercial product offered by
ACT.] was learning the logistical difficulties within Alaska,
which included the timing for the shipment of tests, and the
difficulty of using computers for administering the tests. In
response to another question, she established that previously
ACT had a CD-Rom based version, but that method had been
abandoned. She allowed that currently the only two options were
paper and pencil, or an internet access version, which was
difficult for many Alaskan communities due to a lack of
bandwidth.
2:05:04 PM
MS. OLSON, in response to Chair Seaton, agreed with Mr. Morse
that it is important to share which skills are tested via
WorkKeys, and which skills are not addressed on assessment
exams. She reported that ACT publishes Targets for Instruction
which lists the WorkKeys skills and offers classroom teaching
strategies. She disclosed that more training is now being
offered to the schools.
CHAIR SEATON opined that there were some other educational
curriculum tools that aligned with WorkKeys to be a better fit
for some school districts. He asked whether these trainings
were available.
2:07:47 PM
MS. OLSON replied that two other companies have developed online
curriculum for training on WorkKeys assessments. She noted that
Department of Education and Early Development had contracted
with one company, World Interactive Network (WIN), to provide
this curriculum to all K-12 public schools, and to the
Department of Labor & Workforce Development job centers. She
pointed out that the job centers also offered KeyTrain, a
similar curriculum to WIN. She acknowledged that EED had also
been reviewing KeyTrain. In response to a question, she said
that the WIN software was available to all the public schools,
and that more than half the Alaskan school districts had used
WIN.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the entire Kodiak Island Borough
School District had used KeyTrain.
MS. OLSON offered her understanding that the Kodiak schools were
using WIN and KeyTrain.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX reported that the Kodiak High School
principal was available.
CHAIR SEATON emphasized that this was not just a test, but a
preparation for success after high school.
2:15:36 PM
MS. OLSON explained the new Platinum level of certificates,
which required a Level 6 score on all three of the WorkKeys
assessments, and shared that Kodiak had the first Platinum
recipient.
[Contains discussion of HB 206]
2:16:52 PM
CHAIR SEATON, referring to HB 206-High-School Students Taking
Postsecondary Courses [Included in the committee packets], asked
for clarification of the first paragraph which stated: "only
high school seniors in their second semester would be eligible
for the free courses."
2:19:52 PM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX explained that high school students were
able to take courses with college credits, and both the fee and
the success were based on the relationship between the school
district and the local college. He explained that some
districts were offering a middle college degree, which allowed
credits toward an associate degree while still in high school.
He opined that many districts were very excited to formalize
relationships for these programs. He shared that many students
of these middle college programs could not afford any tuition or
fees, and that school districts would be less inclined to
participate if there was a cost.
CHAIR SEATON pointed out the question of how to extend this
program to students across the state. He noted that there were
benefits to the University of Alaska. He stated that the House
Education Standing Committee was working to "activate more
education and more collaboration between the University and the
entire school system."
2:27:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted that the high school in Juneau
offered an architectural and engineering program which allowed
students to take courses for dual credit from both the
University and the high school. She asked if the school
district reimbursed the University.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX said that he was not aware of the details,
but affirmed that the programs were very effective.
MR. JEANS agreed that this was a way to jump start a college
career, and possibly graduate from high school with an Associate
of Arts (AA) degree. He reminded the committee that the
discussion was to keep students engaged in school, and he
reflected on the HSGQE.
CHAIR SEATON deliberated that the need was to review both
curriculum and assessment, as not all the students would
continue on to college. He opined that it was necessary to
broaden the interest for students.
2:31:12 PM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX offered his belief that students needed to
explore their interests, and that was an important factor for
students to stay in school. He surmised that schools were going
to have to offer flexibility for students to engage in
apprenticeship, work study, self exploration, and college
classes. He opined that schools with limited choices did not
work, as students could manage their learning in real time. He
suggested that the modern high school student would master the
basic skills by the sophomore year, and would need more
opportunities to explore their interests. He stated that the
inflexible school would not be successful, and that the
University provided a great opportunity for all students.
CHAIR SEATON considered that to be a vision statement and he
offered disagreement that rigid curriculum schools did not still
exist. He asked if correspondence schools had become open ended
and available to all students.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX replied that the University was a leader in
developing distance courses. He offered his belief that the
various distance course offerings had not been coordinated, had
different quality and capability, and that not all were
effective. It was the intent of the EED to develop a high
quality, statewide, virtual education system, which was managed
and owned by school districts, and would be a cooperation
between the University, the school districts, and private
agencies. He shared that there were a number of models to
consider which would allow students to participate in qualified
classes.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether all school districts would accept the
course qualifications.
2:37:15 PM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX replied that once the system was set up, it
would be owned by all the districts. He ascertained that
districts could join, and each would manage its course
offerings. He referred to this as the "anytime, anywhere, any
age, anyone system."
2:39:04 PM
SAICHI OBA, Associate Vice President for Students, University of
Alaska, said that they were interested in an assessment that
would help students and families prepare for post-secondary
course work. He acknowledged that there was dual enrollment at
the University, and that the most common way was to enroll as a
non-degree seeking student. He explained that there were
specific programs for high school students, which included tech
prep as a low cost alternative. He described the AHEAD (Alaska
Higher Education Admission Decision) program in Fairbanks, which
was for students who had completed 75 percent of their high
school curriculum, with a minimum GPA of 3.0. He described the
Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) which allowed post-
secondary institutions to formally admit high school students
into a degree program.
2:42:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that Kenai Peninsula College had
mentioned that should high school students be struggling with
the college course work, the parents had no way of knowing and
it could affect graduation from high school.
MR. OBA replied that he was aware of the issue. He emphasized
that the communication needed to exist between a high school
student and parents. He pointed out that each high school
district should also be aware of the university program.
CHAIR SEATON considered the tendency toward five years for
completion and graduation because of the lack of class
requisites. He asked if non-degree courses affected college
graduation.
2:46:41 PM
MR. OBA explained that the term non-degree seeking referred to
the student status at the time of the course, and it did not
affect the course work as all the course work could be applied
to a degree program. He opined that the keys to the success of
the university and the success of K-12 were linked. He
expressed support for programs to help high school students find
success in post-secondary education.
2:49:33 PM
MR. JEANS, in reference to HB 206 - Student Count [included in
committee packets], explained that the current public school
funding formula required one student count for a 20 day period
in October. He shared that HB 206 would require two student
counts, and funding would be based on the higher of the two
counts. He detailed that the first count would still be in
October, but would now average with the [new] prior February
count, and that this average would be the funding for the school
year. He shared that there had been an optional February count
from 1988-1998, which allowed districts with a student increase,
to base their funding on the higher average. He pointed out
that October historically had the highest student count. He
suggested the second count would encourage district support for
keeping students in school.
2:53:52 PM
MR. JEANS, in response to Chair Seaton, agreed that HB 206
requested two 20-day counts, which would allow for comparable
counting time periods. He reminded the committee that the count
was based on enrollment, not attendance, so there was not a
penalty if students were absent.
CHAIR SEATON stated that it was undesirable to have a system
which rewarded enrollment and not attendance.
MR. JEANS replied that a student was dropped from enrollment
after an absence of 10 consecutive days without contacting the
school district. He reported that the school districts expected
parents to set up a learning schedule for children who would be
on any extended school leave. He offered his belief that this
addressed the enrollment issue.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ agreed with a second count, yet she
expressed concern for smaller schools.
MR. JEANS detailed that the two counts, February and October,
would be averaged during the calendar year. He explained
further that the October and upcoming February counts would be
averaged for the school year, and then the higher average would
be used. He expressed his understanding for the concerns of
Representative Munoz.
CHAIR SEATON surmised that an optional count would be a better
financial incentive to keep students in school, as there was not
a downside to student decrease, but an upside to a student
increase.
3:00:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ agreed with an optional count.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed support for offering a
financial incentive to keep children in school. She suggested
adding a hold harmless clause that stated the second count would
not be used to lose funding.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that she could not envision the EED
forcing closure of a school during the middle of the school
year.
3:03:01 PM
MR. JEANS, in response to Representative Wilson, clarified that
the EED did not close schools, that this decision was determined
by the local school board. He noted that the second count
considered in HB 206 could affect schools similar to Tenakee
Springs. In response to a question, he clarified that the
funding would be based on the average of the two counts, not the
higher. He agreed with the concerns of Representative Munoz.
3:07:15 PM
CHAIR SEATON offered an example of the effects of increasing and
decreasing student counts, using a two count system.
MR. JEANS noted that schools close to the minimum ten student
level did not have a large fluctuation.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked how many schools were on the edge for
student minimums.
MR. JEANS estimated that there were ten schools statewide.
CHAIR SEATON offered an example of the recruitment of students
for a small school. He offered his belief that the second
student count was a financial incentive to keep students in
school.
3:11:26 PM
DAVE JONES, Assistant Superintendent, Kenai Peninsula Borough
School District, expressed support for the funding plan which
the legislature had adopted three years prior. He referred to
student count averaging, and noted that student population
fluctuated during the school year. He opined that the two count
system would result in less funding than the current program.
He reported that contracts were written in May, but a school did
not know its revenue until October. He suggested one financial
incentive to be a count for 170 days from the previous school
year. He opined that an October count would not result in a
decrease for funding, but would allow for a funding increase due
to enrollment.
3:16:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised that the proposed bill would
allow funding, at the very least, for the prior year average.
She asked if a spring student count was enough financial
incentive to retain students.
MR. JONES, in response to Representative Gardner, reiterated
that school student counts go down in the winter, and he
expressed a concern that the means to retain students would not
justify the financial gain.
CHAIR SEATON surmised that a school would not lose funding for
its current school year, no matter what the February count;
however, a student increase in February could be a financial
gain. He offered an example from the Alaska Military Youth
Academy, which revised its program to ensure there was not a
loss of student population when it began the two count system.
He asked Mr. Jones for any incentive suggestions to maintain the
student count.
3:21:06 PM
MR. JONES repeated his suggestion for a 170 day count. He
expressed concern with the February count occurring during the
lowest student attendance period of the school year. He
conveyed that the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District goal
was to promote itself as the place of choice, with the best
alternatives. He noted that should this second count have been
taken during the prior ten years, his district would have had a
financial loss.
CHAIR SEATON asked to clarify that this was based on enrollment
and not attendance.
3:23:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDENER asked if Mr. Jones recommended a later
date for a second count.
MR. JONES relayed that enrollment began to increase in the
spring, with its peak in October.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER reflected that the February count had
been selected as it was prior to the variety of spring school
breaks which could interfere with the student count.
MR. JONES suggested that April or May would be a better time.
3:24:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked where all the students went in
October, as it appeared that all the schools had a drop in
student count.
MR. JONES replied that every school district was convinced that
the new students were already funded in another district. He
offered assurance that districts did not stop student
encouragement after the October student count.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON opined that the district superintendent
needed to prioritize the maintenance of student enrollment so
that all the district staff would investigate every instance of
a student drop.
MR. JONES reported that when a district did not get a request
from another district for a student record, it did not know
where to respond.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reflected on what happened to the students
who were no longer enrolled anywhere.
3:28:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted that some populations, such as
fishing and tourism, were seasonal.
MR. JONES concurred.
3:28:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH reflected that for small districts, it was
possible for someone to go to the student's home to check on
them, but in larger communities there was often nothing done.
He questioned whether students could be missing in their own
communities.
CHAIR SEATON concurred that some students were missing from the
schools, but still in the community. He shared that most state
agencies had responded that this was not its priority. He
reiterated that the purpose was to get students back in to a
school.
3:32:33 PM
MR. JEANS relayed that there were unintended consequences with
the second student count and gave an example of early
graduation.
CHAIR SEATON asked which month was best for the second count.
MR. McCORMICK offered his belief that after February it was very
difficult for EED to reconcile that much data in order to
recalibrate the foundation entitlements for that current year.
He acknowledged that other states used the 170 day prior year
student count, and that it might achieve the committee goal.
[Contains discussion of HB 33.]
3:37:01 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the committee would next discuss the
compulsory school age.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:38 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.
3:45:56 PM
MS. CURRAN said that the compulsory school laws in the nation
were quite old and ranged in requirement, but that more and more
states were considering an increase of the compulsory school
age. She shared that half the states allowed an exemption with
certain criteria.
MR. JEANS reported that the compulsory school age in Alaska was
between seven and sixteen, and that there were twelve
exemptions, which made it difficult to enforce attendance. He
said that, as a parent, he viewed this as a law. He expressed
his opinion that he had more influence on his children if the
age was increased, and less if it was decreased.
3:50:34 PM
MR. JEANS, in response to Chair Seaton, read the 12 exemptions,
which included: comparable education to public schools; attends
school operated by the federal government; physical or medical
condition which makes attendance impractical; in custody of
court or law enforcement; temporarily ill or injured; been
suspended or expelled; resides outside of transportation routes
provided by school authority; excused by action of the school
board; has completed the 12th grade; enrolled in the state
boarding school or state funded correspondence program; equally
served by an approved educational experience; and, educated at
home by parent or legal guardian.
SENATOR DAVIS asked if these were regulation or statute.
MR. JEANS replied that it was AS 14.30.010, although he admitted
to not reading the statute exactly as written.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what was the penalty for violation.
MR. JEANS, in response, relayed that each five days of unlawful
absence was a separate violation. He said that he believed this
had been enforced, but only on a very limited basis.
3:56:36 PM
GEORGE TROXAL, Superintendant, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District, stated that the district did give tickets and fines
for truancy. He said that enforcement was very time intensive
and didn't result in a subsequent increase in attendance,
although it was a good policy. He shared that the parents of
truants had expressed a wish for compulsory school attendance
until 18. He offered support for amending the compulsory age to
18. In response to a question, he said it would be difficult to
estimate the attendance increase from such a law, but that it
would alleviate "some of the struggle in getting kids to
school."
4:00:00 PM
JIM HICKERSON, Superintendent, Bering Strait School District,
concurred with Superintendent Troxel to raise the age to 18,
however, he acknowledged that raising the age won't have any
consequence unless enforcement efforts are also increased. He
offered his belief that currently for the rural school
districts, there was not enough enforcement.
4:02:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked what efforts were taken in dealing
with the parents.
MR. HICKERSON replied that parents of younger students were
encouraged to bring the students to school, but if the parents
weren't willing then little can be done.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked at what age students stopped
attending school.
MR. HICKERSON, in response, said that students as young as ten
years stop coming, and although the district followed through,
student truancy was not a high priority with support and
enforcement agencies. In response to a question, he said that
the total number of students not coming at all was small, but
the number that missed 50-70 days each school year was very
large.
CHAIR SEATON surmised that changes in the budget process would
have to be made, and resources reallocated from instructional
service to enforcement. He emphasized that the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) had never included an increment for truancy
enforcement, and would not enforce the truancy laws.
4:08:20 PM
MR. HICKERSON relayed that districts were now considering a
school attendance/resource officer. He opined that DPS and the
Office of Children's Services (OCS) were responsible to uphold
the law, but because they refused, the school districts no
longer asked.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX opined that violators of the current law
would not be intimidated by a new law. He said that a law for
compulsory attendance until 18 would support the parents trying
to keep their children in school, but it would not change those
in violation. He opined that it was a crisis when ten year-olds
were not going to school, and that needed to be addressed, maybe
with different legislation. He stated that there is no means to
know how many students there are in Alaska, unless they register
for school.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised that truancy enforcement could be
less expensive than the cost to society in the long run.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX agreed. He offered his belief that success
was the greatest narcotic, and that success would keep students
in school.
4:14:14 PM
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendant, Anchorage School District, said
that the Anchorage School Board had made this a priority because
the wrong message was being sent to students that it was
acceptable to leave school at 16. She relayed that the school
board had expressed that 18 or a high school diploma was
acceptable. She detailed the difficulties faced by many parents
in keeping their children in school, and she voiced support for
amending the compulsory age to 18. She emphasized that, at a
minimum, a high school diploma makes it easier to get a job, and
be self supportive without resorting to crime. She stated that
this sends a message to students that education and a high
school diploma is very important. She said that graduation
support staff had been hired for every high school, and for some
middle schools, to assess student strengths and get them on the
proper track.
MS. COMEAU, in response to a question, declined to speculate how
many more students would attend school if the compulsory age was
raised to 18. She relayed that the business community would
certainly support the effort. She explained the intense effort
being made to contact students who are truant and to educate
them on the benefits of school.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON observed that data could illustrate
whether such an increase would accomplish the goal of decreasing
truancy.
4:25:12 PM
CHAIR SEATON questioned how the district expected to enforce
compulsory education, especially for 17 year olds who did not
want to be there.
4:26:17 PM
MS. COMEAU offered her belief that it was the responsibility of
the school district to find out why and correct the situation.
She stated that it was most important to know the students and
their interests. She said that the broad, comprehensive,
instructional programs, including the art and music programs,
have really contributed toward keeping students in school. She
opined that, currently, children are not seeing any value in
attending school. She conceded it is a huge issue, and stressed
the need to help young people view the school system
differently.
4:30:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH expressed concern regarding the
sustainability of many programs, including the in-school out
reach. He reflected that at one time every high school in
Anchorage had a vocational education program, and he suggested a
return to this.
MS. COMEAU explained that the Anchorage School District, as well
as other districts, had added career tech, replacing the
vocational education programs, in all the comprehensive high
schools. She listed the courses to include drafting, basic
construction trades, accounting, and family consumer sciences.
She noted that there was also a movement for these classes to be
offered in more of the middle schools.
MS. COMEAU offered that should the results continue, she will
suggest that these programs continue, even if it became
necessary to cut in some other areas. She opined that the
optimal size class of 15 students would never be attained;
instead, it was necessary for teachers to better engage the
students.
4:37:42 PM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX announced the formation of a new position,
the Director of Rural Education, a recognition of the need to
connect more effectively with the indigenous Alaskan
communities. He detailed that this would make parents feel
connected to the education system in the community, increase
partnerships, and improve communication of knowledge. He
decried the lack of success in many rural communities and opined
that this position would facilitate necessary conversations.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked why the position would be stationed
in Juneau rather than Anchorage.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX clarified that a part of the position
required the development of partnerships, that the position was
a key part of the school improvement system, and that the
leadership team was located in Juneau. He pointed out that he
also traveled extensively.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON opined that the position should be
centrally located, in Anchorage, not in Juneau.
CHAIR SEATON asked how the new director would work on the
comprehensive improvement efforts in academically low performing
districts.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX explained that the comprehensive improvement
efforts targeted the effectiveness of teachers, leadership,
coaches, and school boards. He pointed to the lack of
communication with the cultural communities, and noted that many
rural communities have a "poor feeling about education, because
it does not always serve them." He opined that an increase in
the ownership for the value of education in a rural community
will lead to more success. He detailed that the new position
will build coalitions and partnerships, consolidate research,
and make meaningful contacts. He allowed that there may be
painful discussions in the future. He expressed the goal of
helping students succeed with rural community support.
CHAIR SEATON asked if it is open for each community to possibly
accept a different model.
4:47:26 PM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX said that he does not believe that any
community will want its children to only be educated to pursue a
subsistence lifestyle. He offered his belief that the pathway
to educational success could be different in each village and
culture. He suggested this will open the conversations with
each community and honor each culture.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX, in response to a question, said that the
Native corporations have education committees, which are
discussing what is necessary for success in rural Alaska. He
noted a lack of formal connections with the Native community.
He cited a need for "heart" knowledge, and not just "head"
knowledge of cultures. In response to another question, he said
that the recruitment process is underway, and that the person
will be identifying the partnerships and coordinating the
resources necessary to meet the established goals. He clarified
that the governor will make the appointment, and the state
school board will endorse the selection. In response to
Representative Munoz, he said the position will work with both
rural and urban schools.
4:53:41 PM
CHAIR SEATON referred to "Funding Student Learning" [Included in
the committee packets] and asked if there are elements of the
current allocation that do not reward the year to year increase
of student growth.
4:56:25 PM
MR. JEANS noted that James Guthrie, one of the contributors to
the study, was complimentary of the financing system in Alaska.
He explained that a large percentage of the assets were
allocated to the districts with high numbers of at-risk
students. He pointed out that Alaska supports a learning
oriented finance system.
CHAIR SEATON, referring to pages 8-9 of the study, noted that it
aligns resources, ideas, and energy with results of student
growth. He requested an analysis of the success factors, by
school size, of the school incentive program. He emphasized
that recognizing the common denominators to higher than
anticipated growth, for all the students, is essential. He
declared the importance of incentives to these contributors.
Chair Seaton distributed the book, LIBERATING LEARNING, to all
the members of the committee, and noted that it has been highly
recommended.
5:03:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ requested a report on where Alaska stands
in regards to national testing and the decision to opt out of
national standards.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX reported that EED is continuing to monitor
the effort, and no decision has been made.
5:05:01 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 090522 LowerKuskokwimSD.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Early Childhood |
| 090522 AnchorageSD.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Early Childhood |
| Alaska Pilot Pre-k 1 pager.doc |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Early Childhood |
| Career Readiness Certificates CRC & Worldwide Interactive Network WIN.mht |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
WorkKeys Assessment |
| Briefing paper for high schoolers taking postsecondary courses HB206.doc |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 Post Secondary courses for High School Students - HB 206 |
| CS HB 206 (EDC) April 22 workdraft.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Compulsory School Age.doc |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Increase Compulsory Attendance Age to 18 |
| Alaska Pilot Prekindergarten Project.docx |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Early Childhood |
| 090526 Yukon-KoyukukSD.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Early Childhood |
| 090526 JuneauSD.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Early Childhood |
| 090526 BeringStraitSD.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Early Childhood |
| 090522 NomePublicSchools.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Early Childhood |
| DEED Pre-K pilot program Q&A.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Early Childhood |
| DEED Pre-K pilot RFP.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Early Childhood |
| Funding Student Learning - How to Align Education Resources with Student Learning Goals.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Further Information |
| Graduation Working Group Goals and Actions Supt Meeting.doc |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Graduation Rate Working Group |
| HB 206 Sponsor statement.doc |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 Post Secondary courses for High School Students - HB 206 |
| HB 206 Student Count Briefing.doc |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
Dual student count/count averaging - HB 206 HB 206 |
| HB 33 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
HB 33 Increase Compulsory Attendance Age to 18 |
| HB0033A.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
HB 33 Increase Compulsory Attendance Age to 18 |
| HB033-DPS-DET-03-31-09.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
HB 33 Increase Compulsory Attendance Age to 18 |
| Informational paper regarding single site school districts.doc |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Single Site School Districts |
| HSGQE and WorkKeys Comparison - Final.doc |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
High School Qualifying Exam |
| Link to more information on meeting topics discussed August 25th, 2009.docx |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Further Information |
| HSGQE Relevancy.doc |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
High School Qualifying Exam |
| Model Borough Boundaries Study.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Single Site School District Single Site School Districts |
| National Center for Higher Education Management Systems - 10 Myths.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Further Information |
| Rural ed director (3).doc |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Rural Education Director Position |
| School Consolidatio Study - Part I.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Single Site School District |
| School Consolidation Study - cover letter.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Single Site School District |
| School Consolidation Study - Cover.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Single Site School District |
| School Consolidation Study - Part II A.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Single Site School District |
| School Consolidation Study - Part II B.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Single Site School District |
| School Consolidation Study - Part II C.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Single Site School District |
| School Consolidation Study - Part II D.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Single Site School District |
| School Consolidation Study - Part III.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Single Site School District |
| School District and Law Enforcement comments on Truancy Enforcement.docx |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Public Comment |
| School District Comment on Exam Relevancy.docx |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Public Comment |
| School District Comment on student count averaging.docx |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
Public Comment |
| WorkKeys program information.pdf |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
WorkKeys Assessment |
| WorkKeys.doc |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
WorkKeys Assessment |