Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/29/2012 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Valdez School District | |
| Confirmation Hearings: Professional Teaching Practices Commission | |
| HB330 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 330 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 272 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 29, 2012
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Dick, Chair
Representative Lance Pruitt, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sharon Cissna
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: VALDEZ SCHOOL DISTRICT
- HEARD
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Professional Teaching Practices Commission
Louis Pondolfino - Anchorage
Jill Exe - Kaktovik
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 330
"An Act establishing a Joint Legislative Task Force on Education
Standards; requiring the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development to provide information and resources to the task
force; establishing state education standards; amending the
authority of the Department of Education and Early Development
to adopt education standards; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 272
"An Act providing for a reduction in interest on postsecondary
education loans for residents."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 330
SHORT TITLE: STATE EDUCATION STANDARDS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DICK
02/17/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/12 (H) EDC, FIN
02/24/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/24/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/24/12 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
02/29/12 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JACOB JENSEN, Superintendent
Valdez School District
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a presentation of the Valdez
School District.
LOUIS PONDOLFINO, Appointee
Professional Teaching Practices Commission
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as re-appointee to the
Professional Teaching Practices Commission.
JILL EXE, Appointee
Professional Teaching Practices Commission
Kaktovik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as re-appointee to the
Professional Teaching Practices Commission.
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 330.
CHAIR ALAN DICK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 330, as Prime Sponsor.
JACK WALSH, Superintendent
Bristol Bay School District
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 330.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:02:03 AM
CHAIR ALAN DICK called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Present at the call to order were
Representatives Dick, P. Wilson, Seaton, and Feige.
Representatives Kawasaki and Pruitt arrived while the meeting
was in progress.
^Presentation: Valdez School District
Presentation: Valdez School District
CHAIR DICK announced that the first order of business would be a
presentation from the Valdez School District.
8:03:07 AM
JACOB JENSEN, Superintendent, Valdez School District, said this
is the first year that Valdez was forced to cancel school due to
snow, but a record snow level of 322 inches was reached by
January 13, 2012, and necessitated this unprecedented measure.
The four snow days will not require an extended school year, as
one day was declared a State emergency, and the other three will
be made-up on Saturdays, as teacher in-service days. He moved
on to the demographics of the area, to point out that the
population is primarily Caucasian, 17 percent are identified as
special needs, and 28 percent of the students count as
economically disadvantaged and receive a free or reduced lunch.
8:06:15 AM
MR. JENSEN directed attention to the committee handout, titled
"Valdez City School District, Where the Mountains meet the Sea,"
dated 2/28/12, page 2, to review the graph titled "Sophomore
class SBA [standard based assessment] results since 3rd grade,"
and explained that students are tracked as a cohort from grades
3-10, providing data for analyses. The junior class results are
graphed similarly, with data beginning in the 4th grade. He
then proceeded through a series of graphs to indicate the
district report card on reading, writing, and mathematic
assessments. He pointed out the precipitous drop in math
scores, for 2011, and explained that it was due to the
retirement of a senior mathematics teacher. A new curriculum
math course has been implemented to assist in raising the
scores, which proves to be the most challenging subject. He
reviewed a number of "District Report Card" graphs to illustrate
the progress being made in the core subjects, and identify
subject/grade areas that are a focus for improvement. The test
scores tend to drop with age, and he conjectured that the older
students may not apply themselves as well. The attendance rate
is 93 percent, and graduation fluctuates from 88-96 percent;
however, every student with a disability IEP [individual
education program] graduated in 2011. Several students have
continued as fifth and sixth year seniors to complete their
certificate.
8:10:02 AM
MR. JENSEN reviewed the fiscal year (FY) 10 - FY 13 city and
state financial contributions to the district, and pointed out
that the city funding has been a significant factor for
maintaining the school budget. The FY 13 budget is projected to
be approximately $575,000 less, and cuts are being considered.
He pointed out that the utility costs increase about $200,000
each year, and represents a major portion of the deficit.
8:11:29 AM
MR. JENSEN reported that the teaching staff is very stable.
Over half have of the 44 certificated employees have been in
place for 16 years and the majority have a master's degree in
education. He said the teachers are continually seeking
possible means for enhancing the education of the students.
Consideration is currently being given to a four day school
week, an idea that first emerged about 15 years ago. Changing
to a four day week would not be done for monetary purposes, as
there would be little advantage, but travel is a large part of a
student's life in Valdez. He said that on any given Friday 30
percent of the student body may be away from class for sport
related activities, medical, or other personal reasons. A
committee has been formed to research this innovation and bring
a recommendation to the board.
8:13:12 AM
MR. JENSEN said high school enrollment has been steady, about
225, for at least four years. Interest has grown in the area of
career and technical education (CTE), and in 2010 a culinary
arts program was added. Also, Valdez High School is continuing
a dual credit partnership with Prince William Sound Community
College; a program begun in 1995. He highlighted points
regarding Gilson Junior High, beginning with the school motto,
which is "Success is the only Option." The current enrollment
is 99, slightly down from the last four years. He pointed out
that the Gilson building is the oldest school facility in
Valdez. It was built in 1964, and a current bonding measure is
being entered into with the city to replace the Good Friday
earthquake vintage structure. A unique classroom option exists
at Gilson which allows students to attend their core curriculum
courses in either a same sex, or traditional coeducational
setting. He reported that the same sex classes are very popular
and students appreciate the minimization of the social
distractions common in a coed room. Another popular feature is
the After the Bell Program, which provides middle school
students with afterschool tutoring. Reporting on Hermon
Hutchens Elementary School, he said the current enrollment has
remained steady at about 350, and provides programs from pre-K
through grade six. The pre-K program has a majority of special
needs students, as it was initially established as an early
intervention program to serve developmentally delayed children
ages three through five, with some typical peers in attendance;
now an area requiring expansion. The grade school has extra
enrichment classes, with full time staffing for programs in the
areas of technology, physical education, positive action
counseling, library, and music, as well as a full time Extended
Learning Opportunities Teacher (gifted/talented).
8:16:41 AM
MR. JENSEN reported that the district hired a curriculum and
instruction director last year and work has ensued to review the
top three schools in the nation, and Blue Ribbon Schools of
Excellence, in order to identify any applicable models for
adoption. The district is scheduled to begin another six year
curriculum cycle, which ensures that the schools are utilizing
current research and that best practices are employed. Staff
retention is high, and Valdez does not lack good applicants when
openings are announced, thus ensuring top notch teachers. He
finished with an instruction timeline to indicate the number of
hours/days above the state requirement that the students of
Valdez attend class; between 2 and 7 hours and 13 and 62 days,
depending on the grade level.
8:18:05 AM
CHAIR DICK noted that a four day school week is being considered
and what sort of reception the idea is receiving from the
community.
MR. JENSEN provided that the response has not indicated much
middle ground. Parents are either very excited for the
opportunity, or oppose the idea altogether, with the percentages
indicating 80 positive and 20 negative, thus far. Community
meetings will be held to address the concerns that are being
gathered, prior to a formal recommendation being made to the
school board.
8:19:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to the junior high school and
noted that each student has a personal education plan in which
they establish goals and develop means for attainment. She said
this appears to be a program unique to Gilson, and asked how it
is accomplished, as well as whether it is worth recommending to
other districts.
MR. JENSEN said, "It's a wonderful program." Each student
entering grade seven meets with their teachers and principal to
discuss interests and goals. Test scores are reviewed, and the
teachers work continuously with individual students to deliver
the support needed to attain the goals that they have
established. He said it requires additional effort, and not
having a counselor in position has made it more challenging;
however, he highly recommends it to any school that can manage
the staff. To a follow-up question he said that the teachers
are primarily managing to continue the program and the
principals are involved. The smaller size of the school is
helpful, he said, and agreed to keep the committee apprised of
the situation and provide a performance comparison of the recent
two years of the program; one year with a counselor and one
without.
[Chair Dick passed the gavel to Representative Seaton.]
8:22:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that Gilson has a mentoring,
advisory, reading, study skills (MARS) program, and asked
whether it is coordinated, or overlaps, with the personal
education planning time; does each student meet one on one with
an advisor/teacher throughout their career at the school.
MR. JENSEN responded that MARS is a pseudo homeroom structure,
where students have an opportunity to sit in smaller groups and
discuss study skill issues, career plans, and directional needs
on an intimate level with the teacher. To follow-up questions,
he said that the student groups do not remain static from grade
seven to grade eight, and have a change of teachers as well.
Regarding the integration of WorkKeys, he said the testing has
been advantageous and that students are aware that a notation
will be made on their graduation certificate in conjunction with
the program.
^Confirmation Hearings: Professional Teaching Practices
Commission
Confirmation Hearings: Professional Teaching Practices
Commission
8:25:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON announced that the next order of business
would be confirmation hearings for the Professional Teaching
Practices Commission.
8:26:18 AM
LOUIS PONDOLFINO, Appointee, provided a brief biography of his
experience as a teacher, principal, and a blue collar worker.
He expressed interest in continuing to serve on the commission
for a second term, stating that the work is important and
interesting, as well as part of what he considers to be his
professional responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for a description of the
commission's duties.
MR. PONDOLFINO responded that the primary task is to hear, and
determine the merit of, ethic complaints lodged against
certificated professionals, as well as impose the appropriate
level of sanctions, if warranted. The cases are presented three
times annually; hearings are held and decisions are made.
8:28:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for an estimate of the number of
cases per year.
MR. PONDOLFINO responded that few cases require a full hearing,
as sanctions are not generally contested. Sanctions are
recommended, or brokered, by the executive director with the
named professional and an agreement is usually reached and the
decisions are only reviewed by the commission. Perhaps three
cases per year are heard in their entirety for a ruling by the
commission. He said, on an annual basis, anywhere from one to
three dozen cases may be lodged. Ethics violations run the
gamut from a breach of contract, which is the primary issue, to
inappropriate behavior by a teacher.
8:31:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the commission considers
issues of underperformance by a teacher.
MR. PONDOLFINO answered that the commission hears ethical
lapses, but teacher performance is a contract issue and handled
by the appropriate district.
8:32:59 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:32 a.m. to 8:43 a.m.
[Representative Seaton passed the gavel back to Chair Dick.]
8:43:28 AM
JILL EXE, Appointee, Professional Teaching Practices Commission,
provided a brief history of her 19 year teaching experience in
Alaska and said she has always been an advocate for due process,
which is the focus of the commission.
8:44:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired about her current teaching
position.
MS. EXE said she is team teaching in a middle school.
8:45:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE noted that she left a teaching position in
Houston, Texas, and asked about her interest in relocating to
Barrow.
MS. EXE said that she left her home state of Montana and
traveled during her final year at university, which expanded her
view of the world. She said her interest in teaching in a large
city was satisfied by her experience in the metropolitan area of
Houston. When family circumstances called her home to Montana,
she began cultivating an interest to teach in a totally
different setting. She said she has since moved from Barrow to
the smaller village of Kaktovik, and noted: "My students and I
watch Polar bear out of our classroom window, and we're happy as
pigs in mud."
8:47:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to advance the confirmations for
appointees referred to the House Education Standing Committee
for consideration to the joint session of the House and Senate
for consideration. He noted that each member's signature on the
committee's report in no way reflects the member's vote during
the joint floor session. There being no objection, the
confirmations were advanced.
HB 330-STATE EDUCATION STANDARDS
8:48:09 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 330, "An Act establishing a Joint Legislative
Task Force on Education Standards; requiring the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development to provide information and
resources to the task force; establishing state education
standards; amending the authority of the Department of Education
and Early Development to adopt education standards; and
providing for an effective date."
8:48:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested that the committee have an
opportunity to hear from a representative of the Department of
Labor & Workforce Development (DOLWD), for an official opinion
on HB 330.
8:49:20 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), pointed out that previous testifiers,
Superintendents Stewart McDonald and Peggy Cowan [heard
2/24/12], from Kodiak and the North Slope districts
respectively, have each had five staff members contribute to the
two year process of developing the proposed standards. Another
point of clarity, he said is that following the deliberate,
exhaustive development process, once the standards are adopted,
a window of four years is necessary prior to student assessment,
which will occur in 2016. Moral and legal standards require an
appropriate period of time to elapse in order for students to
assimilate the new curriculum prior to being administered a
standards based assessment (SBA). From the previous hearing, he
noted that there was some confusion regarding the difference
between curriculum and standards, and that discussion also
ensued regarding CTE (career and technical education), as well
as interest in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and
mathematics) program. He said models for CTE exist in several
districts, and STEM, as well as other engineering programs, are
offered in many high schools. Additionally, the ANSEP (Alaska
Native Science Education Program) has been experiencing
remarkable success, and educating beyond the established
standards.
8:52:34 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said that the vetting process, currently in
use, was established in statute by the legislature, and placed
in regulation by the department. The process requires
submission to the State Board of Education and allows for a
three month public comment period, which in the case of the
proposed standards has been extended to six months. During the
six month period, the department has requested that the members
of the state system of support, which includes rural content
coaches, to share the standards contents in the communities they
serve, and provide feedback. The department has scheduled
public meetings in five of the largest communities, to address
the specific focus on business and working careers. He stressed
that the current standards development process is open to all
stakeholders. Specific to HB 330, he observed that the
department would like to see university and educators listed as
members for the task force. Additionally, representatives
appear to be missing in fields which include: biologists,
engineers, architects, and other higher level positions.
CHAIR DICK recalled having indicated, at a previous hearing, the
need for an amendment to insert the mentioned stakeholders.
8:56:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked:
If we want to accomplish what Representative Dick
wants to accomplish, ... we don't have to change the
standards, we need to change the curriculum.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY indicated that in committee conversations a
melding of the two terms has occurred, and confusion appears to
exist regarding CTE, curriculum, and standards. High standards
can be maintained through a CTE model, he explained, and said
that the standards are the target, and curriculum represents the
means for attaining the target. To a follow-up question, he
clarified that CTE was formerly referred to as vocational
education, and includes a number of academies in the state.
Further, he offered that the standards represent the target for
the skills that a student is to master prior to graduation, and
curriculum is the vehicle used to attain those skills. The
curriculum may take many forms, including the vocational
education model, or the STEM program.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether these considerations
speak for or against HB 330.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the department's concern is
that the current, open, exhaustive process may be supplanted by
a different method determined by the limited list of members
seated on the task force proposed in HB 330.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked about the number of responses
received since the opening of the public comment period.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY estimated less than 100 responses have been
received through the on-line system available on department's
web site. He pointed out that two webinars have been held, and
declined to estimate the number of participants.
9:01:02 AM
CHAIR DICK requested that the department identify the responses
as educators versus non-educators.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked about the timeline for
assessments of the standards.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said it is a four year process, to enable
students to be taught the re-written curriculum as aligned with
the new standards prior to the administration of an SBA based on
the retailored information.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON assumed that the exit exam would also
require updating to the new standards, along with the SBA, at a
substantial cost to the state.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY concurred that the exit exam will need to be
aligned as well with the new goal.
9:02:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE opined that the bill represents a challenge
to the existing philosophy of the entire standards system.
Comparing education to a manufacturing system, he suggested that
if the schools were creating a product for customers, then the
standards represent the specifications for the product.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said yes, if students are to be considered a
product.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE continued to say that the manufacturing
process leads to an end product and in the industrial world the
specifications would be established by the customer; widgets are
designed for the consumer. The current means by which the
educational standards are set is akin to the manufacturing
company setting the specifications for the product rather than
the consumer. Using this analogy, he said he would support the
bill based on this logical concept.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY stated that if the design process is for a
product being manufactured for a specific purpose the logic
would hold, but opening doors for the variety of students that
are moving through the educational system is the department's
responsibility; providing as many opportunities as possible to
students. If the customers/employers provided specifications,
he said it would be important not to settle on the least common
denominator, but to seek a foundational level that would keep
all doors open and available for student's choice. He opined
that there is a danger in making a high level decision based on
assumptions for what career interests a student might choose,
which could result in closing doors to other possibilities.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE queried whether a solution might be to
write specifications for creating a flexible product, as
achieved through broad standards, such as: needs to be able to
read and understand, and needs to be able to compute math. He
said, "You'd want to teach these widgets to think on their own."
COMMISSIONER HANLEY indicated that potentially that may be
plausible, but examining specific situations would be necessary
to see if the approach could be used successfully. He said the
current standards are considered to be broad. Further, he
pointed out that the foundational skills that are taught, which
will allow a student to compete in the world today, require
close scrutiny.
9:08:17 AM
CHAIR DICK indicated a four page handout, available in the
packet, listing the contributors who have participated in the
writing and vetting of the [proposed] standards. He pointed out
that, save for one entry, the participants named are all
educational institutions or educators, and he requested the
department to supply a supplemental list that would indicate
other contributors. Educators are the best source for delivery
of information, but the knowledge of what information needs to
be imparted requires sourcing from outside of the educational
field. An educator, like a flight attendant, may know how to
deliver a service, but would not know how to build the airplane,
he opined. Individuals from the working sector may have
specific information to contribute to help in creating a clear
and inspirational pathway for students. He said he has
participated in writing standards, and it is a painstaking,
perfecting process; however, he maintained that students should
be able to understand how a lesson in the classroom relates to,
and will be applied in, the workforce. The disconnect that
occurs, may be the cause of one third of the state's high school
students dropping out. He then made a series of inquiries
regarding NCLB: To what extent is the state under pressure to
adopt the proposed standards in order to get a waiver to NCLB;
is EED seeking a waiver; and if the state doesn't comply with
NCLB what will be the cost.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the development of the
standards has not been pressured by NCLB. He explained that the
federal government has increased the bar for NCLB compliance
every year, which will culminate in 2014, when districts are
expected to be in 100 percent compliance. The U.S. Department
of Education has offered waivers to NCLB compliance; however,
there is a separate set of accountability criteria involved in
the waiver process. The passage of HB 330 would preclude the
department being eligible for the waiver, as one of the criteria
is to have adequate standards in place, and the current
standards do not meet the college and career ready requirements.
The government has set up rolling deadlines to submit waiver
applications; one just passed, and the next one will be in
September, 2012.
9:14:53 AM
CHAIR DICK pointed out that the waiver requires a teacher's
evaluation to be linked to student performance, and he voiced
objection to that approach.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed that it is not an appropriate
measure, especially in Alaska where teacher retention is a major
concern. Trading one NCLB model for another is not the answer
he said, which is why the department has moved deliberately and
thoughtfully, rather than rushing, to secure a waiver.
9:16:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that the committee dwell on
the fact that Washington [D.C.] does not consider Alaska's
standards to be good enough, and conjectured that a federal
take-over could occur. She asked how the proposed standards
differ from the current standards; were benchmarks just raised
or are there specific changes.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that 64 percent of high school
graduates require remediation classes to enter college, and
employers report that graduates entering the workforce don't
have adequate basic skills to meet job requirements. The
department had these facts as a foundation of understanding,
when the revision of the standards was undertaken. The NAEP
(National Assessment Educational Progress) scores of the state's
grade four students placed Alaska in the bottom 10 percent of
the nation, with some improvement indicated in the grade eight
exams; however it indicates that students are not measuring up
with what is taking place outside of Alaska. The Common Core
Standards were referenced in developing the proposed standards
in order to align to some degree with the nation. Alaska chose
not to adopt the Common Core Standards as a whole, but
modifications have been made to incorporate important aspects
and the required rigor, he said.
9:20:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stressed the need to have the standards
raised to a level that will alleviate the remediation issue.
Further, she said it is important to understand that setting the
standards, does not preclude writing curriculum that is relevant
and meets the needs of Alaskan students. She said it is
important for lessons to relate directly to students and provide
an aspect of hope, which is critical to a child.
9:22:51 AM
[Chair Dick passed the gavel to Representative Pruitt.]
9:22:58 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:22 a.m. to 9:23 a.m.
9:23:23 AM
CHAIR ALAN DICK, Alaska State Legislature directed attention to
the committee packet, and the document titled "The 2012 Brown
Center Report on American Education: How Well Are American
Students Learning?", distributed by the Brown Center on
Education Policy at Brookings, and said the report offers an
analysis of the widely adopted Common Core State Standards,
endorsed by the U.S. Department of Education, and whether the
rigor of the standards actually has an effect on student
performance. Referring in turn to numbered, highlighted,
sections on pages 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 14, he
paraphrased excerpts from the report, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 3: Despite all the money and effort devoted to
developing the Common Core State Standards - not to
mention the simmering controversy over their adoption
in several states - the study foresees little to no
impact on student learning.
Page 4: Data on the effects of those standards are
analyzed to produce three findings. 1) The quality of
state standards, as indicated by the well-known
ratings from the Fordham Foundation, is not related to
state achievement. 2) The rigor of state standards,
as measured by how high states place the cut point for
students to be deemed proficient, is also unrelated to
achievement. 3) The ability of standards to reduce
variation in achievement, in other words to reduce
differences in achievement, is also weak.
Page 7: The push for common education standards
argues that all American students should study a
common curriculum, take comparable tests to measure
their learning, and have the results interpreted on a
common scale. The common curriculum, comparable
tests, and standardized performance levels - is
necessary. No one or two of them can stand alone for
the project to succeed.
Page 8: Three Theorized Effects. Let's call this the
"quality theory." The second idea is that the Common
Core sets higher expectations than current state
standards, the assumption being that cut points on the
new assessments will be set at a higher level than
states currently set on their own tests. The third
hypothesis is that standardization yields its own
efficiencies.
Andrew Porter compared the Common Core to existing
state standards and international standards from other
countries and concluded that the Common Core does not
represent much improvement.
Page 9: [In October 2009, a colleague at Brookings,
Grover "Russ" Whitehurst, investigated] whether
quality ratings for state standards, as judged by the
two most cited ratings (from the American Federation
of Teachers and Fordham Foundation), are correlated
with state NAEP [National Assessment Educational
Progress] scores. Whitehurst found they are not.
States with weak content standards score about the
same on NAEP as those with strong standards.
Page 10: According to Fordham, some states improved
their standards in 2006 while others adopted weaker
standards in 2006 than they had back in 2000. Are
changes in the quality of standards related to changes
in achievement? Again, the answer is that they are
not (correlation coefficient of 0.08). States with
higher more rigorous cut points did not have stronger
NAEP scores than states with less rigorous cut points.
Page 11: Did states that raised the bar also perform
better? And did states that lowered the bar perform
worse? Correlation coefficients for 8th grade are
near zero.
The third theory concerns standardization. For the
Common Core movement, attaining greater
standardization of educational outcomes is an
important goal. The two previous analyses indicate
that it is unlikely that common standards will boost
performance; however, it is possible for the national
average on NAEP to remain stable while variation is
reduced.
In terms of state NAEP scores, variation comes in two
forms: variation between states and variation within
states. Within-state variation, on the other hand,
remains unaffected by common standards. And despite
that, every state has tremendous within-state
variation in achievement. Schools that score at the
top of the world on international assessments are
within a short car trip, sometimes within a short
subway ride, from schools that score at the level of
the world's lowest achieving nations.
Page 12: The findings are clear. Most variation on
NAEP occurs within states not between them. The
variation within states is four to five times larger
than the variation between states.
What effect will the Common Core have on national
achievement? The analysis presented here suggests
very little impact.
Page 13: Two lessons can be drawn from the analysis
above. First, do not expect much from the Common
Core. Standards in education are best understood as
aspirational, and like a strict diet or prudent plan
to save money for the future, they represent good
intentions that are not often realized.
Distinctions were drawn among the intended,
implemented, and achieved curriculums. The intended
curriculum is embodied by standards; it is what
governments want students to learn.
What is crucial is the distance between the intended
curriculum and the two curriculums below. The
implemented curriculum is what teachers teach.
The attained curriculum is what students learn.
The Common Core will [sit on top of the implemented
and attained curriculums, and notwithstanding future
efforts to beef up the standards' power to penetrate
to the core of schooling,] they probably fail to
dramatically affect what goes on in the thousands of
districts and tens of thousands of schools that they
seek to influence.
Page 14: Just as the glow of consensus surrounding
NCLB [No Child Left Behind Act] faded after a few
years, cracks are now appearing in the wall of support
for the Common Core.
Don't let the ferocity of the oncoming debate fool
you. The empirical evidence suggests that the Common
Core will have little effect in American students'
achievement. The nation will have to look elsewhere
for ways to improve its schools.
9:32:00 AM
CHAIR DICK recalled that questions have arisen regarding the
differences between content and performance standards, as well
as grade level expectations (GLEs). He referred to the
committee packet handout titled "Alaska Content Standards -
MATHEMATICS," not dated, numbered as page 9, and paraphrased the
segment labeled "A," to establish the overarching concept of the
section, which read [original punctuation provided]:
A student should understand mathematical facts,
concepts, principles, and theories.
CHAIR DICK continued in the same section, with the enumerated
performance standards, which indicate achievements that are to
be attained by a student who meets the content standards. He
directed attention to the sixth point, and paraphrased the
language which read [original punctuation provided]:
6) collect, organize analyze, interpret, represent,
and formulate questions about data and make reasonable
and useful predications about the certainty,
uncertainty, or impossibility of an event.
CHAIR DICK turned to the page numbered as 97, to draw attention
to the section titled "MATH GRADES 7-10, Content Standard A,"
with a subset titled "Statistics and Probability," and pointed
out the sets of requirements specific to grades 7-8, and 9-10.
He then directed attention to the final page, numbered as 98,
and the section titled "Analysis and Central Tendency" and
"Probability," for grade 10, to paraphrase the requirement,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
The student demonstrates an ability to analyze data
(comparing, explaining, interpreting, evaluating,
making predictions, describing trends; drawing,
formulating, or justifying conclusions) by ...
CHAIR DICK said the GLEs are specific for each grade,
representing an area that requires intense development. Moving
to the "Probability," section for grade 10, he paraphrased the
requirement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
The student demonstrates a conceptual understanding of
probability and counting techniques by
[10] S&P 5 explaining in words or identifying the
difference between experimental and theoretical
probability of independent or dependent events
(M6.4.5)
[10] S&P-6 analyzing data to make predictions about
the probability of independent or dependent events as
a basis for solving real-work problems (M6.4.5)
9:34:58 AM
CHAIR DICK said this illustrates the overarching concept,
relating to the performance standards, as well as the GLEs,
which establish at what grade level the student will perform
increments of the standards. In response to a committee
question, he explained that the bracketed and parenthetic codes
are a cross reference to the content and performance standards.
Basically, he said, it is important to understand the hierarchy
that beginning with the overarching concept, followed by the
performance standards for the concept, and finally the
established GLEs for each grade level.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON established that the teacher reviews
the standards and translates the GLEs into lessons for
application in the classroom.
CHAIR DICK said yes, and emphasized that it can be difficult to
formulate meaningful, interesting lesson plans. He reported
that in Barrow the administrators developed a model by defining
a whole Inupiat person, and then reverse engineered the result
to arrive at an applicable curriculum. He opined that from his
experience of observing the process he could only describe it as
difficult as an English speaker attempting to translate a
document written in the German language into Chinese; basically
painful.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that the concepts and standards
appear to be vague and asked whether the curriculum is as well.
CHAIR DICK said that the curriculum is adopted by each district,
and the department is adamant that the curriculum will be
aligned to the standards. He suggested that the best teacher in
Alaska, located in a rural setting, could vary in the
translation of the previously noted GLE, creating a disparity in
the expected outcome of the SBA scores. The curriculum needs to
be aligned with the standards; however, steps should also be
taken to ensure that the SBA is aligned with the formative and
summative evaluations the teachers employ; formative being a
quiz or test to determine progress of understanding, and the
summative being a unit test or mid-term exam. It would be
helpful if the state were to compare some of the existing
formative and summative assessments with the SBA to ensure
alignment. He opined that asking someone to describe or draw a
dog would elicit a variety of responses, and questioned whether
the national developers of the SBA would accept these variances
as correct, or would the scores be skewed based on the expected
norm.
9:39:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned whether the concept of allowing
teachers to apply a variety of curriculum would dispel the
ability to conduct meaningful SBAs. If the assessment is
measuring the principles being taught, is that constrained by
allowing variability in the methods used by teachers to deliver
the required principles in relevant lesson plans. He stated his
understanding of the difference in the two concepts being
espoused: 1) State assessment of what is taught, while allowing
flexibility in the curriculum used to deliver the required
principles established in the standards and GLEs; versus 2) the
necessity for curriculum to be uniform, in order to be
measurable on a statewide assessment.
9:41:13 AM
CHAIR DICK conjectured that 7,000 teachers in the state struggle
with that question every day; however, he said a standardized,
scripted curriculum is not what he is advocating. He added that
it might also be helpful if parents were able to read and
comprehend the standards.
9:42:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT established that the Alaskan standards
were last revised in 2006, and he asked whether ADD (attention
deficit disorder) was prevalent or other distractions existed,
such as cell phones in the classroom. He suggested that
continually changing the standards creates a challenge for
teachers and students, and may cause complications.
9:43:55 AM
CHAIR DICK recalled the request, made by Superintendent
McDonald, for a stationary target.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT commented on the importance of allowing
adequate time for measurable changes to emerge, once standards
are adopted.
9:44:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned why the standards were
changed in 2006, and whether it was connected with a requirement
for NCLB compliance.
CHAIR DICK deferred.
9:45:08 AM
CHAIR DICK referred to the committee handout titled "Alaska High
School Mathematics Standards," hand labeled P.1, to paraphrase
from the opening, instructional paragraph, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
The high school standards specify the mathematics that
all students should study in order to be career ready.
Additional mathematics that students should learn in
order to take advanced courses such as calculus,
advanced statistics, or discrete mathematics is
indicated by the symbol +.
CHAIR DICK noted that every student is required to learn the
mathematical principles set forth in the handout, for SBA
scoring purposes, as well as to pass the HSGQE. Beginning under
the heading "Similarity, Right Triangles, and Trigonometry,"
with the subheading "Understand similarity in terms of
similarity transformations," he paraphrased the principle to be
addressed, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
1. Verify experimentally the properties of dilations
given by a center and scale factor: a. A dilation
takes a line not passing through the center of the
dilation to a parallel line, and leaves a line passing
through the center unchanged.
CHAIR DICK directed attention further down the same page to the
subheading "Write expressions in equivalent forms to solve
problems," and paraphrased the directive, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
3. b. Complete the square in a quadratic expression to
reveal the maximum or minimum value of the function it
defines. For example, ...
9:46:49 AM
CHAIR DICK said that he worked out the example provided, in
order to gain a clear understanding of what was being required,
and suggested that what is represented is actually curriculum,
not standards, and said this point was also brought to his
attention by a number of teachers. The difference in standards
and curriculum is the degree of specificity. He referred to
examples in the handout on succeeding pages to paraphrase
additional math principles that every high school student in
Alaska is required to attain, calling attention to the page
labeled P.3, under the heading "Trigonometric Functions," and
the subheading "Extend the domain of trigonometric functions
using the unit circle," to paraphrase the instructions, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
2. Explain how the unit circle in the coordinate plane
enables the extension of trigonometric functions to
all real numbers, interpreted as radian measures of
angles traversed counterclockwise around the unit
circle.
CHAIR DICK emphasized that every student is required to pass an
assessment indicating the comprehension of this principle;
including special needs students. He turned to the page labeled
P.4, noting that the examples being highlighted do not include
the "+" sign; hence these requirements are not directed to
advanced placement or pre-calculus students. He directed
attention to the heading "Congruence," with a subheading "Prove
geometric theorems," to paraphrase the instructions, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
9. Using methods of proof including direct, indirect,
and counter examples to prove theorems about lines and
angles. Theorems include: vertical angles are
congruent; when a transversal crosses parallel lines,
alternate interior angles are congruent and
corresponding angles are congruent; points on a
perpendicular bisector of a line segment are exactly
those equidistant from the segment's endpoints.
CHAIR DICK drew attention to the page labeled P.5, and the
heading titled "Grade 8," to paraphrase the requirement, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Analyze and solve linear equations and pairs of
simultaneous linear equations.
CHAIR DICK recalled that in the 1960's this was a lesson taught
in the third year of high school as part of the Algebra II
curriculum.
9:49:23 AM
CHAIR DICK recalled that the Brookings Institute article pointed
out how higher standards do not act like a vacuum cleaner,
sucking students up to a higher point of knowledge. Student
performance is linked to a myriad of important aspects
independent of higher standards, he opined.
9:50:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON established that the hand numbered pages
were extracted from a draft of the proposed high school
mathematics standards, as well as the grade 8 GLEs.
9:51:00 AM
CHAIR DICK indicated a two page committee handout with a top
line reading ">$1.2B/Year Educational Budget built upon the
foundation of the Standards.", and directed attention to the
bottom line labeled "The Foundation," to state that the
department has estimated a cost of $270,000 to develop the
proposed standards, during 2010-2011; the highlights of today's
meeting. Additionally, EED anticipates $5-7 million will be
required to develop assessment tools, the SBAs and HSGQEs, to
determine achievement by the students. Further, an annual cost
of $7 million will be expended on the assessments, which over
the six year cycle for standards will accrue to approximately
$40 million. The cost for textbooks and curriculum, as well as
professional development for implementation of the proposed
standards is in question and not estimated on the handout.
Finally, addressing the top line, he said the education budget
is $1.2 billion per year, or $7.2 billion over a 6 year cycle,
representing a massive superstructure being upheld by the
original foundation; the $270,000 development of the standards.
He opined that the foundation is not stable or adequate to
support the budget. To illustrate where students may be going,
he turned to the second page of the handout, and said the bottom
line represents 100 percent of the grade nine students in
Alaska. Continuing up the page, he reminded the committee that
reports indicate the following: one third of high school
students will dropout and two thirds will graduate, 40 percent
of the high school graduates will continue on to attend a
postsecondary program; and 60 percent do not continue in an
educational setting. Arriving at the top of the page, he
explained that the short top line of the chart represents the 7
percent of the ninth grade students who are reported to graduate
high school, attend a postsecondary program, and graduate with a
four year degree, in a six year time frame. He said that the
standards are helpful to the seven percent who will aspire to a
four year degree, but, he opined, the remaining [93 percent] are
collateral damage to the system. The decision makers are highly
educated individuals who may not relate to success that is not
similarly equated, he suggested, stating that success is not
reliant on a college degree. He underscored the importance for
developing the best possible standards, particularly in light of
the massive budget that will be structured using the standards
as a foundation. Considering the ramifications, he suggested
proceeding with the utmost care and caution to achieve optimal
effectiveness. Finally, he revisited the intent behind HB 330,
which is to have the standards vetted through a process that
would include meaningful involvement with people from industry.
Lastly, he stressed that the criteria for every standard should
be that it contains a demonstrable, real life application, and
opined that the root cause, of the dropout rate and lack of
engagement, is that students cannot perceive a connection
between school lessons and "real life."
9:58:15 AM
JACK WALSH, Superintendent, Bristol Bay School District,
testified in opposition to HB 330, and suggested that
assumptions are being made which may not be accurate. He said
the Bristol Bay School represents a typical rural facility,
where the 150 students are doing fairly well, with a high
turnover among the 15 members of the teaching staff; thus facing
many of the same challenges as other Bush schools. He said his
concern is that HB 330 was developed on two primary assumptions:
1) EED is failing in their duties to the children of the state,
and school districts; and 2) schools are failing. The opening
lines of the bill that call for responsibilities being shifted
from EED to DOLWD may create a situation that is not in the best
interest of either department, as well as the Alaska Public, he
opined. It is important to have the standards developed by
those with the greatest ability to identify requirement needs
for graduates; expertise which likely resides within EED. The
department's process involves perhaps 50 or more people,
increasing the capacity of the review committee to arrive at
standards that will have positive effects on the greatest number
of students. He referred to the sponsor's statement that the
standards are set to serve the seven percent of the students who
will complete high school and continue on to complete a four
year college degree, to suggest that the statistic may be
erroneous. In Bristol Bay, he reported, the majority of high
school graduates are able to successfully pursue interests in
industry, family business, or higher education. The standards
are adequate to provide these students with an array of options.
Standards reviews are important, and the federal government
requirements must be considered, but, he pointed out, a great
many schools are performing above the standards in many areas
through the use of the system that is in place due to the
efforts of the educators involved, as well as EED. He asked the
committee to proceed with caution.
[Representative Pruitt passed the gavel back to Chair Dick.]
CHAIR DICK announced that public testimony would remain open.
[HB 330 was held over.]
10:04:28 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:04 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2nd SSHB 272D.pdf |
HEDC 2/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| SSHB 272 ACPE Barrans letter 013112.pdf |
HEDC 2/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| SSHB 272 Sectional Analysis 022312.pdf |
HEDC 2/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| SSHB 272 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 2/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| SSHB 272 Response to Director Barrans.pdf |
HEDC 2/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| Professional Teaching Practices - Exe #1.pdf |
HEDC 2/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
Confirmation Hearing: PTPC |
| Professional Teaching Practices - Pondolfino #1.pdf |
HEDC 2/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
Confirmation Hearing: PTPC |
| PTPC Board Roster Facts Web 022912.pdf |
HEDC 2/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
Confirmation Hearing: PTPC |
| Professional Teaching Practices Commission Members 022912.pdf |
HEDC 2/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
Confirmation Hearing: PTPC |
| 2nd SSHB 272 AM D.2 Ltr to Education Committee 02 28 12.pdf |
HEDC 2/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |
| 2nd SSHB 272 Amendment D.2 022812.pdf |
HEDC 2/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 272 |