Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
04/03/2013 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB151 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 3, 2013
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lynn Gattis, Chair
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harriet Drummond
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 151
"An Act establishing a public school and school district grading
system for purposes of improving accountability and
transparency; providing for Alaska strategic educators in public
schools; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 190
"An Act providing for course credit in secondary school based on
demonstrated mastery of the subject."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 151
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL GRADING SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) REINBOLD
03/01/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/01/13 (H) EDC, FIN
03/15/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/15/13 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/13 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/18/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/18/13 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/13 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/20/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/20/13 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 3/22/13>
03/22/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/22/13 (H) Bill Postponed To 3/25/13
03/25/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/25/13 (H) Heard & Held
03/25/13 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/29/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/29/13 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 4/1/13>
04/01/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/01/13 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/03/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 151.
JUAN COBA, State Policy Director
Foundation for Excellence in Education
Tallahassee, Florida
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 151.
CHRISTA VON BERGEN, Staff
Representative Lora Reinbold
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 151.
BOB GRIFFIN, Education Research Fellow
Alaska Policy Forum
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 151.
CLARK JOLLEY, Senator
Oklahoma State Senate
Edmond, Oklahoma
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 151.
MR. LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 151.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:02:39 AM
CHAIR LYNN GATTIS called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Representatives Gattis, Reinbold,
Seaton, P. Wilson, and Drummond were present at the call to
order. Representatives LeDoux and Saddler arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 151-SCHOOL GRADING SYSTEMS
8:03:12 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 151, "An Act establishing a public school and
school district grading system for purposes of improving
accountability and transparency; providing for Alaska strategic
educators in public schools; and providing for an effective
date." [Version O was before the committee.]
8:03:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that members' packets contain a
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 151, Version I. She
explained that Version I would allow an exemption for schools
with fewer than 20 full-time students but would allow the
schools to opt in to the grading system.
8:04:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 151, labeled 28-LS0496\l, Mischel,
3/28/13, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:05:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD directed attention to Section 5 of the
bill, which would allow an exemption for schools with fewer than
20 full-time students to opt into the grading system at the
school's discretion. Additionally, this section will create
clear instructions for the school's display of the yearly
performance designation. It requires the school to promptly
post the designation on the website, as well as to notify
parents and guardians of enrolled students about the yearly
performance. However, the posting of the grade at the front
office of the school is optional. Finally, the purpose of this
section is to ensure a link to the performance designation
assigned to each school district and public school is available
on the website and home page of the Department of Education and
Early Development (EED).
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to subsection (d) and asked
whether schools are exempt if they have fewer than 20 full-time
unless they notify the department otherwise.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD agreed that [Section 5, subsection (d)]
is optional for the smaller schools.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that under subsection (g), each
school shall prominently display on the [school's] Internet
website [the performance designation assigned each year for the
duration of the year]. She asked whether all schools have the
ability to comply with this requirement.
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether this means schools who maintain a
website should display the performance information.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented the aforementioned
requirement reads "shall" so it means the school performance
information must be prominently displayed on the website.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD interpreted this to mean the school
"shall" display the information if it has an Internet website.
She assumed most schools have Internet websites.
8:08:21 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), offered his understanding that every school
district has a website, although he was unsure if each school
within the district has its own website. Although each school
he has checked has its own website within the district's
website, he couldn't confirm whether all schools have Internet
websites.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to language on page 4, under
subsection (e), which read, "The department shall adopt
regulations to implement this section and provide annual
incentives ...." He asked what that would entail.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY declined to venture a response and deferred
to the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said existing law already provides for
the department to assist underperforming school districts, if
possible. She offered to provide some examples from Florida [as
the model for this bill], but again, the department already has
the flexibility to support underperforming schools.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern about the bill's
mandatory nature with regard to the need to develop regulations
and incentives; however, he was unsure what this entails or the
parameters for the department.
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the department understands the
parameters.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he unsure of the sponsor's intentions.
For example, the incentives could be recognition on the EED's
website, or in local publications. Perhaps the recognition
could be accomplished with plaques, but he was not sure if it
fits with the sponsor's intent. The department did not prepare
a fiscal note since he was unsure of the incentives.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered to provide some clarity. She
referred to AS 14.03.123, which states, "The department shall
establish a program of special recognition for those schools
that receive high performance designation." Further, the
department "recommends that schools that receive high
performance designation under the U.S. Department of Education
(U.S.DOE) Blue Ribbon Schools Program." She said this language
is in current law. Additionally, if the high performance school
is a Title I school, the department recommends that Title I be
distinguished as a school award, but both programs are already
federally sponsored. She offered to provide links and e-mail
the information.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded he was still uncertain what the
department is required to do with respect to the Alaska
Strategic Educator. Referring to page 4(i), he remarked that
the Bush experiences high turnover. In instances in which a
school earns a designation of "D" or "F," whether any new
teacher who voluntarily takes a job in the Bush is designated as
an Alaska Strategic Educator.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD answered that the department already has
designated underperforming schools. This language will give the
department the authority to identify an Alaska Strategic
Educator to travel to the Bush; however, he/she would travel
from a higher performing area to the Bush school. Again, this
would give the department the power to identify the "D" or "F"
schools and place the strategic educators where needed.
8:14:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the language in Version I requires
the department to take action. He read, " ... the department
shall identify as an Alaska Strategic Educator a teacher who
volunteers to be assigned and is assigned to teach in a
classroom ... ". Granted, the school could be anywhere in
Alaska, including the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) or the
Bush. Apparently any teacher would qualify, including a brand
new teacher, who would be designated by the department as an
Alaska Strategic Educator. In fact, the bill doesn't
differentiate between moving staff from one part of a district
to another; instead, anyone who volunteers in a low-performing
school shall be identified as an Alaska Strategic Educator. He
voiced concern whether this serves the bill's intent.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether this process requires two
teachers will be in the classroom or if one is transferred to
another location when the Alaska Strategic Educator is
transferred.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD deferred to Mr. Coba to answer.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised many schools with a
designation of "D" or "F" would be rural schools requiring air
travel, which is costly.
8:17:55 AM
JUAN COBA, State Policy Director, Foundation for Excellence in
Education, offered his understanding that the language under
discussion is intended to provide an incentive to high-
performance teachers to move to lower performing schools. For
example, in Florida teachers are given monetary incentives to
supplement their salaries if they move to low-performing schools
or schools with challenged populations, such as in low socio-
economic areas. While Florida doesn't have the geographical
challenges Alaska has, it does have some isolated areas. He was
unsure of how to address the specific question.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that Alaska has a number of
single-site school districts. He related a scenario in which a
single site school was a low-performing school, which under the
bill means that a first-year teacher could be designated as an
Alaska Strategic Educator. He further understood Florida
provides monetary incentives. He asked for clarification on
which Florida teacher is being offered an incentive.
MR. COBA responded that in Florida school districts negotiate
their own salary schedules. The intent is not necessarily to
move new teachers, but to provide teachers who have a proven
track record some incentives to move to a low performance
school.
8:21:14 AM
CHRISTA VON BERGEN, Staff, Representative Lora Reinbold, Alaska
State Legislature, noted that the bill states [on page 4, lines
19-22, subsection (i)],"A school principal, a school district,
and the department shall identify as an Alaska Strategic
Educator a teacher who volunteers to be assigned and is
assigned" [to teach in a classroom in a school for the school
year immediately after a school year for which that school
earned a designation of "D" or "F" under this section.]
Therefore, the aforementioned teachers would need to volunteer.
The only change in this bill is to add the title, "Alaska
Strategic Educator." She clarified that the bill does not add
any monetary compensation.
CHAIR GATTIS surmised that the volunteer teacher is given a
title and certain prestige to attain the title "Alaska Strategic
Educator."
MS. BERGEN answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON acknowledged the point, but noted that in
districts in the MSB and the KPB with numerous schools and
teachers significant movement could happen; however, in rural
Alaska, many school districts already experience 50 percent
turnover in many schools. Certainly, some of these schools will
fall in the "D" or "F" category. Therefore, anyone applying to
be a teacher in the Bush would automatically be volunteering to
teach in those schools. He emphasized the bill states that a
school principal, a school district, and the department "shall"
identify an Alaska Strategic Educator. He questioned whether
that's the intent of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD suggested that approximately 78 schools
would be exempted since they have less than 20 full-time
students. She characterized this bill as being a consumer
information education act that basically informs the community,
the teachers, and parents of where the schools stand in terms of
achievement and progress gains that the students are making,
which she viewed as important.
8:24:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that much of the bill's focus is on
grading and promoting awareness of a school's performance. The
section that designates the Alaska Strategic Educator seems to
be the way the bill addresses school performance. He asked for
clarification on what it means to be a strategic educator. For
example, he asked whether teachers will receive extra pay.
8:24:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD responded that the honor of having a
title bestowed on the teachers would serve as an incentive,
similar to recognition offered to members serving in the
military. Although the bill does not address monetary
incentives - since the legislature does not negotiate contracts
- she believed that teachers will be drawn to help the
"underdog" schools due to the recognition the title grants them.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification on whether the
incentive is basically lauding someone to take on a tough
assignment.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD agreed that serving as an Alaska
Strategic Educator would be "a badge of honor" for teachers.
She emphasized the specific language in the bill states a school
principal, a school district, and the department "shall"
identify an Alaska Strategic Educator who volunteers to be
assigned to be assigned and is assigned to teach in a classroom
in a school for the school year immediately after a school year
for which that school earned a designation of "D" or "F".
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER understood teachers willing to take on
the assignment would be designated an Alaska Strategic Educator,
but the title is not given based on their prior achievement.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD agreed, noting these teachers will be
identified by the principal, school district, and the
department. In further response to Representative Saddler, she
agreed that no monetary compensation is designated in the bill,
but those types of decisions could be made during labor
negotiations.
8:27:44 AM
BOB GRIFFIN, Education Research Fellow, Alaska Policy Forum,
after mentioning that he served as a delegate to the Mayor's
Education Conference in Anchorage in November, explained that
the concept of strategic educator came from a former North
Carolina superintendent who spoke at the mayor's conference.
The superintendent related that the school districts in North
Carolina used a strategic educator moniker to attract high
quality teachers to their tough schools. He characterized the
program as being a very successful program, which has been
proven to work elsewhere. While the North Carolina schools did
not offer teachers any financial incentives these schools were
able to attract teachers who were driven by challenges. The
North Carolina superintendent offered his belief it was one of
the most effective programs to attract high-quality teachers to
low-performing schools without providing monetary compensation.
8:29:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether any additional benefits or
authority was provided to the strategic educators in the North
Carolina program.
MR. GRIFFIN answered no; teachers received a signature block
indicating they were strategic educators. In fact, teachers
would compete to earn the moniker. He compared it to the
military practice of awarding decorations for service. This
actually attracted the right type of teachers to the low-
performing schools, similar to the reason the Peace Corps
volunteers are attracted to help. In response to Representative
Saddler, Mr. Griffin responded that in order to participate in
the program, strategic educators must first volunteer and then
be selected to serve. For example, not all of the volunteers
were selected to participate in the North Carolina program, but
just those who had a track record of proven effectiveness.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, after mentioning she previously lived
in North Carolina, questioned whether the program would work in
Alaska given the state's current lack of transportation
infrastructure. She further questioned how this could work in
Alaska especially given that some of the remote schools lie in
areas without residential electricity in some homes.
8:34:01 AM
MR. GRIFFIN pointed out that people are motivated by different
things. Moreover, the fact that it won't cost anything makes
the program attractive. He offered his belief this program will
attract the right types of people, which are those motivated by
the satisfaction of good performance rather than by economics.
Again, the track record of the North Carolina program
illustrates that it could work in Alaska, although it may not
provide the ultimate solution.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reminded members that the Department of
Education and Early Development (EED) already has coaches and
mentors in schools that are in intervention mode. She
characterized this program as one that might be complementary to
existing EED's efforts. Again, teachers would be attracted
since it would be a "badge of honor" and recognition. Finally,
it is the legislature's responsibility to do everything possible
to help students and schools, she said.
8:36:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND directed attention to the language on
page 4, subsection (i), which read, "A school principal, a
school district, and the department shall identify as an Alaska
Strategic Educator ... ". Specifically, the language in HB 151,
subsection (i) doesn't read "or" so it appears a substantial
number of people would be involved in identifying teachers that
may not normally be involved in the teacher selection process.
Specifically, she asked whether the department has been involved
in identifying teachers for any other reason.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no. With respect to the bill, he
envisioned the process would entail the school district and
principal selecting a strategic educator and the department
confirming their selection. However, he did not expect the
department would step in to identify teachers for schools since
those types of decisions are left to local control.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether a school principal would
be involved in hiring decisions or if hiring is usually done at
the school district level.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY expressed he is most familiar with the
Anchorage School District (ASD). He noted the ASD was able to
make staff hiring decisions within the parameters given by the
district. However, speaking as a former principal, he stated he
hired staff for his school.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested the committee is currently
discussing two programs. First, one program identifies a select
group of educators who are selected based on criteria and their
performance as high-quality educators, who are subsequently
bestowed honorary titles. Second, the other program under
discussion is the one described in the bill as currently
written, which requires that a school principal, a school
district, and the department "shall" identify as an Alaska
Strategic Educator. He voiced concern that the bill would allow
new teachers to be designated as Alaska Strategic Educators. He
questioned whether the sponsor prefers the program as written in
the bill or whether the program will be more selective and use
master teachers. He pointed out testifiers mentioned master
teachers taking on a difficult task in an underperforming
school. However, the bill reads that anyone who "volunteers"
could be selected. Thus a new teacher could be accepted as an
Alaska Strategic Educator once the teacher "volunteers" and is
confirmed by the school.
8:40:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD ventured perhaps that language could be
changed. She suggest that discretionary language, such as
changing "shall" to "may" on page 1, line 9. Nonetheless, she
pointed out the selection process consists of a series of
decisions, such that first the person is identified, then he/she
volunteers, after which he/she is confirmed. Further, the EED
currently has mentors and coaches in schools and this program
would complement that process.
8:41:37 AM
CLARK JOLLEY, Senator, Oklahoma State Senate, stated that he
chaired the Oklahoma Appropriations Committee and sponsored a
similar bill several years ago.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD suggested Senator Jolley describe the
effects of the bill.
SENATOR JOLLEY explained Oklahoma has been issuing two report
cards; however, parents still really couldn't get a sense of how
their children were performing. He explained that instituting
the "A-F" grading system changed the dynamics, which resulted in
parents becoming more involved in the process, asking questions
of superintendents and school board members. Since the program
costs very little to implement, Oklahoma hopes to use funds to
reward the "A" schools or other schools that improve. To
implement the reform, Oklahoma used data from ongoing testing
and simply calculated school performance using a different
matrix for the "A-F" grading system. He hoped another bill will
pass, such as one the committee is currently considering.
Speaking to the original program, he said Oklahoma's goal was to
inform parents about the performance of their schools, which is
being accomplished. However, the program is not without
controversy because some people routinely object to transparency
or accountability, although others have embraced the process.
The effect has been to "kick start" a discussion on current
education policy and seek to make it better for students.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked him to describe some changes that
were necessary to make.
SENATOR JOLLEY responded that Oklahoma made some initial
changes, including issuing four grades for schools. First,
Oklahoma offered a grade for academic performance and another
for growth of the school, site, and district. Next, Oklahoma
identified the bottom 25 percent of students. Finally, Oklahoma
graded the school improvement as a whole, including graduation
rate, dropout rate, advanced placement. Initially, the school
was graded based on academics comprising 66 2/3 percent, and the
whole school at 33 1/3 percent. Currently, this is being
revised so the grade will be based solely on academics, with 50
percent based on required testing achievement, 25 percent on the
site's growth, and 25 percent on the performance of the bottom
quartile. The whole school improvement grade was moved into a
bonus category. Thus schools could obtain points based on the
whole school improvement and use these points to move up to a
letter grade. He anticipated this program would be considered
by both the Senate and the House this year. He suggested the
current bill is similar to Alaska's bill.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that perhaps the bill should
sunset since the sunset provision would trigger a review. She
expressed concern about the legislature's ability to perform
continuity and follow up on the program.
8:50:10 AM
SENATOR JOLLEY argued against including a sunset provision in
the bill. Instead, the legislature needs to make a policy
decision to implement the program. He suggested that the
committee could decide how "user friendly" the data should be.
In his experience, when a bill contains a sunset provision, the
tendency is for legislators to find reasons not to reinstate the
program. They may simply claim the program is not working
rather than working to improve the policy. He emphasized that
the "A-F" metric is an easily understood metric. In his view,
Alaska's report is far more thorough than Oklahoma's report, but
Oklahoma's report was difficult to understand unless the person
truly understood education policy and statistics, whereas the
"A-F" metric as proposed by HB 151 would be easily understood by
parents.
8:53:00 AM
SENATOR JOLLEY, in response to Representative Seaton's comment
on an article, explained one of the problems with the bottom
quartile is that it didn't truly identify the bottom quartile,
but rather it identified the bottom quartile of state achievers.
He explained that Oklahoma system uses advanced, satisfactory,
limited knowledge, and unsatisfactory categories. The bottom 25
percent has always been those scoring in the limited knowledge,
and unsatisfactory categories. However, since some schools only
had five percent in the aforementioned category, a huge amount
of the school's overall grade was limited to a small number of
students; for example, perhaps 20 of 700 students.
Subsequently, the formula has been changed to better reflect the
bottom 25 percent of all students. Additionally, it was also
problematic since the bottom percentage grading is the most
difficult challenge to meet. For example, a suburban district
with high student achievement found it brought the school's
grade down. He compared the phenomenon as similar to "Everybody
hates the Congress but everyone loves their own Congressman."
In the same way, everyone likes to think their school is
performing well. Some of the schools people thought of as "A"
schools ended up being "B-D" schools, so people were upset and
opposed the grading.
8:56:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the specific
language in HB 151, which states, "(3) 25 percent on the
individual learning gains in reading and mathematics, if any,
achieved by students who scored at or below the 25th percentile
on the statewide standards-based assessment in reading or
mathematics." He asked whether that is the same language as
Oklahoma uses in its program.
SENATOR JOLLEY answered no. He offered his understanding that
this language means the bottom quartile of students statewide.
If the goal of HB 151 is to model it after Oklahoma's program,
it would have to be on a site-by-site basis. Of course,
everyone tests reading and math, he said. Thus each school
district would look at the bottom 25 percent of students. For
example, a school with 800 students would examine the bottom 200
students, not the bottom 25 percent of the statewide performers.
Actually, Alaska's language is a little less restrictive than
Oklahoma's prior language, but it isn't the same direction
Oklahoma is currently moving towards, he said.
8:58:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether Oklahoma has any schools
not on the road system. She also asked if any schools require
boats or planes for access.
MR. JOLLEY answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON voiced concern whether it is wise for
Alaska to exempt some schools.
SENATOR JOLLEY argued against exempting schools except in terms
of protecting students' privacy. He recommended exempting
schools from complying only if the school is so small that it is
possible to assess how individual students perform since it is
not acceptable to disclose how an individual student is
performing on any assessment. In response to Representative
Saddler, Mr. Jolly explained that the previous accountability
system was called the Academic Performance Index, which was on a
"0-1,500" scale. In Oklahoma schools were initially assessed
differently, but the performance grading system was replaced by
the "A-F" system. This was changed to avoid inundating parents
with statistical analyses and instead provide parents with one
report card rather than three. This was accomplished without
extra cost because it did not require compilation of more data,
simply compiling data already collected.
SENATOR JOLLEY, in response Representative Saddler, said he was
satisfied with the program. The old method of grading schools
was abolished because it didn't make any sense. It was
difficult to determine where on the scale a good school fell.
Similarly, in his own experience, the elementary school his
children attended attained a perfect 1,500 score, with no room
for improvement in student achievement. This seemed
problematic, he said. Additionally, he disliked two report
cards. He stated Oklahoma also had some political changes that
have affected the political climate. Some districts embraced
the grade sheets while others disliked them so having just one
metric for everyone makes an "apples to apples" comparisons and
removes excuses. Also, the new system provides an opportunity
for students and teachers to feel pride when the school scores
well on assessments and the "A-F" system. In closing, he
recommended a unified system such as the one in his state.
9:06:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD mentioned that this model has been
implemented in 12 other states, but she cautioned it does take
courage to make this effort. She offered her belief that it is
important to provide information on school performance to
consumers and communities. She said one of the guiding
principles in her district is education reform. She hoped that
this committee has the courage to pass HB 151.
9:07:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND removed her objection.
CHAIR GATTIS announced that Version I was now before the
committee.
9:08:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, on page 3, line 30, to only exempt schools to
protect student identity. She acknowledged it would be tough
for some schools, but she supported a statewide effort.
CHAIR GATTIS related a scenario in which one student excels and
the school wants to opt in. She asked whether Conceptual
Amendment 1 would allow this.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said that scenario is not part of
Conceptual Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for purpose of discussion. He
recalled earlier testimony by Senator Jolley, such that Oklahoma
has moved away from the percentile in standard-based assessments
since one or two students performing very poorly could affect
the school. For example, students scoring below the 25th
percentile would count as 25 percent of the school's lowest
grades, as well as count for individual learning gains. Still,
he was uncertain how a small population in a small school would
affect the grading system of those below the 25th percentile.
He asked for further clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her belief that his concern
could be addressed via another amendment, but is not affected by
Conceptual Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in terms of student privacy, asked where
the individual identification would occur.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her understanding that under
the federal program, "No Child Left Behind" includes privacy
provisions. Therefore, Alaska currently has criteria in place
to address the privacy issue, but asked for further
clarification from the department.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON sought clarification that Conceptual
Amendment 1 would include all schools since criteria exist to
prevent identifying a single student.
9:14:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON restated that the intent of Conceptual
Amendment 1 is for all schools to participate and the only
exemption would be to protect a student's identity.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to a question, referred to
page 3, lines 3-31, and to page 4, line 1. Conceptual Amendment
1 would require all schools to participate except to protect the
identity of a particular student. She was unsure how the
privacy issue is currently handled. In further response to
Representative Saddler, she explained the reason the amendment
is a conceptual is that she was unsure of what is necessary to
accomplish this, but the bill drafter could implement the
intent.
CHAIR GATTIS pointed out that some schools are so small, such
that with five students in a school people could compare the
grades and scores and identify individual student scores.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER maintained his objection.
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development (EED), introduced himself.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 3, line 30, subsection
(d), which read, "A school that has fewer than 20 full-time
equivalent students is exempt from this section unless the
principal of the school notifies the department that the school
is included." She explained the purpose of Conceptual Amendment
1 is to include all schools unless it would allow a particular
student to be identified. She offered her belief that student
privacy is currently being addressed, but she was unsure.
9:18:20 AM
MR. MORSE clarified that federal law prohibits the state from
indicating the performance of any student to maintain student
privacy, including the performance of those students who excel.
Currently if a school has five or fewer students, the department
does not report any results. Similarly, for schools with more
students the reports would indicate ranges, such as reporting 70
percent or greater are proficient and 69 percent and fewer are
not.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the EED could implement
Conceptual Amendment 1.
MR. MORSE related his understanding that Conceptual Amendment 1
will address protections for students' privacy. He envisioned
that the department would deploy a strategy to protect students'
privacy and comply with the Family Educational Rights Privacy
Act.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON understood the drafter would comply.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether this exemption is solely at
the discretion of the principal.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON answered no; it would be up to the
department, based on the language in subsection (c).
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what criteria would be used.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested it would be the criteria
currently being used by the department.
MR. MORSE clarified that the department doesn't report five or
fewer students and in instances of greater than five students,
the scores are reported in ranges until the student numbers
about 40 students, although he was unsure of the specific
cutoff. However, the results fall in a range to protect the
identities of individual students, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON acknowledged the department would
probably need to promulgate regulations using the intent of the
bill.
9:23:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether a student could waive the
confidentiality requirements to allow scores to be reported.
MR. MORSE said the federal FERPA categorizes data which cannot
be disclosed by the school; however, schools can receive
permission to share some information with respect to award
announcements. Currently, Alaska has 135,000 students in 500
schools in 53 districts so it is impossible for the state to
track this and suppress score results. He said that schools can
make decisions at the local level based on permissions they may
have.
9:24:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her understanding that small
schools would be graded, but the information would not be shared
unless the local school board authorized it.
MR. MORSE suggested that would probably be true in small
schools, such as those with five or less students. However,
keep in mind that due to funding considerations, very few
schools exist with fewer than 10 students. Perhaps only 5 of
the 109 students would fall in the tested grades. He said
complexities exist with respect to privacy act limitations.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that Conceptual Amendment 1 doesn't
require any achievement grades to be released, but pertain to
the grading system for the whole school and individual
performance would not be included at all. He surmised that in
very rare circumstances the school grade would affect the
performance of individual students since only a single grade is
being released for the whole school.
9:27:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested the gross cutoff to allow a
principal to notify the department he/she does not what his/her
school to be included would give more flexibility. However, if
the intent of the bill is to be more transparent, then efforts
to make it less transparent are somewhat counterintuitive. He
maintained his objection.
9:28:10 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Reinbold, Seaton,
Wilson, LeDoux, and Gattis voted in favor of the adoption of
Conceptual Amendment 1. Representatives Saddler and Drummond
voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted
by a vote of 5-2.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern with subsection (c) of
HB 151. He suggested that very few students may fall in the
group, since it is 25 percent of the students who achieve less
than the 25th percentile on statewide standards. Again, one-
fourth of the grade would be based on that formula, he said.
Thus the achievement grade would subsequently be rolled into
paragraph (2) since it is part of the individual learning gains
of all students. Further, the result would also be rolled into
the combined student achievement data. He reminded members that
Oklahoma passed its bill by 94-4 to reform the system to rid
itself of the triple count of students. He said Alaska doesn't
have the grading system yet and it took Florida ten years to get
its grading system developed. He pointed out that Oklahoma is
currently revising its plan. He voiced reluctance in making
changes without further research, particularly given that
Oklahoma is still in the process of refining its system. He was
unsure how to address his concern.
9:31:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested paragraph (3) [25 percent on
the individual learning gains in reading and mathematics, if
any, achieved by students who scored at or below the 25th
percentile on the statewide standards-based assessment in
reading or mathematics] should be done by site rather than by
the state as a whole. She offered her understanding that
Oklahoma decided to address this provision by site.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD concurred that Oklahoma decided to
address this provision by site.
MR. COBA explained that in Florida, and perhaps in Oklahoma as
well, the figure is the bottom 25 percent at the school, rather
than the bottom 25 percent statewide. Thus each school would
have its own figure, which would be used to measure the school
grade.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON was unsure how that fits in with Alaska's
statewide standards-based assessment.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her belief that the bill is not
yet clear.
9:34:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that language could be added to
paragraph (c) by adding "by site".
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested the committee might need to
research this.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said as sponsor she is amenable to
changes.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for clarification on whether
everyone in the school would be tested or if it is limited to
some grades.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that all the standards-based tests
will be administered as currently done. She explained that
testing would not change under the bill. In further response to
Representative P. Wilson, she clarified that the same tests
would be administered at the current levels.
9:38:11 AM
MR. MORSE explained that the language on page 2 is based on the
current testing program. He has worked with the sponsor to
ensure that the testing didn't change. Currently, he explained
that reading, writing, and math are tested for grades 3-10,
which would be included. Science is not tested at every grade
level, which is why the language is clear that intervals for
grades 4, 8, and 10, are tested. While a grade-to-grade score
isn't possible, it's still possible to apply an achievement
score for science. However, additional testing isn't built into
the system. If the state changes its testing program and tests
the new standards, it is possible to test different levels, but
it would nonetheless still include grades 3-8, plus some high
school grades. The department feels strongly about growth,
which is best calculated through continuous grade level testing.
Currently, the Alaska Board of Education & Early Development
makes the determinations and under federal law is required to
test grades 3-8, plus one grade in 10-12. Thus the state tests
grades 3-8, as well as grade 9, although grade 9 is not yet
required under federal law. In response to a question, he
agreed the state will test grades 3-8. In some instances grades
9 and 10 are tested, he said.
9:41:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested the high school test will be
based on achievement in grades 9-10, as well as growth between
grade 9 to 10, but junior or senior components would not be
incorporated into that figure.
MR. MORSE clarified that if students are in the 9th grade for a
full year, then the department would be able to do a growth
score under the current system. So as long as a test was taken
in 8th grade the growth score could be tracked, even if the
testing occurred in another school. In further response to
Representative Seaton, he confirmed that new students would be
excluded unless they tested outside Alaska.
9:43:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND questioned how scores in the 10th grade
would be used since this testing would be based on two years of
dates.
MR. MORSE suggested that the department would look at both
grades 9 and 10. He acknowledged that the department does not
capture 11th or 10th grade, but an elementary school does not
capture kids in K-2 either.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND suggested that the grade for a 9-12 high
school would only track half the scores without any opportunity
to show improvement above the 10th grade.
MR. MORSE agreed that is correct; however, that's not unlike the
current accountability system.
9:44:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the language on page 3, line 27
subsection (c), reads, as follows, "(3) 25 percent on the
individual learning gains in reading and mathematics, if any,
achieved by students who scored at or below the 25th percentile
on the statewide standards-based assessment in reading or
mathematics ...." He asked for an explanation of how that would
work.
MR. MORSE responded he was unable to answer since it wasn't
something he previously noticed.
9:45:36 AM
MR. GRIFFIN said he thinks this is in error; that it should read
"and" in both instances.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she believes he is correct that it
should read "and".
MR. GRIFFIN, with regard to how the improvements impact the
overall grade, said the way the system is set up any
improvements can only improve grades, but would not lower the
grade. For example, if a school earned a "B" for its academic
achievement and did not experience test score gains for the
bottom quartile, then the grade would still be a "B" since the
school would retain the last grade given. In further response
to Representative Seaton, he pointed out that the language is
under "learning gains" and if there are no gains it would not
affect the overall grade. In response to a question, he related
his understanding that the gains represented a positive affect
and could not result in a negative effect.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON disagreed that this calculation is
included in the bill since it says 25 percent will be on
individual gains of all students. Further, paragraph (2)
requires 25 percent on individuals learning gains for those
below the 25th percentile. Thus the 25 percent would not count
or is only an additive in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON sought clarification of what the bill
would do. She suggested that sometimes scores are counted three
times.
9:51:22 AM
MR. COBA directed attention to the language on page 3, line 23,
to the language in subsection (c). First, the score is based on
50 percent on combined student achievement data. Thus in Alaska
it would be those students tested on reading and mathematics,
with some testing in science. The other half of the grade would
be based on individual learning gains of all students, which
consist of reading and mathematics, exclusively, since those
tests are given each year in grades 3-8. Additionally, Alaska
also tests in 9-10 grades. Basically, a school would earn
different points for each of the components. He agreed it is
possible for a student to be counted in each of three
categories; however, it isn't different than what currently
happens. The scores measure both achievement and growth.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER offered his belief this is a simplistic
representation of a complicated formula.
MR. COBA suggested that it captures two important scores,
including where a school stands, which could reflect high-
performance students. The growth would indicate how well that
school performed in moving students from the date of receiving
the student until the end of the school year.
9:56:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD summarized that first, 50 percent of the
school's scoring will be based on achievement. Next, the
scoring will be based on student gains since a certain
population may not have met standards. This will help assess
whether the school is moving in the right direction. Granted,
this bill isn't perfect, but it's important to put a grading
system into place and this is a proven system. However, it does
take courage to take these steps, but [the legislature,
administration, and parents] deserve to know how schools are
doing, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON directed attention to page 3 lines 9-
10, which read, "... the department shall annually assign to each
public school, including charter schools and boarding schools,
and to each school district a performance designation ..." which
would single out each school, she surmised.
9:58:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out, however, that the language on
page 3, lines 28-29, states, "... the 25th percentile on the
statewide standards-based assessment ..." so this should be
cleared up, perhaps by indicating the 25th percentile within a
school on the wide standards-based assessment.
9:58:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND referred to language on page 3 lines 9-
11, which read, "the department shall annually assign to each
public school, including charter schools and boarding schools,
and to each school district a performance designation ..." and
asked whether the sponsor intended to grade all school
districts.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related her understanding was yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether this was part of the
Florida model.
MR. COBA concurred.
CHAIR GATTIS announced that HB 151 [Version I, as amended,]
would be held over.
9:59:41 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:59 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB 151 Sponsor Statement v. A.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 02 HB 151 v. A Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 03 HB 151 Sectional v. A.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 04 HB 151 Fiscal Note v. A - EED-TLS-3-8-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 05 CS HB 151 ver. O.PDF |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 06 HB 151 Information Packet.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 07 CSHB 151 Fiscal Note - EED-TLS-3-14-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 08 HB 151 Letter Support - Alaska Policy Forum.pdf |
HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 09 HB 151 Letter Support - Von Imhof ASD.pdf |
HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 10 HB 151 A-F Bill Presentation.pdf |
HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 10.1 HB 151 A-F Bill Presentation - CORRECTED.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 11 CS HB 151 v. I.PDF |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 01 HB 190 v. A.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 02 HB 190 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 03 HB 190 Fiscal Note - EED-TLS-3-28-13.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 04 HB 190 Supporting Documents-Letter Herb Schroeder 03-28-2013.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 05 HB 190 Supporting Documents-Email Bob Crumley 03-28-2013.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 06 HB 190 Supporting Documents-Letter Steve Atwater 04-01-2013.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 07 HB 190 Supporting Documents-Anchorage SD Credit By Choice program 04-02-2013.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 08 HB 190 Supporting Documents-MatSu SD policy 04-02-2013.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |