Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
02/15/2023 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Alaska Assessment Report | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 15, 2023
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jamie Allard, Co-Chair
Representative Justin Ruffridge, Co-Chair
Representative Mike Prax
Representative CJ McCormick
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Andi Story
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Alyse Galvin
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA ASSESSMENT REPORT
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
KELLY MANNING, Deputy Director
Division of Innovation and Education Excellence
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled "Statewide
Assessment and FY2022 Assessment Results Overview."
ELIZABETH GRENINGER, Assessments Administrator
Division of Innovation and Education Excellence
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled "Statewide
Assessment and FY2022 Assessment Results Overview."
LACEY SANDERS, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Joined via teleconference during the
PowerPoint, titled "Statewide Assessment and FY2022 Assessment
Results Overview," to discuss AK STAR and answer questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:07 AM
CO-CHAIR JAMIE ALLARD called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives Story,
Himschoot, McCormick, Ruffridge, and Allard were present at the
call to order. Representatives Prax and McKay arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:01 a.m. to 8:03 a.m.
^PRESENTATION(S): Alaska Assessment Report
PRESENTATION(S): Alaska Assessment Report
8:03:23 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the only order of business would
be the Alaska Assessment Report presentation.
8:04:02 AM
KELLY MANNING, Deputy Director, Division of Innovation and
Education Excellence, Department of Education and Early
Development, informed the committee she will begin by walking
through the statewide assessment results and provide an
overview. She continued to slide 2 in the PowerPoint, titled
"Mission, Vision, and Purpose," [hard copy included in the
committee packets], and reiterated in the purpose that the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) exists to
provide information, resources, and leadership to support an
excellent education for every student every day. She emphasized
DEED's assessment team serves to help districts in administering
assessments, as well as in understanding the use and purpose of
them.
MS. MANNING continued on slide 3, titled "Strategic Priorities:
Alaska's Education Challenge," where she explained with the five
strategic priorities there are a number of areas in which
assessment data informs the priorities and the projects that
result; the assessment information drives policy priority. She
continued on slide 4, titled "Purpose of Assessment," and
explained the statewide assessments are one piece of assessment
information that districts and educators use, and there are
different levels of assessment featured on the slide -
formative, interim, and summative - all which she synopsized.
She noted assessment is a part of classroom instruction and part
of the cycle of learning that every educator uses. She
explained she would walk the committee through the next slides
[5 through 8] titled "Statewide Assessments." Featured on the
slides are types of assessments, their content area(s), and the
grade ranges of students the assessments cover. In addition,
those students with significant cognitive disabilities fall
under the Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) assessment.
8:10:13 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked if parents could opt out for their
children to take the assessments.
MS. MANNING answered parents do have the option per statute to
opt out of any statewide assessment. She explained there are
accountability requirements that encourage higher levels of
participation with the goal being 95 percent participation - and
in a typical year, the goal is often met.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD questioned if the results would be skewed if
parents opt out.
MS. MANNING replied DEED had not evaluated the populations of
students where parents are opting out, so it is hard to know how
the statistical analysis would be affected.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked if there are certain questions that
trigger a parent to want to opt out.
MS. MANNING responded that the assessments do not include
questions about demographics; that is something the districts
collect. The questions asked are standards-based, and there are
a number of activities DEED does to ensure the questions are
appropriate for Alaska students. She added the questions do not
consist of "controversial subjects."
8:12:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE was curious to know how many students
are taking the AK Star [Alaska System of Academic Readiness]
assessment on a regular basis.
MS. MANNING responded that the information is shown on the
slides. She explained the drop in assessment participation
rates following the COVID-19 pandemic, but noted that in
previous years it had been close to that 95 percent. She also
explained Ms. Greninger [who would be joining via
teleconference] could comment further on participation rates.
8:14:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked if the "Alaska Assessment" was
comparable to national standards.
MS. MANNING responded DEED builds the assessment off of state
standards, and when they were developed, they were done so with
considerations of national standards, but were adjusted to
reflect Alaska context.
8:17:50 AM
MS. MANNING summarized the types of assessments on slides 5
through 8, titled "Statewide Assessments" [original punctuation
provided]:
Assessment/Content/Students
Alaska System of Academic Readiness (AK STAR)/English
language arts and mathematics/Grades 3-9
Alaska Science Assessment/Science/Grades 5, 8, and 10
Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM)/English language arts,
mathematics, and science/Students with significant
cognitive disabilities in grades 3-9: ELA and math,
grades 5, 8, and 10: science
ACCESS for ELLs, Alternate ACCESS, and Kindergarten
ACCESS/English language proficiency/All EL students in
grades K-12
National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP)/Varies by years, but most commonly math and
reading/A Sample of students across Alaska from grades
4, 8 (and sometimes 12)
Alaska Developmental Profile (ADP)/13 goals and
indicators in five domains from Alaska's Early
Learning Guidelines/All kindergarten students and any
first graders who did not attend kindergarten.
mCLASS with DIBELS 8th Edition/Early literacy skills
as aligned to the requirements of the Reads
Act/Students in grades K-3
8:20:39 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked if the "early literacy" [on slide 8] was
already implemented in the state before The Alaska Reads Act
came onboard.
MS. MANNING responded it is a new addition added as a statewide
requirement for screening to identify where students are at in
their reading skills.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE questioned if there are statutes that
require or mandate these assessments, and if so, which ones they
are.
MS. MANNING confirmed DEED can provide all the statutes; the
assessments are all statutorily mandated.
8:22:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered her understanding that when kids
are coming into kindergarten, 80 percent are not on grade level
with the Alaska developmental profile, and only 20 percent are
kindergarten ready.
MS. MANNING responded that she does not have the exact data
today but could confirm the numbers at a later date.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked if the numbers could be provided through
DEED's staff today.
8:23:19 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:23 a.m. to 8:24 a.m.
8:24:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked for confirmation that no district
pays for any of these assessments because they are funded by the
state.
MS. MANNING responded that is correct.
8:24:49 AM
ELIZABETH GRENINGER, Assessments Administrator, Division of
Innovation and Education Excellence, Department of Education and
Early Development, joined via teleconference and explained she
would provide more detail specifically to the AK STAR assessment
and results and invite questions from the committee.
8:25:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY reiterated the question on the Alaska
development profile results, regarding her understanding that
only 20 percent of kids are kindergarten ready.
MS. GRENINGER responded she does not have the data in front of
her but can provide it to the committee after she presents. She
further explained all results from the 2021/2022 assessments are
available and are posted to DEED's assessments website. She
continued the presentation on slide 9, titled "AK STAR,"
featuring the AK STAR summative assessment and Map [Dynamic
Learning Maps (DLM)] growth interim assessment - the goal being
to bring together the best of summative and interim assessments.
She continued to slide 10, titled "AK STAR - A Connected
Approach," which she described as a holistic system. The goal
here, she explained, is to help have more information actionable
to influence what is happening in classrooms, to inform teaching
and learning processes.
8:30:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned how the cut scores are set for
low proficiency, and who sets them.
MS. GRENINGER described some of the process to establish the cut
scores. The process is typical for new assessments: new
stakeholders are brought in, and a process called standard
setting is established - this being where the data and item
content is brought together so that educators ultimately decide
where cut scores should be set. She noted there are continued
leadership discussions around this.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about a vendor, NWEA, and if it
has Map scores for other students in other states and if that
also plays into setting the cut scores.
MS. GRENINGER responded that the question ties into the next
piece. She further explained that in the initial review of the
scores last year, only AK STAR performances were evaluated, but
the process this year will involve a review of the Map growth
component, and DEED will engage in a validation process that
will help set the cut scores.
8:36:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE brought up the structure of the
adaptive portion of AK STAR and questioned how it can be used to
measure achievement and growth for students if no student is
taking the same exam.
MS. GRENINGER replied that creating adaptive assessments is a
complex process; she offered to point out different documents
that help illustrate this process in more detail than she will
explain here. For the time being, she pointed out that a "test
blueprint" that can be found on DEED's website depicts how the
assessment brings together both the summative and growth
component.
8:41:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked if the different categories
within each area are broken down for schools and districts, and
if Map data can be "cohorted" so students can be followed over
time.
MS. GRENINGER responded that DEED always had reporting
categories, but they have been broad. One of the goals in
moving to the next vision of AK STAR is to include that level of
information and, with the Map growth component, a RIT [Rasch
Unit scale] score is revealed. She further explained Alaska is
one of the first states using Map growth as the statewide
assessment, and DEED is pushing on the system to do some of the
things being asked. Although Map does currently have a measure
of growth, it is not for an individual student. The transient
population of the state was also mentioned as resulting in
districts having difficulty measuring a cohort.
8:48:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked if the state is paying for the
interim assessments for districts to have fall and winter
access.
MS. MANNING confirmed DEED is paying for Map growth.
8:50:30 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD commented on the value of some committee members
also being school board members and the added perspective it
brings.
MS. GRENINGER returned to the presentation on slide 11, titled
"Assessments Results - Spring 2022." She noted it is a quick
snapshot that is available on the DEED website and was
distributed in the committee packets. She informed the
committee she will highlight some areas that will be featured on
slides to come.
8:54:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked what percentage of the total student
body takes advantage of correspondence courses.
MS. MANNING replied she did not have this information here but
will provide it to the committee at a later date.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stressed the information is needed if 75
percent are correspondence schools.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD questioned why they [DEED] are lacking in
answers.
MS. MANNING responded that the DEED staff present are prepared
to present on the data on the assessments. She also verified
there is a staff member who oversees correspondence schools but
is not part of the assessment team.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY confirmed it is about 16 percent of
students who attend correspondence schools.
MS. GRENINGER brought attention to slide 12, titled "Achievement
Levels."
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE returned to the material on slide 11
and asked if there is a possibility of finding out student
participation rates in NAEP and ADP.
MS. GRENINGER confirmed the participation rates will be provided
for said assessments at a later date.
8:59:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked whether NAEP testing is a random
sample and how it is selected for testing.
MS. GRENINGER responded that NAEP is a random stratified sample,
meaning there are specific demographic features it is trying to
obtain to assess students within that population; this becomes a
challenge in Alaska because there are often pockets of community
types or student groups, and while selected randomly, they are
often selected each time.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked for clarification on NAEP and
whether it is within a specific demographic, and who decides
what that demographic is year after year.
MS. GRENINGER responded there is a NAEP state coordinator who is
well-versed in stratified sample, and she will provide the
connection to the committee.
9:04:42 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD commented that a result showing low
participation with the correspondence students could be the
result of targeting demographics. She noted that "a lot of
people don't like that."
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned if the NAEP descriptor was
the same, and what was included in the NAEP result.
MS. GRENINGER responded that they are not the same performance
descriptors. She said NAEP assesses in a different way than AK
STAR, so students are evaluated at or above basic, and at or
above proficient.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked why Alaska does not participate
in the NAEP science test.
MS. MANNING replied that is a policy decision made by a previous
administration and she offered to get background on why this is.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that given the state's higher
performance in science, adding the NAEP science test would be
valuable.
9:07:52 AM
MS. GRENINGER continued on slide 12, titled "Achievement
Levels," and she drew attention to those performance levels that
have changed in the last year. She explained the non-proficient
achievement level included "Approaching Proficient (AP)" and
"Needs Support (NS)" - both being new titles.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked where the standards are set regarding
the phrase, "student meets standards," and if there is a way to
compare Alaska to national standards.
MS. MANNING replied the standards are set based on Alaska
standards. In response to a follow-up question, she explained
the Alaska standards were developed by a group of Alaska
educators and stakeholders who drew from similar national
standards, but the distinctions for Alaska are to align the
standards to the context of Alaska and to students that are more
remote/rural who have different living experiences.
9:13:43 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD requested information that compares Montana,
Wyoming, and Idaho with Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT pointed out that those states contain
rural areas, but Alaska has remote areas; there is a
distinction.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK argued that Hawaii is a good example,
as well.
9:15:32 AM
MS. GRENINGER continued on slides 13 and 14, titled "AK STAR
English Language Arts Achievement Level Percentages," with slide
14 also containing grades 3-9, and relayed that all information
here is available on DEED's website.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE noticed the chart on slide 14 showing a
dramatic change between grades 6 and 7 and asked for any
thoughts as to why.
9:18:20 AM
MS. GRENINGER replied she could not provide an opinion on what
she thought it meant, but the role of the assessment team is to
produce the results and share them wisely within the department
and districts, and that the deeper analysis happens on other
teams.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE alluded to a potential problem with the
questions being asked to seventh graders, and he questioned if
there might be an "assessment to the assessment."
MS. MANNING replied the chart reflects the first year DEED
administered AK STAR. There will be a review of these
proficiency levels in a validation study this summer, and she
explained that two years of data will give a much better
picture.
9:23:31 AM
MS. GRENINGER continued on slides 15 and 16, titled "AK STAR
Mathematics Achievement Level Percentages," similar to previous
slides, but focused on mathematics. She summarized the
breakdowns across grades 3-9 on slide 16 and similarly, there
are shifts in performance at certain grade levels. She
proceeded to slides 17 and 18, titled "Alaska Science Assessment
Achievement Level Percentages," and reminded the committee this
is a different assessment now - Alaska's own science assessment.
She explained that grades 5, 8, and 10 are represented, and 62
percent of students in these grades are non-proficient in
science. The individual grade percentages are broken down on
slide 18.
9:27:03 AM
MS. MANNING rejoined the presentation on slide 19, titled
"Responding to the 2022 Assessment Results," and she explained
DEED takes the data internally, and other teams then look at the
data to see how resources can be allocated in the department to
address needs arising from the results. Ms. Manning concluded
the presentation on slide 20, titled "Stay Connected," that
featured contact information for herself, and Ms. Greninger.
9:29:40 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD invited questions from the committee and noted
that if they cannot be answered here, the committee aide would
make note of them for future responses. She stated preference
for the questions to be direct and concise.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked if DEED had compared Alaska's
system of assessment or Alaska's system of education with high
performing systems internationally.
MS. MANNING replied there is no study currently of that kind.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented on the sciences, and asked if the
one test can accurately measure proficiency in any branch of
science.
MS. MANNING explained that the science standards do cover a
range across the sciences.
9:32:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked how much it costs the state for
all assessments.
MS. MANNING responded that she would get the exact numbers -
both what the current numbers are and what is historically
typical.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK requested a "picture" of what each
assessment looks like for a student.
MS. MANNING offered her understanding that most assessments were
computer based but asked Ms. Greninger to confirm.
MS. GRENINGER expanded on the answer and explained the shift in
paper-based assessments to online occurred over the past several
years.
9:36:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY said he assumed the tests were administered
to all 54 school districts in the state, and therefore should
provide data showing what schools have the higher scores and can
serve as models.
MS. MANNING confirmed the data is broken out by districts and
schools, but she stressed that the context for districts varies
across the state. However, part of DEED's school improvement
process is to look at successful practices and assist schools
that are struggling.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked where the districts keep the
"snapshot" of what impacts each district and where response is
needed.
MS. MANNING responded that some of the information is collected
in different ways but is all pulled together and provided on the
DEED website that shows demographic information and state
assessment results on different districts and schools.
9:40:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK asked if there is a mechanism for
students to provide feedback on the assessments.
MS. MANNING replied that the department has an assessment
advisory panel for students and parents, but not a survey for
students on how they feel about the assessments.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked why the assessment stops at grade
9.
MS. MANNING explained that assessing grades 3 to 9 is the
practice of DEED, and it is not required by the U.S. Department
of Education beyond that point.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked what drives the early April
testing date - being that there are nine months of school, and
tests are administered in early April resulting in two missing
months of academic time.
MS. MANNING replied that the school calendars differ widely
across the state, and the window begins late March/early April
and closes the end of April - this is the window that best
aligns to the range of calendars. She further explained that
most districts test earlier in this window so they can get to
their end-of-year activities and wrapping up the school year.
9:45:29 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD invited the committee to provide final comments.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY indicated she understood why The Alaska
Reads Act has early learning in it being that 80 percent of
students are classified as "not being ready," and her hope is to
invest money earlier than what is in the fiscal plan to help
catch students up.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY believed the sciences are essential, but we
also need to focus and get back to the essentials of reading,
writing, and arithmetic.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK expressed concern that some test scores
are not reflective of where students are at; if a student does
not like the "system", they will not do well. He stated there
is work to be done.
9:49:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE commented that education can't be
measured fully by assessments; what makes things interesting to
the children needs to be taken into consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX reflected on testing being difficult in
general, and computer testing being an obstacle. He opined that
as a state, Alaska needs to go back to basics such as English
and mathematics.
9:53:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT mirrored the commentary on the basics -
reading, writing, math needing to happen in the schools, but the
point of these areas is to do science and understand social
studies; kids must have the tools to enjoy exploring these
areas.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD expressed her desire to keep parents, students,
and educators informed and involved in what is happening in
education. She conveyed that the House Education Committee is
here to serve the public.
9:56:31 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:56 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| (H)EDC Assessment Overview for Legislature_2023.pdf |
HEDC 2/15/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HEC Assessment Overview |
| 02.15.2023 Enclosure 1 - NAEP State Comparisons Over Time By Grade Content.pdf |
HEDC 2/15/2023 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 02.15.2023 Enclosure 2 - FY2023 Assessment Budget 2-16-23.pdf |
HEDC 2/15/2023 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 02.15.2023 Enclosure 3 - NAEP Sample Selection.pdf |
HEDC 2/15/2023 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 02.15.2023 House Education Committee Assessment Follow-up Responses.pdf |
HEDC 2/15/2023 8:00:00 AM |