Legislature(2001 - 2002)
01/27/2001 10:07 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
January 27, 2001
10:07 a.m.
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chair
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chair (via teleconference)
Senator Gary Wilken (via teleconference)
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Bettye Davis (via teleconference)
SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chair
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Joe Green
Representative Peggy Wilson,
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Gretchen Guess
HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HIGH SCHOOL COMPETENCY TEST
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Debbie Ossiander
Anchorage School Board
PO Box 670772
Chugiak, Alaska 99567
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed two challenges faced by the
Anchorage School District regarding the timeline for the
qualifying exam
Mr. Todd Arndt, Curriculum Principal
Dimond High School
2909 W. 88th Street
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed problems schools are facing when
administering the benchmark and practice qualifying exam
Ms. Sherry Stevens
HC04, Box 9228
Palmer, Alaska99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to using the qualifying exam as a
requirement for a high school diploma
Ms. Carol G. Kane
Alaska Association of Secondary School Principals
PO Box 2889
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam
Mr. Rich Montgomery, Principal
Petersburg High School
Petersburg, AK 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Do not delay the qualifying exam but make
provisions for students with IEPs
Ms. Marjorie Paust
PO Box 962
Petersburg, AK 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Favors implementation of the qualifying exam
and alternative methods of proving mastery.
Ms. Judy Kearns-Steffen
1101 Halibut Point Road
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports several requirements for graduation
and not making graduation contingent upon passing the qualifying
exam
Ms. Catherine Parker
PO Box 1424
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam until
2006
Mr. Terry Bentley
Superintendent of Schools
Nenana, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam
Dr. Davis
Bering Straits School District
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam
Ms. Mary Miller
PO Box 598
Nome, Alaska 99762
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam
Ms. Betty Bengtson
PO Box 292
Glennallen, AK 99588
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam
Dr. Bill Pfeifer
2901 Baranof Ave.
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided several suggestions
Mr. Al Johnson
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided several suggestions
Mr. Steve Cathers
PO Box 3015
Valdez, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports more than one type of diploma and
that the cut scores be reviewed
Ms. Laurie Scandling
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the exam, providing
alternative diplomas and made other suggestions
Mr. Ryan DeLoach
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports allowing accommodations for
learning disabled students when taking the qualifying exam
Mr. Louis Barton
829 Haida Lane
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Believes the underlying problem is poor
teaching practices
Ms. Naomi Walsworth
767 Miners Court
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Questioned the material covered on the
qualifying exam
Mr. Bob Adkins
PO Box 455
Haines, Alaska 99827
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports administering the qualifying exam
on schedule
Ms. Louise Parish
PO Box 1182
Valdez, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on problems with Alaska's special
education program
Ms. Beverly Turley
NWABSD
PO Box 264
Kotzebue, Alaska 99752
POSITION STATEMENT: Believes the qualifying exam and its
timeline needs to be reviewed
Ms. Frieda Arnhart
Superintendent
North Slope Borough School District
PO Box 69
Barrow, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam
Mr. Mike Milligan
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on problems with the education
system
Mr. Bill Morisette
PO Box 2475
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam
Mr. Bill Webb
PO Box 102440
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports the current timeline for the
qualifying exam
Ms. Peggy Cole
Lower Yukon Education Assn.
PO Box 186
Emmonak, Alaska 99581
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam
Mr. Larry Johnson
4185 Birch Forest Drive
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed concerns with the cut scores on
the qualifying exam
Mr. Doug Wesson, President
Alaska Association of School Psychologists
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam
Ms. Elizabeth Bacom
PO Box 683
Petersburg, AK 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested adjusting the cut scores for the
Class of 2002 or requiring that class to pass one of three tests
Mr. G. Sanbourne, Superintendent
Unalaska City School District
Unalaska, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports the current timeline for the
qualifying exam
Mr. Jim Carden
Pribilof School District
PO Box 905
St. Paul, AK 99660
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the date of the qualifying
exam
Ms. Judy Doyon
No address provided
Kodiak, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern about the math exam
Mr. Jeff Ralston
Mekoryuk High School
Mekoryuk, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports the qualifying exam - if any change
must be made, he supports lowering the cut scores
Mr. Frank Platt
Unalakleet, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports the current timeline for the
qualifying exam
Mr. Carl Rose
Association of Alaska School Boards
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam until
2004
Ms. Sara Gantt
Service High PTSA
12700 Atherton Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to any delay of the qualifying exam
Mr. Ray Fenton
PO Box 142792
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam
Mr. Jack Milon
PO Box 749
Barrow, AK 99723
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam
Ms. Dalonna Cooper
836 Vide Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports a phase-in approach
Ms. Karen Dempster
4762 Old Airport Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports standards and the qualifying exam
but expressed concern about the legal issues
Mr. John Holst
Sitka School District
PO Box 1954
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam two or
four years.
Ms. Christie Willett
Address not furnished
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Favors standards but students must be taught
the standards first
Mr. Keith Lane
759 Preston Lane
Kodiak, AK 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on problems for students with
learning disabilities
Ms. Sherri Spangler
700 Barra Loop
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam
Ms. Sheri Wikan
Petersburg, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam
Mr. Michael K. Mitchell
6626 Foothill Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the specific portions of the
tests and on students with disabilities
Ms. Dianne L. Kiana
PERC
9710 Vanguard, #76
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes delaying the qualifying exam
Ms. Christine Smith
1506 3rd Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Strongly supports delaying the qualifying
exam
Ms. Mary Forner
PO Box 3924
Kodiak, AK 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam
Ms. Barbara Lefler
PERC
8130 Dagan Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Schools must be held accountable. Provide
students with appropriate curriculum to ensure success now.
Mr. Jeff Stephan, President
Kodiak Board of Education
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports several diplomas
Mr. Doug Lefler
PERC
8130 Dagan Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports holding school systems accountable
and suggested reviewing Idaho's statutes
Mr. Ishmael Hope
No address provided
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the qualifying exam
Mr. Darryl Hargraves
Association of Alaska School Boards
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the qualifying exam
Mr. Bob Briggs
Disability Law Center of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged legislators to explore alternative
ways of exploring competency
Mr. David Busey
801 Lincoln Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested broadening the qualifying exam to
measure other student attributes
Mr. Les Denzer
Lower Kuskokwim School District
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested requiring the Class of 2002 to
pass one of three exams and the Class of 2004 to pass two
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-2, SIDE A
Number 001
[NOTE: WRITTEN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD CONTAINS ORIGINAL
PUNCTUATION]
CO-CHAIR LYDA GREEN called the Senate Health, Education & Social
Services Committee and House Special Committee on Education meeting
to order at 10:07 a.m. Senator Ward was present, as well as
Representatives Porter, Green, Wilson, Stevens, Joule and Guess.
Other legislators present were Representatives Coghill, Morgan,
Chenault, Harris and Dyson. Senators Wilken, Davis and Leman were
participating via teleconference. [PLEASE NOTE - THIS DISCUSSION
LED TO THE INTRODUCTION OF SB 133.]
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that the teleconference equipment was
available until 2:00 and that he would rotate through the sites to
take testimony.
CO-CHAIR GREEN announced that the Senate HESS Committee would be
reviewing the exit exam issue over a period of a few weeks and that
hearings would be scheduled for different interest groups so that
another opportunity to testify will be available. She also asked
that people send prepared comments to the committee to be included
in committee packets.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that the House Special Committee on
Education will begin hearings on the Governor's bill to delay the
competency test on February 14. Today's hearing was scheduled to
take testimony on the general concept of the exam and standards.
This issue came about because the business community has expressed
frustration that many high school graduates need remedial education
when they are employed. The University of Alaska expressed the
same concern that many high school students needed remedial work
when enrolling. The University has limited resources and wanted to
charge public schools for the remedial work it has provided. He
pointed out that in Alaska, the business community pays state
taxes; they must have some confidence that they are getting the
services they are paying for. The Legislature is looking at
accountability and standards for education so that the young people
who are leaving school do not leave with the illusion that they are
prepared for the job market or college when they are not.
After considerable discussion, the Legislature, in 1997, came up
with a reform package, which instituted a competency test for
teachers and required the Alaska Department of Education and Early
Development (DOEED) to provide for a high school competency test.
That test was written by DOEED. Some expressed frustration that it
would take three years but DOEED's argument was that the test had
to be legally defensible, it had to be valid, and it had to be
unique to Alaska. For three years, DOEED contracted with a
national testing firm and then wanted at least one year to develop
cut scores (the minimum passing score). Groups of educators from
across Alaska set the cut scores. The state school board and DOEED
have already reduced the cut scores recommended by the panel of
teachers. The philosophy behind reducing the cut scores was that a
normally good student who was having a bad day would not fail.
DOEED was concerned that those would be the students who would sue.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said the crux of the problem now, depending on who
one talks to, is that the test is either too difficult or not
uniform in difficulty, and not valid. DOEED and the state board
can change the cut scores, as they already have. The math portion
seems to be the big problem. The Legislature will be facing a
request to extend the deadline for requiring students to pass the
exam for graduation. He asked those who testify to address the
following questions:
· What should a high school diploma mean? What will the average
citizen assume a student with a high school diploma is capable
of?
· Should Alaska impose standards?
· If the implementation of the standards are delayed, what
should be done in the intervening years that has not been done
during the last 12 years?
The committee began taking public testimony.
MS. DEBBIE OSSIANDER, the legislative chair of the Anchorage School
Board and the parent of a high school sophomore, made the following
comments. She applauds the move toward standards. We owe it to
our children to raise the bar in terms of what citizens can expect
from public education. Regarding the legal challenge, she is
concerned about the district's defensibility. Over the past three
years, the Anchorage School District has spent a fair amount of
time talking with school board members around the country on this
topic. She believes that districts need to be able to prove that
specific students have been exposed to the curriculum that prepares
him for this test and that they have received a mandated
remediation necessary to allow them to meet the challenge of the
exit exam. Many districts across the state have recently received
specific student information that gives districts an opportunity to
meet that challenge. The districts will also have to shift their
financial resources to make remediation available.
MS. OSSIANDER explained the second issue districts are facing is
that all teachers must be prepared to teach a standards-based
curriculum, which may be different from what they have done in
their classrooms for many years. Districts must provide the
opportunity for teachers to learn how to integrate that curriculum
into their classrooms.
Those are the two major challenges the Anchorage School District
will be working on in the near future, although other questions
will demand a lot of attention and energy from the district. She
asked legislators to work with the districts to address the
immediate challenges they face.
MR. TODD ARNDT, Curriculum Principal at Dimond High School in
Anchorage, said his discussion will revolve around a sidebar to
this issue: how to administer the exit exam. Dimond High School
has 2100 students. Administering the test during the curricular
day is very difficult. To administer this test in February, he
will have to collapse 31 classrooms, which will impact 846
students, and move them to a different area, making it difficult
for teachers to maintain the academic process. Dimond High School
has been directed to have certified staff members proctor the exam,
which creates another difficulty because he will need to find 31
teachers to teach in the classrooms while the test is in progress.
Not all students in the 10th and 11th grades reside in the same
classrooms. He will lose academic time across the curriculum
during the test. To have people proctor the test during conference
hours will upset the validity of administering the test.
MR. ARNDT suggested that one option is to administer the test
outside of the curriculum of the school. The test could be given
on a Saturday or the students who are not participating could be
given the three mornings off.
MS. SHERRY STEVEN, testifying from the Mat-Su LIO and representing
herself, submitted the following written testimony.
As a parent of five, two with special needs, and a prior
Bush teacher, I feel qualified to comment on the exit
exam. I think the test should be used as a tool for
identifying strengths and weaknesses. The exam should
serve as a guide for solving problems, not as a weapon of
destruction-used to destroy 2/3rds of our young peoples
lives.
Denying my daughter a diploma is denying her a government
job, as well as other careers, which she is capable of
succeeding in. One cannot standardize all students. Some
children are late bloomers, some are famous in our
history books (ex.-Einstein). My child's history of
education is a story of its own (hint-all special needs
are grouped together -physical, mental, emotional, etc.)
With all our significant strides and success for people
with disabilities-let us not go back to institutions for
all. This is a travesty of justice!
Bush schools fare even worse for many reasons:
1. Some districts hire outside teachers who are totally
ignorant of Bush Alaska and treat you as such! Like you
need to be saved from yourself. In other words-low
expectations.
2. Other districts label most students learning disabled
for state and federal funding. Again, why have high
expectations?
3. Then there is the obvious-aging buildings, limited
plumbing, unsafe drinking water, no hot lunch program,
little or no exposure to outside events, maybe one
computer, and the list goes on.
Demographics will show that most of the students passing
this exit exam (Even though in no way similar to the
practice test given to study from.) live in affluent or
ABC school districts. Private schools have the option of
testing, however these students will acquire a diploma.
This is not a surprise to some.
Students are tested on subjects-such as geometry-which is
not even required for graduation. Two years of math are
required. This is usually general math and pre-algebra.
It seems a shame that segments of the population (in
rural and urban neighborhoods) that are already
overwhelmed by alcohol and/or substance abuse, physical
abuse-including sexual, mental abuse, and a high suicide
rate are being abused by people in power. Some of these
areas have rampant communicable diseases, cancers due to
exposure of toxic wastes, radiation and polluted
waterways. Now they are told-NO diploma. This should
keep them in their place-a generation of dropouts.
A diploma is many things. It is also a show of upward
mobility. Every child should have the right to be
successful.
All the service agencies I contacted could not comment.
Reason-they receive state funding. They could not take a
stand for fear of retaliation, liability, etc. Is this
the nation we want? No thinking allowed-no opinion here!
One agency walked the thin line. "It doesn't really
affect us. We just deal with teenage _____, not in
education. Well, the exit exam does affect us all,
especially when we talk of budget cuts. (Budget cuts
translates into administration receiving raises,
eliminating the little man, and letting the middle man do
twice the work. Talk of smaller class size, etc. is just
talk. Why have all these experts when the dollar makes
the final decision?
The jails, shelters, and non-profits are probably all for
this exam. Job security! Is this what they mean when
they want the private sector to provide more? How sad
for our society that we have to expand and build more of
these institutions.
If the legislature had to take an entrance exam, would
all of you be where you are today? Look around-what do
you really want to accomplish? Have you really thought
this through? If so-Jim Crowe may live in the south, but
his cousins have definitely moved to Alaska.
Thank you for your time.
MS. CAROL KANE, Executive Director of the Alaska Association of
Secondary School Principals (AASSP) the following testimony for Mr.
Bob Thompson, Principal of the Wasilla Middle School.
I had the good fortune to receive a Fulbright Memorial
Fund award to travel to Japan this last fall. I had a
wonderful experience and learned a lot about the
education system in the Pacific Rim nations. Japan's
education system is highly regarded in many parts of the
world, and I was able to compare practices in the U.S. to
those in Japan. Not surprisingly, many things were the
same. Students went to classes similar to ours, they
studied a curriculum that was very closely aligned with
ours, they had a lot of music, art, and sports in their
schools, and their communities recognized the importance
of education for their children. I am now convinced that
kids are kids no matter where you go in the world. These
children were excited, sometimes rowdy, sometimes noisy,
and sometimes not doing what they were supposed to do.
But, for the most part they were good students and did
what was expected of them.
There were some obvious differences as well. Japan has
had a high-stakes testing system in place for many years.
Students take a test at the end of 8th grade. If they do
not pass, they do not go on to high schools that prepare
them for college. There are also very difficult entrance
exams for their universities. The Japanese have found
that these tests have created two problems in particular
that they would like to correct. One, is the tests have
put a lot of pressure on students as the test deadlines
approach. Problems of depression, fatigue, rebellion,
and stress are the result of the high-stakes of these
exams. Parents are very demanding of their children,
insisting they attend juku, or private schools that tutor
weekends, and during breaks in the school term. Students
in the 8th grade had dropped out of extra-curricular
activities to receive tutoring in public school, and then
most attended juku for up to 20 hours per week in
preparation for the high school exam.
The second problem they have found is that their
curriculum is being driven by these tests. Every teacher
teaches the same curriculum in the same way with the
objective of passing the test. When I asked teachers
what determined the content that was taught in the
classroom, they told me they had tests that students were
given at the end of each semester. They taught the
students what was on the tests. The result is a lot of
students that are uniform in their knowledge and skills,
without a lot of individualism, critical thinking skills,
and creativity. The Japanese are concerned about this as
they see their competitive edge diminish in the world.
So, the Japanese are reforming just as we are reforming
in the U.S. They are moving away from high-stakes
testing and conformity, while we are moving towards high-
stakes testing and state standards. It makes for an
interesting comparison.
Here is a list of some of the reforms being made in
Japan.
· A 30 percent reduction in curriculum in grades 1-8.
· A decreasing emphasis on high-stakes testing.
· Provide counselors in all schools.
· Add integrated study courses.
· Increasing elective courses.
· Relax university entrance requirements.
· Transfer more decision-making to local districts.
· Encourage innovative teaching practices.
I believe in high standards and appropriate testing. I
believe that educators and students should be held
accountable for learning. I believe that holding
students accountable to minimum standards can increase
motivation and raise the standard for learning,
especially for low performing students that are capable
of doing better. Yet, it is far down this path. The
following points are things to consider from the
comparison of education in Japan and the United States.
· Progress in Japan is being hampered by a top-down
approach to education.
· Self-expression and adaptability are important components
of a modern education system that strives to produce
individuals that are competitive on a global scale.
· Too much standardization and reliance on tests can lead
to too much conformity and a decrease in individual
expression and creativity.
· Testing can produce motivation and higher student
performance, but too much emphasis can lead to student
stress and its inherent problems.
As we adjust what we do in education for Alaskans, it
will be good to keep in mind the problems associated with
too much of one thing. The most successful students are
those that have a variety of experiences and are exposed
to a diverse curriculum by teachers with high
expectations. Alaskans are an independent people. That
independence and individualized style is an asset to the
competitiveness and future growth of our state. We must
beware of the pitfalls of an education system that can
lead to conformity.
MS. KANE made the following comments on behalf of the AASSP that
resulted from a collective review of its membership of 280 members,
including elementary, middle, and high school principals and
postsecondary staff and superintendents. The AASSP Board fully
supports the extension of the high school qualifying exam, based on
Governor Knowles' recommendation. The AASSP Board believes careful
attention needs to be paid to the impact of its proposal in that it
does not want to negate the value of high standards and
accountability. The AASSP Board also wants to reinforce that those
students who have already passed the exam should be acknowledged
for doing so. Finally, the AASSP Board wants to make sure there is
fairness for all students, particularly for those with special
needs. The AASSP has given a lot of thought to the actual process
of the testing and recommends looking at multiple diplomas, doing
the implementation in phases, and AASSP members want to be full
participating partners in this whole process. She asked
legislators to call on them so that they can do whatever possible
to advance high standards and expectations of all students in
Alaska.
MR. RICH MONTGOMERY gave the following testimony from Petersburg.
My name is Richard Montgomery, I am the principal of
Petersburg High School. I would like to thank the
legislatures and particularly Rep. Bundy for having the
courage in taking a stand when it comes to the
requirement of students meeting reading, writing and
mathematics standards prior to leaving our public
schools.
Since the passing of this legislation I have seen quality
changes in our school system as we proactively prepared
in Petersburg for the challenge of the Alaska State
Qualifying Exam. Our math requirements have jumped from
a two credit requirement to a 5 credit requirement. Our
freshmen are required to take math for a 90 minute block,
five days a week. We have taken the time to identify
students other than students on IEP's with reading
difficulties. We then staffed three reading programs at
the high school. We have made tutoring more available to
students before school. We have developed diagnostic and
prescriptive programs for students who have not passed
the math portion of the exit exam. Many of our tutors, I
might add, are our students currently enrolled in math
analysis and calculus programs. Kids teaching kids is a
powerful program! Writing has always been one of our
highest priorities, but since the exam all teachers are
more engaged, and writing across the curriculum has
become the norm. This notion that reading and writing is
the language arts teacher's responsibility has become a
thing of the past. Students that used to seek out the
easiest schedule are now realizing that it might not be
enough to get them out the front door. Students that
accepted a "D" know now that all that is is ink. I
believe discipline in our classrooms has improved as
students are taking their studies a bit more serious. A
few who would be classroom clowns have taken their
studies a bit more serious. A few who would be classroom
clowns have taken off their hats and decided to pick up
their pencils. Make no doubt about it, at least in
Petersburg this legislation has made students, teachers,
administrators and parents sit up in their chairs and
take notice. I believe to retreat from our course may
prove costly to many of these students that have not only
decided school is important but are feeling successful
and are enjoying that feeling.
I do believe there needs to be serious consideration and
accommodations for those students currently under an
Individual Education Plan who unfortunately have
disabilities that may unfairly keep them from graduation
if they can not meet these standards.
We are concerned about losing credibility with our
public. I am more concerned about the credibility we
have when we look into the eyes of our students that took
these tests seriously, spent countless hours sweating
bullets taking the exam, and passed them only to tell
them --We were just kidding. Wow!
We must be careful about using the excuse that standards
are new and that in a few more years we should expect
different results on reading and writing. I have worked
in all corners of this State. I have never worked in a
district where reading and writing weren't their highest
priority. Each district spent a large portion of their
budgets improving in these areas and teachers worked hard
in coming up with every technique that they could find to
make it understandable for their students. What was
missing was an accountability factor, placed not just on
the school system but on the parents and students as
well.
Considering the political pressures out there it is
probably inevitable that this piece of legislation will
either be reversed or modified. I would like you to at
least consider staying on course with the reading portion
of this exam for the year 2001. It appears to be the
easiest of the three to complete. In the year 2002,
implement the writing, and 2003 the math. The math is
the most difficult and requires for the most part
geometry for success. Many districts will need time to
restructure, as we did, their requirements and courses
for success in the math exam.
At the very least, every diploma in the State of Alaska
should give credit to the passage of one or more of the
exams, perhaps with an official seal for each of the
exams passed. If we are going to ask students to take an
exam there should be something in it for them. I believe
the students being asked to take a three day exam when
they are not stakeholders is counterproductive. The
expense of assessing the exam, not to mention the loss of
six days a year of quality instruction for data that may
prove to be no more than shelf ballast is a discouraging
thought.
Thank you for your time.
MS. MARJORIE PAUST gave the following testimony from Petersburg.
Good morning, my name is Marjorie Paust and I am the
counselor at Petersburg High School.
I have two comments I would like to make this morning.
First, I believe that all students can learn but not at
the same time or in the same way. That one third of our
sophomores did pass the math section of the test last
spring should not be a signal for despair if the test
is intended as an exit exam. Instead we should
celebrate that a third passed it early and use the next
two years to fill in the skills that they are missing
and that's what we're trying to do in Petersburg.
Secondly, I also believe that students should be given
many ways to demonstrate what they know and can do.
Certainly the exit exam is one way to show mastery of
the standards. But I would like to suggest that an
alternative path be made available to students to
demonstrate mastery of the state standards. One way
would be a portfolio to document what students
understand and how they can apply the skills and
knowledge that they have gained their school career.
The portfolio would be presented to and verified by a
representative local group (perhaps consisting of
teachers, parents, business people, community folks and
school board members). The portfolio choice would not
be a quick or simple alternative but would provide
another pathway to graduation.
I am in favor of continuing the current exit exams with
the option for students to demonstrate mastery of the
standards by other means as the exit exam. Thank you.
MS. JUDY KEARNS-STEFFEN made the following comments from Sitka.
As a special education teacher, she teaches learning disabled
students. She believes the competency test should be given to all
sophomores and that those sections not passed should be required to
be retaken in the student's junior or senior year. Those students
needing accommodations according to special education guidelines
should be provided with such. However, the criteria for high
school graduation should include several requirements. Students
should be required to have passing grades in all subjects, an
academic emphasis in one area, a senior project portfolio and the
competency test. The two areas must be met with passing grades and
although the competency test would be taken into consideration,
non-passage would not keep a student from graduation. A special
notice could be placed on the transcript for those who pass the
competency test.
MS. CATHERINE PARKER, a Sitka parent of a sophomore who will be
expected to pass the exit exam to obtain a diploma, read the
following letter that she sent to legislators on January 14, 2001.
I am addressing this letter to all state legislators as
this is an issue that concerns me as a parent and a
citizen of the State of Alaska. I am asking the
legislators to delay requiring the passage of the high
school exit exam for four years. It will take at least
that amount of time to allow school districts to fully
prepare students for the test. I believe accountability
must take place in our schools but making one single test
the sole determiner of whether a student graduates with a
diploma is wrong. As a former educator, finding a good
test, one that fully measures a student's capabilities
and potential is very hard. Assessments should be made
as the student progresses, quarter by quarter, semester
by semester, and year by year, by the instructor who is
using guidelines set up by the school district. Each
child learns differently, performs differently, and must
be assessed as the individual that they are. Their
future should not be determined in one fell swoop by a
standardized test that does not take into account whether
the student may be dyslexic, blind, totally right-brained
to only mention a few individual traits that one may be
"blessed" with, but that standardized tests will not take
into account. I know that requiring high school
qualifying exams as a determinant as to whether a student
gets a diploma has become a national trend but I am
reading that it is starting to backfire. For legal
reasons and public pressure, many states are backing
down. I do not believe that a single test is the answer
for what could be such a critical consequence. I was
recently sent an editorial from the newspaper, "USA
Today," by Steven Gorie (ph), President of the
Massachusetts Teachers Association and [indisc.] quote,
Teachers do not grade students on the basis of
a single test. Colleges do not admit students
on the basis of a single test and state
government should not determine which students
may graduate from high school on the basis of
a single test. The best way to determine
whether high standards are being met is
through multiple, fair and valid measures.
Parents rightly would be upset if Johnny came
home with an F for the year in math, despite
doing well in classes, on homework, and other
exams simply because he failed one test of
questionable validity. They should be even
more outraged if Johnny is denied a chance to
go to college or seek a job based on an
equally narrow performance measure.
I am a parent of a sophomore who will be expected to pass
this test. She was in special education classes through
fifth grade when she tested out of the program and
legally could not get the extra help they offered. That
does not mean that she does not need it. According to
CAT and other standardized tests, she is a couple of
years behind her peers academically. For years, the
school systems have stressed self esteem - do not hold
your child back. Well great, the high school qualifying
exam is now in place, self esteem is out the window, and
our children are forced to take summer school, seek
tutors and repeat grades. Please move back the date for
taking this exam at least four years or eliminate it
altogether. My daughter would like to be an art
instructor or an elementary educator but will be denied
this goal if she is required to take this test and fails
it. I believe that more time must be allowed to prepare
for this test. Thank you.
MR. TERRY BENTLEY, Superintendent of Schools, Nenana, made the
following remarks. The benchmarks are a wonderful thing to have
and we should strive for excellence, but he is concerned that when
a program is started in the middle of getting it formatted, one
requires the end to be accomplished before the formatting is done.
It's like building a house and putting the roof on before the
walls. We are expecting students to reach standards who have not
been through the system long enough.
TAPE 01-3, SIDE A
DR. DAVIS, Bering Straits School District, read the following
testimony into the record.
As L.B. Kann (ph) wrote, in this month's "Cabin" (ph),
Do not let anyone tell you that standardized tests
are not an accurate measure. They are and we can
remarkably predict the size of houses by the scores
achieved. Why is it adults design, administer and
interpret a new test that a majority of children
fail and never ask themselves if the test might not
be flawed? Alaska is not alone, as other states
have found this to be the case as well.
I speak today on our position of the misuse of these
assessment instruments. The high school equivalency exam
has the potential of providing our community with rich,
important information about the achievement of the
children and their progress in high school. Instead, we
are on the verge of allowing this one tool to
dramatically alter the Class of 2002 and the classes that
follow. The opportunity to realize the individual
components of this assessment will be lost if changes are
not made. I have spoken for the suspension of this date.
In one year and a few months we will find a most
significant number of students not graduate from high
school since the 1940s and 1950s and not because they are
any less capable. The establishment of the high stakes
exam came as a desire for accountability and improvement
of Alaska education. This is an honorable goal. A
movement not unlike it has swept other states. The
desire for accountability has also been based on the
belief that Alaska schools have done a poor job of
educating children while consuming, some say, a
significant and unreasonable amount of the state budget.
As we have witnessed, the failure of students to pass all
three sections of the high school exam has been
widespread and not isolated to any one region. I want to
remind those critics of Alaska public education that at
no time in the history of the state has education been
stronger, educated more children, and been more
effective. No other model for delivering education has
been more successful than the current model. Our
children are achieving at a higher rate, attending school
longer and continuing their education further than in any
other decade. The issue confronting education is the
same that confronts the entire community. Schools should
not be asked to solve all societal issues. Children do
come to school without being prepared. Some are
mistreated. Some get very little sleep and some live in
abject poverty. Some need medical care and, yes, some
need better trained teachers and more effective
administrators. Simply placing blame on schools for poor
achievement of children will never solve societal
problems. It will simply provide some people with an
excuse not to engage in the work to help our young people
grow and develop. America has created a two-tier
educational system. This system has worked well for some
and not for others. Every decade since the news of the
Soviet Union launching Sputnik, people have looked toward
education as the reason for our country not being
successful.
MS. MARY MILLER gave the following testimony.
I am Mary Miller from Nome. My daughter is a freshman in
high school and I am speaking in favor of delaying the
qualifying exam until, at least, 2006 thus allowing
students time to prepare for the standards. I am
particularly concerned for students, who work hard but
are not high achievers or who, historically, do not test
well. They have a right to equal opportunity to succeed
on this exam. Based on the benchmark results for
sophomores from the Nome School District, our students
are not prepared. For the high school students, it is
unrealistic to expect them to catch up to the level that
they are supposed to be at and then expect them to pass
the exam. At this time, we have a serious problem. We can
be successful but more time is needed to integrate these
uniform standards into our public schools. Sufficient
time must be provided for appropriate intervention and
support for students who need the extra help. By changing
the effective date of this bill from 2002 to 2006 will
demonstrate a more fair and responsible implementation of
the exit exam law. I think we need to keep in mind what
is fair to the students and what is our responsibility.
All students are not high achievers and we see many
students who work diligently and they should be entitled
to earn the same diploma that the valedictorian and
salutatorian of the class also earn. Thank you for this
opportunity.
BETTY BINGSTON from Glennallen said that she wanted to thank the
legislators for providing Alaskans the opportunity to give input
into this educational issue.
I am the parent of a high school junior who has a B
average, has scored 215 on the military ABSCAM exam,
which qualifies him for any job in the military, and an
ROTC scholarship. He has scored 970 on the PSAT exam and
1190 on the diagnostic test administered on the cd-rom
study program that he has been using. While I agree that
as educators we need to establish goals and objectives
for our students, and then hold them and their teachers,
principals and superintendents responsible for meeting
those standards, on the subject of extending the deadline
for enforcing those standards I agree with Governor
Knowles. When he states that it is unfair to the current
junior class to expect them to meet standards, which have
only been in place for two years. My opinion is based on
two issues. First, in our school district, the number of
teachers is limited due to the size of the community.
Consequently, if a teacher's instructional style and the
students learning style do not match the student is the
loser. That has been my son's experience here in
Glennallen in one subject area. In his case, I chose to
buy curriculum and teach the subject at home. However,
not all parents have the skill or the inclination to do
that. I have heard nothing in the plan that requires
students to qualify to also require teachers to teach to
a variety of learning styles. Even if that means forcing
teachers who do not work to help students to lost their
job. Second, my concern is a basic understanding of test
taking. Statistically, the scores of students given the
same test on ten different occasions will not differ. In
my son's case, this has also been validated. While he
easily passed one subject, after taking the other two
tests twice his scores are within less than ten points of
passing are in the same range both times. The only
solution left to parents and teachers is to teach to the
test. What dismays me is that this is the stated end test
of the Alaska Department of Education and Early
Development. In a booklet provided to our school
counselor, in a section titled "Frequently Asked
Questions", the answer to the question of what happens to
a student doesn't pass was to establish an alternative
program. It would be better to delay enforcing this
requirement rather than become a state that uses
questions on its tests to determine whether Alaskan
educators have done their job of teaching and students
have learned. This delay will allow school districts to
reevaluate the priorities of the educational program,
make adjustments and give the best exams to evaluate the
progress of the students. Based on my son's demonstration
of competency by other tools, how can the legislature
cheat him or others out of their diplomas? Thank you very
much.
DR. WILLIAM PFEIFER testified via teleconference and submitted the
following written testimony.
My name is Dr William Pfeifer, I am a school board member
in Ketchikan but my comments here are my own. I have 5
children in the public schools (ages 12,14,16,17,18). My
oldest daughter, Angela, just started college at Oregon
State University. My interest in education and raising
standards and accountability started at the end of her
year in Kindergarten. This is when the teacher and
principal both agreed with my assertion that she had not
learned one thing that year. But, according to them, that
was OK.
I have worked on educational issues during the leadership
of Alaska Commissioner Covey, Holloway, Cross and now
again Holloway. I remember the start of academic
standards with President George H. Bush, the move toward
affective standards with some move back to academics with
Clinton, and now we are to George W. Bush.
I served on the committee involved in creating and
overseeing Ketchikan's minimum graduation competency that
is still in place, and one of the few in Alaska. This has
given us a head start on the State competency. We were
scheduled to raise our competency level years ago but
decided to wait for the State competency. We expected the
State would bring us up to the next level of proficiency
involving more advanced math and a more difficult,
proficient, reading and writing level. Let me assure you
there was a great public uproar when we set our
competency. There were those who wanted to lower the
standard and even those who asserted that students did
not need to know that .75 is the same as ¾.
The reason I give you this history is to point out that
the goal of raising standards and competencies did not
start yesterday or a couple years ago. I have written to
both Commissioners Holloway and Cross along with the
community at large about avoiding a credibility trap. I
have pointed out and emphasized that we should not be
waiting for the results of the first HSQE to start
addressing student weaknesses more aggressively. We have
had the standards. We have had ITBS and CAT test results
for years that showed 25% of our students scoring below
the 25 percentile in reading. In fact there have
consistently been districts in this State that have had
th
100% of there students scoring below the 25 percentile.
It is common sense that if a credible test was created it
would parallel these results. We knew we would have some
districts unable to issue a diploma to any of their
students.
The credibility trap: 1) States do not stand up to the
political heat when they set a true standard at a level
at which students truly need to be successful. They
realize that many will not meet the standard so they
lower the standard, or delay it, losing credibility. 2)
States set low standards initially so that enough of
these students will be able to pass the test.
Unfortunately, with the State's stamp of "proficient" the
public will see the true result (lowered standards) in
the work place and the State's credibility is lost.
Alaska's commissioners of education over the years have
tried to keep this in mind and overall are heading down
the right road, but they have become misguided by the
fear of lawsuits. I attended the Alaska 2000 Education
Summit both as a businessman and as a member of the
Ketchikan School Board. The test data from the Alaska
Benchmark Examinations in grades three, six, and eight,
along with the results of the Alaska High School
Graduation Qualifying Examination administered to
sophomores were received and evaluated.
The goal of the summit was to send school district teams
back to their districts with a specific plan, based on
local test data, that would make sure students are on
track to graduate with the skills they need for future
success. I applaud the activities and efforts of the
Governor and DEED that occurred during this event. The
evaluation process was great but we were doing tasks a
computer could have spit out immediately. The evaluation
was also done on incomplete and misguided assessment
data. It also had not been correlated with data from
other assessments. Let me explain.
Incomplete data: We had no detailed item analysis. The
broad categories of weaknesses were no more focused than
some of the broad statements in our content standards.
This gives districts little substance to focus specific
improvement on.
Misguided data: This relates to the cut score level and
setting it at the bottom of the range of statistical
error. It is misguided because the DEED has forgot the
main premise for the standards and establishing a HSQE.
1) The original purpose was a commitment to the public
and businesses to guarantee that students would graduate
with a set of skills, and content knowledge. They would
be proficient and fluent in their skills and have a
command of certain knowledge that would allow them to
succeed in the real world.
2) The purpose was never to guarantee a student receive a
diploma for seat time.
3) The following reflects the change in percent of
students passing given the community committee's original
cut score and that reflecting the bottom of the range of
statistical error recommended by DEED to the State Board.
Community Committee DEED
READING 48% pass 75% pass
WRITING 16% pass 48% pass
MATH 15% pass 33% pass
4) I have requested the actual score that represents the
top and bottom of the statistical error range for the
HSQE, and Benchmarks, but have been told by Richard
Smiley that this information is unavailable. I would ask
for your help in acquiring this information from the
testing company. I don't know if the testing company
keeps this information to insulate the DEED from a FOIA
request, but consider this a FOIA request.
5) If this was a licensing board set up to guarantee that
a neurosurgeon had the skills and content knowledge to
function in the real world doing brain surgery, would we
set the cut score at the low end of the statistical error
range? NO, in fact we would set it at the high end. If we
are serious about the HSQE we would do the same, or
minimally keep it at the midrange (the committee cut
score).
6) The DEED's legal concern did not appropriately take
into consideration that the student will have multiple
times to take the exam before they complete high school.
They also have up to 3 years after completing high school
to pass the exam. If it was one test given one time then
you might need to consider the statistical error. That,
however, is not the case.
Correlated data: The analysis at Alaska's Summit 2000
only used one set of data. All districts have other
assessment data that should be correlated. Some include
the ITBS, CAT and Gates tests that are norm-referenced
assessments. Others include criterion-referenced tests
based on their curriculum and the corresponding material.
th
The State has, unfortunately, eliminated the 11 grade
th
CAT 5 test. The following may explain why. The last 11
grade CAT 5 test data available and reported was for
97/98. This data shows 24.7% of the students statewide
th
scoring below the 25 percentile in reading. This has
been the trend seen on previous State report cards for
years. At the same time we have DEED saying that 75% of
sophomores are proficient readers. While you cannot
compare the two tests directly, it raises a serious
question regarding the standard level when those
th
certified by DEED as proficient are scoring at the 25
percentile on national tests, let alone international
tests.
Let me give you an example:
Let's say we came up with a new weight standard for gold
called "deeds". Then we say we have discovered a new
claim that will provide 2000 deeds of gold to every
Alaskan resident. Instead of the permanent fund check
every resident will now receive 2000 deeds of Gold per
year. Are 2000 deeds a good deal? We don't know. We don't
know what it is comparable to. How does it correlate to a
pound, the old standard? Is the measure accurate, valid,
and reliable.
The same questions lie with our competency. 75% of our
students proficient in reading based on a new standard
without comparing to the old standards is meaningless
until you see that individual in action. This is why
there should be no delay in the competency. The people of
this State need to see the type of student that the State
has certified as "proficient". If that student is not
proficient, if they cannot spell, do math, make change,
read and understand a policy manual or write a business
letter, the DEED and its certification of proficient will
loose all credibility. To delay 4 years without a full
understanding of proficient, especially given the
statistical error adjustment, will allow potentially low
standards to go undetected by the public.
There are some educators that are waiting for you to
delay so they can continue doing what they have always
done for the next few years before they retire. There are
those who plan to wait this out and believe it, too, will
pass like all education fads and reforms in the past.
We need Success not Process and Delay
*Request the detailed and specific plans, prior to
granting any delay.
*Research, question, and consider raising the cut score
in reading before any consideration of delay.
*Request the scores that represent the statistical error
range.
*The low cut score in reading undermines the efforts of
local districts that have higher expectations and
understand the demands of the real world. A teacher of
reading, that served on the cut score committee was at
the 2000 summit and communicated this sentiment to me. He
was very upset with the lowered cut score. He has been
working diligently with students and their parents to
address their reading deficit so they could be successful
going into high school. Unfortunately, his efforts were
undermined when the State said they are "proficient"
readers. Is the proficient level that was set by DEED
what you would want, and be satisfied with, for your own
child?
*Consider establishing an honors diploma to motivate our
top students.
*Consider bonus funding for districts that exceed the
state standards and are funding locally to the cap.
*Consider special legislative appropriation to districts
who present detailed plans using proven programs with
replicable research. It will take funds to train teachers
who the universities have been negligent in properly
teaching.
*Funding must be tied to accountability and not just
absorbed by the system.
*We must acknowledge the value and importance of a
certificate of completion. The message needs to be sent
that a certificate of completion is important and it
tells a lot to an employer. It is far better than
dropping out. All certificates of completion should be of
high quality like a diploma and have the competency
scores of those areas passed included on them. A path for
those students to gain skills to pass the remaining
competencies beyond high school should be made clear.
*To delay the competency means you are willing, again, to
let students out in the real world unprepared. It will
delay a system of support to help those students who need
to continue to meet their remaining competencies after
high school.
MR. Al JOHNSON testified from Ketchikan and submitted the following
written testimony.
Good Morning,
I ask that my full submission be inserted in the record
and note that I am willing to respond to inquiry.
Hello, my name is Al Johnson. I am a life long resident
of Ketchikan, I, my wife, children, my Grandchildren have
and are in our public school system. I have been
actively involved with our local public education efforts
for 13 years. That time included the implementation of
our "Ready For Work" graduating competencies. This
activity has assured our graduating seniors for the past
several years, that a minimum standard had to be met to
obtain a graduating diploma. While it is a minimum
standard, it is a "High Stakes" test.
Ketchikan is on the leading edge of participating in the
educational philosophy President Geo. W. Bush has
presented to Congress. We are actively addressing the
48% or students that are "Struggling" or "Non Reading".
This situation of allowing 500 elementary students to be
shuffled through the system on an annual basis must be
addressed and eliminated. If you can't read you will
fail and fail they do.
Education in Alaska is justifiably under review. The
results of the exit examination recently given, reflects
the urgency of such review. The request for an extension
of the implication date for the exam gives cause for
alarm.
The Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
exit test appears to be fair. The elementary grade
benchmarks are assured to be in alignment. Educators
from every grade level involved from across the state,
gathered to make that assurance and reviewed the test
format, determined singularly and in consensus, what a
child should be able to demonstrate knowing and establish
a minimum score to assure graduation. (The cut score
established by teachers and the adjusted McGraw Hill test
scores are listed next.)
Teachers' Committee Scores McGraw-Hill Adjustment
Reading: 48% students passed 75% students passed
Writing: 16% students passed 48% students passed
Math: 15% students passed 33% students passed
Is DEED alleging that the test demonstrated education
prior to 1997 was so remote and different in content that
only 48% four students passed a simple level of reading?
Only 16% passed the writing requirement established by a
writing consortium process? Only 15% passed the math
proficiency test that contains adding, subtracting,
multiplication, division, algebra, geometry and problem
solving segments? Is this enough to require a four year
extension? If so, what is to prevent the same situation
with "New" sophomores four years from now?
What on earth has been going on in education that allowed
the DEED to become complacent?
My personal view, is the department is staffed by those
that have come through a complacent system. Many of the
staff are professionals from districts in Alaska that are
today reflecting low achievement levels. This confirms
that while they'd were employed by those districts, the
academic mediocrity level was acceptable. Until the
advent of the results of the exit examination was
publicized, the complacency continued. I have similar
concerns with the make up and membership of the Alaska
Association of School Boards (AASB) and the Alaska School
Administrators Assn. (ASAA). Many are past employees or
revolving employees and administrators of these failing
district. None of the above to my knowledge, have ever
volunteered that the current status of our educational
system is deplorable. The legislature stepped up and
addressed the unacceptable results.
The initial test resulted in less than stunning results
across the state. Fears of law suits against districts
by parents were recognized. DEED hastily obtained
adjustment numbers from McGraw-Hill, the test maker, they
adjusted the scores to a more palatable level. This is a
disservice to the public and legislature. An obvious
attempt to cover up flaws of current educational efforts.
I offer these suggestions for consideration. While they
all do not address specifically the exit exam, they
should be an integral part of any review process.
Revisit the cut scores established by our professional
teachers. Those were "Minimum Scores". This will
establish legitimacy to the scoring process. Honesty is
demanded.
Second: Oversight the DEED for accountability by
establishing specific legislative goals for
accomplishment. While this suggestion addresses the
elementary grades, it has affect on future students to
assure their successful preparation, "That all able
children exiting the third grade will be proficient in
reading at or above grade level and will remain
proficient". Establish a date certain for
accomplishment. The same for mathematics and writing.
Third: Establish funding outside of the formula that
allows districts to submit grant applications for both
benchmarks and the exit exam which reflect methodology to
be used to accomplish specific skill level goals. That
any model used be of replicable research, not
philosophical in nature, and that anecdotal research be
discounted. Grants should be funded in segments based on
the achievements projected by the submitting district.
Mandate all results with an annual review. Grants to be
discontinued where projected goals are not achieved.,
(Note: it is not intended that grants provide funds for
new tenured employees, only as approved, to supplement
grant employees as required in grant time lines)
In some format, implementation of these suggestions
immediately to establish accountability. Only then
should consideration of extending the exit exam
implementation till 2004 be decided.
Summary: The DEED staff are inbreed from long standing
mediocrity. A legislative wake up call has been issued.
Mandate the use of the teacher established cut scores,
not the ginned up McGraw Hill numbers. The availability
of grant funding tied to annual goal results as they
relate to both the elementary benchmarks and high school
exit exam deficiencies. Oversighting by the legislature
HESS committee for the near future, will assure the
public that all the players are on the same page.
Consideration of extending the implication date for the
exit exam based on confirmation by DEED agreement to
terms.
Thank you for the opportunity to give testimony.
STEVE CATHERS from Valdez testified next.
I am Superintendent of Valdez City School District and
also president-elect of the Alaska Association of School
Administrators. I am speaking on my own behalf and my
comments are not representative of the Valdez school
district necessarily. I'm also the parent of five school
age children. Thanks for hearing my testimony.
I support standards and the qualifying exam. I wish
they'd answer the question you posed about what a diploma
means. In answering that question, I want to suggest a
solution, which is appropriate for all students and that
maintains standards. It is also a model that is tested
successfully and acclaimed nationally. Diplomas used to
mean that some students are prepared to enter careers as
manual laborers directly. It also meant that some
students were prepared to enter college. At one time, it
also meant that some students were ready to enter manual
labor careers, with no training. Standards must be kept
high, I agree with that, but more than that, standards
must be targeted. Diplomas never meant that all students
were ready for college. Making all students ready for
college should not be our goal.
The U.S. Department of Labor says that only 20 percent of
our graduates will work in jobs requiring a college
degree. In the next ten years, most of the remaining 80
percent of our students will work in skilled labor
careers requiring technical training. Students are
different and have different needs. I believe it is time
to consider different kinds of diplomas instead of denial
of a generic diploma.
An academic diploma could represent readiness for college
and a technical diploma could represent readiness to
succeed in a skilled labor force. Standards for each
should be equally challenging but different. They would
also address vast differences in student aptitudes and
strengths. I believe beginning to look at this type of
model provides us a solution that will address the
uniqueness of all students. Last, I would like to make a
quick comment on test scores. Test scores should never be
fixed in stone. They are subjective and were established
by a particular group of people on a particular date.
Likewise, the standards upon which the test was based
were established by a unique group of individuals. I was
involved with the Unalaska City School District Board of
Education in passing a resolution opposing the standards
for the math exam before the exam was developed. Some of
those standards were not appropriate; they do not
represent minimal requirements for graduates. They far
exceed that. I believe the math standards and cut scores
should be reviewed. Thank you.
LAURIE SCANDLING from Juneau testified next.
I am a product of Alaska's public school system from
kindergarten through graduate school. I also have two
children at Juneau Douglas High School who are sophomores
and I suspect both will easily pass their first attempt
at the exam, which occurs at the end of next month. I
currently teach in a special program at Juneau Douglas
High School for students who are at risk of not
graduating because of a variety of special needs. While I
support standards, and we all need direction, standards
provide that direction and a threshold. I support some
way of testing. Are they competent? I do see myself here
to represent those students that you may never hear from
and to share some of their concerns.
First I have a couple of questions for you. I want you
the think about this. Are you the kind of person for whom
balancing your checkbook is the pinnacle of your math
wizardry? Are you someone who remembers everything and
easily absorbs what you see and hear on television and
you love having a high level debate with somebody and
exchanging ideas but reading complicated materials may be
confusing or you may get lost? Those are the kind of kids
who in 16 months will not be getting a diploma. I work
with those kids, they are very real people and I deal
with them every day and hear that, for them, a diploma is
precious and is a goal. Perhaps, in many places, they are
the first person to achieve a diploma.
Within the last eight weeks, two of the juniors I work
with have dropped out to the distress of their family.
Both students expressed to me that they are afraid that
they will not pass all three parts of the exam by next
spring, in their senior year, and they did not see the
point in staying in school. They feel they now need to
move on and get a job. For 25 years prior to becoming a
teacher, I worked in the public and private sector and
have also taught college. I think I have a very strong
understanding of what students ought to be able to do in
the larger world once they graduate. I certainly think
it's fair to ask students to demonstrate those skills but
I want to encourage every Alaskan, especially employers,
to look at the exam, which is available on the Internet,
and to ask yourself, is this important for kids to know?
I have taken the exam, and I have some questions about
that. I'm not sure that every single part of it is
exactly what employers really do want kids to know. I
think delaying the exam is necessary to assess whether
the test is measuring what we want to measure and to make
sure that all kids get all of the help that they need. I
think that there are some fundamental issues that must be
addressed, regardless of whenever this test is finally
implemented.
I want to touch on three topics briefly, brain research,
remediation and endorsement diplomas. In listening to the
testimony, it's obvious to me that it's not an original
idea on my part. We know from brain research that young
kids who experience chronic stress either from poverty,
chaos in the home, abuse or neglect, actually suffer a
physiological withering of transmitters in the brain and
they never fully catch up with their better cared for
peers. I've certainly seen this. We also know that some
children are born with, and have permanent, learning
disabilities that mean that they may never be able to
spell the correct direction or in the right way or to
punctuate correctly or to order numbers in the right way.
For them, going to school is an experience like having a
Macintosh disk inserted in their IBM brain. It is very
challenging. I don't think that the exit exam recognizes
this research fully or the differences children are born
with and will never fully overcome. I wonder if the
current exam, as currently administered, could withstand
a legal challenge from the disabilities community. I
think accommodations for kids must be considered.
Second, there is a serious need for remediation funding.
In the typical urban high school, a high school teacher
has 25 to 35 students, all learning at different speeds.
It's natural; we are all different yet a certain amount
of material must be covered in a finite amount of time.
For a whole lot of reasons, most or which are outside the
control of the teacher, some kids just, inevitably, will
learn as quickly as others. They want to make it, their
teachers want to help them make it, but our districts are
squeezed so tightly now for funding. Meeting standards
will take different kids different amounts of time and
time is money. We know this. We want kids to make it;
please help us help the kids who need it most. We would
like to have an expanded summer school. We would like to
have expanded tutoring, after school, in our library. We
cannot afford it. Many of us are volunteering to do that
because we believe so strongly in it.
Finally, I am concerned about the punitive nature of the
exam. To say that a young person, who has an excellent
attendance record over four years, who has achieved at
least average grades, who has passed two of the three
parts of the exam but may, repeatedly, come within a few
points of passing a third part, to tell them they cannot
have a high school diploma seems unjust to me. You can be
assured there will be hundreds of hardworking students
who will be in that situation 16 months from now. I think
to hand them a certificate of attendance suggests that
they did nothing in high school but show up. I don't
think that's fair. I would suggest that an endorsement
diploma be permitted that reflects which portions of the
exam a student passed and thus you might win a partially
or fully endorsed diploma and the employer could ask what
your endorsements were in. If we're serious about having
kids demonstrate certain proficiencies then we have to be
serious about providing all the help they need, be fair
and accommodating scientific research on learning
differences and be just in permitting young Alaskans to
earn a diploma, which does reflect their proficiencies.
Thank you.
MR. RYAN DELOACH gave the following testimony to the committee.
Hello. My name is Ryan DeLoach. I am a sophomore at
Juneau Douglas High School and I have struggled with a
learning disability sense second grad.
An Individual Education Plan, IEP for short, is made to
assist a student by allowing them learning aides such as
calculators, spell checkers, etc. These tools allow me
to catch up in areas that are difficult due to my
disability and have allowed me to succeed in school.
An IEP is built for students to be successful, depending
on their individual needs. When these needs are not met,
students with the IEP's are at a severe disadvantage.
Accommodations are helpful with reading a lengthy
document, writing reports, and doing math. My IEP allows
me these tools when needed, including while I am taking a
test, but they are not on the exit exam.
My IEP is a legal document that has been set up by a team
of teachers, any my parents. It is designed to help me
deal with my learning disability, and to succeed in
school. It seems very unfair to teach a student to learn
using the accommodations in his IEP, and then take them
away for the exit exam.
I think it is important to allow school districts and
students time to prepare to succeed with this new testing
system, before it is used to prevent someone from getting
their high school diploma. I am in favor of delaying the
exit exam so that students are prepared when they take
it.
A high school diploma is important to me. I plan to
graduate and go to college for a business degree. I feel
I will be successful as a business person, but I am
concerned that this exit exam may prevent me from
reaching my goals.
I thank you for listening to my concerns. I am confident
that you will make the right decision about the exit
exam, and allow hardworking students such as myself to
reach their goals, and become productive citizens.
Number 1610
MR. LOUIS BARTON, a 31 year resident of Alaska and parent of two
freshmen at Lathrop High School made the following comments.
Some have speculated that improper test standards or
scoring techniques may be the problem with the low scores
seen thus far. It's difficult to comment specifically to
that not having seen the testing material. It may or
may not be part of the problem. However, I personally
believe the underlying problem is that students are not
being adequately prepared for high school graduation. I
strongly feel the fault is at least two-fold. One factor
is likely to stem from poor study habits and lack of
motivation on the part of many students who do not score
well. However, I consider a second factor to likely be
the greatest reason for the poor test scores seen to
date. And that is that the basic and necessary concepts
and principles of reading, writing and arithmetic are not
being adequately taught.
I'll give you just one example, of several, from personal
experience of what I consider inadequate teaching. My
two boys each had an English course and a
reading/literature while in the 7th grade at Tanana
Middle School. In neither of these two courses, taught
by two different teachers was grammar, sentence
structure, spelling, nor vocabulary taught - I mean
virtually none. But apart from this example of what I
consider totally unacceptable instruction, I also am
convinced that today our schools are derelict by not
failing students who deserve it. Instead, they go ahead
and pass them through the system. That schools are
reluctant to fail deserving students is exemplified by
quotes from Representative Bunde in a front page article
of Thursday's edition of the Fairbanks Daily Newsminer.
Representative Bunde was quoted as saying, `Certainly if
we delay it four years the seniors for the next three
years have no motivation to improve.' A further quote by
Representative Bunde read, `I've heard from teachers very
frustrated because they don't seem to have a great deal
of influence with students because they know they're
going to get a diploma if they do the work or not.' My
question is why should anyone be advanced from one grade
to another, much less receive a high school diploma, if
required work is not done? Again, the implication here
is that we just can't fail anyone that deserves it. I
believe students in every grade should be tested in each
subject over the material they were expected to learn
that year, and those who don't pass should be failed and
required to repeat that grade the next year. That's how
it was done when I was in school.
But aside from this type of testing, which should already
be the standard practice, I think that statewide standard
testing should also be conducted, but not just for a high
school diploma. Standardized tests should be given to
students 2-3 times throughout his/her educational
experience prior to graduation. For example, give
appropriate standardized tests to students, say, in the
4th grade, again in the 6th-7th grade, and again in the
9th-10th grade. These could be used as benchmarks to see
how students are progressing and to evaluate how well
curricula are being taught. Then give an exit exam for
graduation.
Further, I strongly recommend that every teacher in the
state be required to take the same exit exam that will be
required for high school graduation. Any teacher that
does not pass any part of the test should be laid off as
being unqualified to teach in Alaskan schools. If they
don't know the material needed by which to pass the test,
then they're certainly not qualified to teach it.
In summary - here is the problem as I perceive it. The
public school system has created a situation where it has
advanced many students for the past several years to
grade levels they were not qualified for, because of the
failure to adequately and properly prepare them
throughout their advancement, including not failing those
who should have been. Now many are nearing graduation,
and whether or not they pass the exist exam, they will in
fact have to struggle once out of high school. While
that's very unfortunate, it's a little late to be
thinking about those who will soon be graduating in 2002.
The damage has already been done, even though much may be
through the fault of some of those students - their own
fault.
You must focus on establishing a system that will ensure
all students are being taught and learn the necessary
basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. Having
several standardized tests throughout a student's tenure
with Alaska's public school system. I believe, would be
an important step forward, not only by which to measure
their performance, but also that of teachers and
administrators. But lowering the test scoring standards
for those nearing graduation in 2002 in order for them to
receive a diploma would also be lowering the standards of
those making their way up through the school system now.
In my view such a measure would only exacerbate an
already bad situation by sanctioning the level of
inadequacy in teaching students at the present time. On
the other hand, not lowering the test standards may help
foster an incentive for students to begin to take the
matter seriously and be more accountable and accept
responsibility for their actions.
But whatever you decide, you must proceed in a manner
that ensures the basics of reading and writing and
arithmetic are taught, and finally I strongly believe
that teachers must also be held accountable by requiring
each to take the exam. Thank you very much for this time
to comment.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that a teacher competency test was part of
the Legislature's education reform package. The new teachers are
taking a fairly rigorous exam.
MS. NAOMI WALSWORTH, one of 15,000 PTA members in Alaska and a
concerned parent with four children, said that she expected the
test to speak to minimal standards for graduation. She was very
surprised when she took the test herself. She expected the test to
cover skills needed for living and surviving on one's own. The
test contains questions about factoring polynomials, geometry,
equations for lines, and problems far beyond the basics that
students need to succeed in the world beyond graduation. She
challenged legislators to take the test.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE told Ms. Walsworth that she is not the first person
to suggest that. He added that students are given the test the
first five times for diagnostic purposes and have three years to
pass it.
MR. BOB ADKINS, a retired educator from Haines, testified on his
own behalf. He spent 32 years in education, all in Alaska. He
strongly supports the proposed standards and strongly opposes
delaying implementation of the exam. He was recently hired to
tutor a class of 14 high school juniors who have all failed the
mathematics section of the exit exam, most of them twice. Of the
14 students, five refused to take the tutorial class on the grounds
they don't believe the Legislature will require the exam. In the
two weeks since the class started, two have dropped out because it
was too hard and they wanted to be elsewhere. Of the seven
remaining students, none have passed either practice test given so
far. The test will be administered in 19 days. In the past week,
one student went to Mexico for three weeks, one went to Disneyland
for two weeks, and one student left to visit relatives with no
return date.
Regarding testing to meet a standard, MR. ADKINS said that every
airline pilot must pass one test, every lawyer, doctor and CPA must
do the same. Testing is used everywhere. There is no need to
delay implementing the standards. The practice tests he has seen
contain material that he taught in his 8th grade math classes. He
agrees that the Class of 2002 is experiencing a shock because they
do not think the exam will be given, but the Class of 2003 will
adjust. Every school district should be clamoring for these
standards to be put in place. He believes the same process should
be put in place for eighth graders. Students should not go on to
high school until they pass a competency test. He believes this
issue is more important than the natural gas line or ANWR drilling.
This issue deals with our children and the future of our nation.
MS. LOUISE PARISH testified and submitted the following testimony.
INTRODUCTION
My name is Louise Parish. My 16-year old-daughter receives special
education services at Valdez High School as a child with a specific
learning disability and a language disorder. She has been diagnosed
dyslexic. She is currently in 10th grade. She works hard, has
always gotten A's, B's and maybe a C on her report cards, and is a
super kid. I am including a picture of her so you can see a "face
of an Alaskan child with learning disabilities." Sometimes
decision-makers can forget that the decisions they make profoundly
effect real kids' lives and real kids' futures.
ADVOCACY BIOGRAPHY
Either my daughter or I are members of PERC, Parents Plus of
Valdez, the International Dyslexia Association, The Alaska Blind,
Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic, the Valdez Reading Association
and other advocacy organizations. I subscribe to a variety of
advocacy and education email newsletters. I comment on proposed
regulations to AkDEED. I attend statewide special education-related
conferences. I attend most of my local school board meetings. I
network with many of the parents who are also testifying today. I'd
like to give you some information and ask for help. I now try to
offer solutions as much as possible. I'm very tired of complaining.
OUR BACKGROUND STORY
Katie began her struggle to read in first grade. She was retained.
She was identified as having a learning disability in 3rd grade.
She began receiving services in the last months of that year. I
tried to advocate for her from the get-go. It seemed to me that the
system was not working. I wrote letters. I asked for meetings. I
got private evaluations. I thought I did everything I could. I felt
the system was failing her. Special education for learning disabled
kids is supposed to try to close the gap between a child's ability
and their achievement. My daughter's gap had widened to the size of
Texas. When I went to an IEP meeting to prepare her eighth grade
IEP, school participants suggested that an appropriate reading goal
was for her to read at no greater than a fifth grade level. I
protested and asked why. I was told it was because she was reading
at a third grade level. I was also told that she was really quite
successful, and that perhaps I shouldn't expect so much. I began a
seriously study of special education. The next year I invoked due
process on Katie's behalf. The next year I unilaterally removed her
from school and temporarily placed her in a private remedial clinic
called Lindamood Bell Learning Processes (LBLP) The LBLP clinic
provided Katie with direct instruction in reading using multi-
sensory sequential language education (MSLE). (Newsweek, "Dyslexia
and the new science of reading," Nov. 22, 1999.)
THE OUTCOME
The district and I stayed out of court and went to a legal
settlement in May 2000. It is interesting to note that the district
spent approximately $85,000 fighting us - about $63,000 in legal
fees and $22,000 for other payments. (May xx, 2000 VCS-Parish
settlement agreement; xxxx emails Cathers to Parish). Our family's
unrecovered outlay was approximately $5,000. In the final analysis,
the district had spent about $17 for every $1 we did. I believe
other parents will begin to exercise their due process rights if we
don't clean up the system. I hope you can help.
REMEDIAL HELP FOR KATIE
My daughter's resource teacher was sent out to get training in LBLP
practices. My daughter now receives direct instruction using
multi-sensory sequential language education (MSLE) from her
teacher. Despite late professional intervention, she is
progressing. According to an informal reading inventory Katie took
last week, she is reading at about a 7th grade level. Her listening
comprehension (when the information is read to her) was independent
at the 10th grade level. This is typical of kids with specific
learning disabilities. They have a discrepancy between their
abilities (listening comprehension) and at least one area of
achievement (decoding/reading ability). I expect Katie's reading
ability to continue to close the gap. I'm quite certain that by the
time she graduates she will be able to read any newspaper,
magazine, bill or directory she wants to. I'm quite certain that if
I hadn't fought, she would have exited 12th grade as a functional
illiterate.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
I support the new benchmarks and high school graduation qualifying
examination. I believe it is the only way kids with learning
disabilities will get the resources and services they need. I think
we all have to get down, get dirty and get real for this reform to
work. I am into plain speaking and rolled up sleeves.
SB 71 AND THE EXIT EXAMS
The legislature should take great interest and responsibility for
writing good statutes on SB71, a bill related to the education of
kids with disabilities. This bill is just as important as the exit
exam bill. The two bills should go hand in hand. They are
inextricably intertwined. They will both either be done well and
improve outcomes for learning disabled kids, or will both become a
messy quagmire ripe for unnecessary battles. I hope you will hold a
hearing on SB71 soon. New regs are also out for comment. You can
check them out at the AkDEED reg site:
www.eed.state.ak.us/regs/4aac52-800specedgifted.pdf . I have tried
to get advocacy agencies and AkDEED to hold public forums/expert
discussion panels for parents on last year's failed HB301/SB 205
and this years SB71, but have been unsuccessful. You can read more
of my views and comments to AkDEED regarding proposed regs, etc. at
an Alaskan site I post to called Akceptionalities at:
www.akceptional.org/cgi-bin/HyperNews/get/akceptionalities.html
HIGH/LOW EXPECTATION PROBLEMS
This year our state regulation still defined a free appropriate
public education for sped students as that which provided
"educational benefit." I believe it is a statute too.
I believe the reg related to the definition of FAPE was recently
revised by AkDEED to align with IDEA 97. I think it was changed in
Sept. 2000. I will double-check and send the cites by email.
I was told during the years I fought that my daughter was only
entitled to educational benefit. No wonder she sat at a third grade
level for so long. What will schools do differently to teach our
kids now that they haven't done in the past? They will hopefully
teach our sped kids to their needs instead of to simple educational
benefit.
DON'T WAIT, CREATE LAWS TO EFFECT CHANGE
Kids don't get enough early intervention. Currently, I believe the
state requires a pre-K screen. We need to require first and second
grade screens. Right now the jump between a pre-K screen and a
third grade benchmark is too wide a gap. Kids are falling through
in droves. Write a law that fixes this. Don't leave it to AkDEED.
Write a law. The legislature should require schools to screen every
first and second-grade student for reading difficulties, using a
legislatively-approved screening tool. Texas has a good model of
ten approved screens. (cite here) Kids that ARE currently diverted
may be getting the SAME kind of help that didn't help them in the
first place. The legislature should require schools to divert kids
who fail the approved screen to small group direct reading
instruction that addressed phonemic awareness difficulties with
teachers using proven methods such as LBLP offers. (Texas link. EDL
link. LBLP link.) Traditional methods and whole language approaches
don't work for 20 percent of the population. (NICHCY link)
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Professional development is sorely lacking. Schools must provide
teachers with real training on how to give direct reading
instruction to our kids. (LBLP link.) Teachers need to insist on
having the opportunity to learn proven research-based methods of
teaching that work for our kids. They need to take responsibility
for reform too.
EXTENDED LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES NEEDS
We need extended learning opportunities for our struggling
students. Schools should provide research-based remedial
opportunities for students that do not pass the benchmarks and exit
exams. This would include after school or summer school programs
for older kids. (USDOE extended learning opps link.)
LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO FIND MORE FUNDS
The legislature will have to provide schools with the funds to meet
these new kinds of needs. Schools need more funds to implement
these programs. Most municipalities are at their legal cap for
school contributions. We can only ask the state and federal
government for more money. We can only cut so much and then it's
down to the bone. How can we improve without the resources to do
so?
PRIORITIZE FUNDING TO TAXPAYER CONCERNS
I believe taxpayers want you to allocate funds to education.
National Gallup polls show education to be at the top of citizens
concerns. (CNN polls). The legislature prioritizes what we spend
our money on. I suggest that you move money from other allocations
to the schools. I suggest that the majority of our residents want
to see police, fire, emergency services, hospitals, garbage, snow
removal and education at the top of our list. A 1995 survey of
local Valdez residents shows this to be so. (City survey)If money
is tight, you must prioritize, not make across the board cuts. You
may have to cut something else out completely, but you must fund
for the new benchmarks and exit exams. Pull the money from other
areas if you have to. I believe most Alaskans place good education
at the top of their list of concerns.
LOCAL CONTROL MEANS LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Many people complain that the federal government requires all this
IDEA 97 stuff for the learning disabled but doesn't fund it. That
is very unfortunate. But I say the reason the legal protections are
there is because people weren't and still aren't embracing teaching
these expensive kids at the local level. Local Control (state and
municipal control) also means taking local responsibility. These
kids are our kids, not something the feds carted in. I know
Congress promised to fund 40 percent of IDEA related costs years
ago and that the actual funding has been much less. Now republicans
and democrats seem to be moving closer to agreeing to fund it.
It'll take about ten years to phase it in once they do it though.
Again, we need to take Local Control to Local Responsibility. I am
glad Pres. Bush says we must "leave no child behind." I hope to see
this become a reality. We at the local level must say the same
thing, mean it and back it up. I've heard the argument, "If we have
to teach the 20 percent that have difficulty, it'll bankrupt us." I
suggest that we don't, it will become just as expensive in a great
big exit exam/legal quagmire. I ask you to do what's right for the
kids. All of them.
MISPERCEPTIONS ARE A BIG PROBLEM
Dispel misperceptions about special education to ensure our kids
are included in the high expectation movement. I have been
surprised at some of the comments I still hear from folks. Most
people still equate developmental disabilities with learning
disabilities. The two terms are not interchangeable. One signifies
severe cognitive disabilities. The other is defined as to be of at
least average intelligence with at least one area of learning that
is difficult for them. (IDEA 97, state regs) This can be understood
when you think of my daughter. She can comprehend at her current
tenth grade level, but is only reading at a 7th grade level. With
intervention, she is closing the gap between her ability and her
achievement. If you allow schools to simply hand kids like her an
IEP diploma in 12th grade, schools will be able to continue to let
them sit at 3rd grade reading levels. I believe this is
discriminatory. If you require early intervention the kids will
learn better and later costs will be reduced.
MORE ON DD & LD
Less than 2 percent of kids in Alaska are identified as
developmentally disabled. (Anchorage Daily News. " Parents: Exit
Exam Unfair." 7-3-2000.
It is my understanding that these students who are developmentally
disabled currently often receive certificates of attendance.
Students with other disabilities make up about 13 percent of
Alaska's schoolchildren. (see above story). Approximately 9,000
kids, the vast majority of kids in special education, fall into the
category specific learning disabled (see above story). Many
agencies believe about 20 percent of people experience difficulties
learning. (NICHCY).
REMEMBER: ACCOMMODATIONS AVAILABLE
There are a number of accommodations that are allowed for sped kids
who take the exit exam. With good remedial opps and accommodations
if absolutely necessary, they should be able to pass the tests (see
DLC link). Don't dump them into functional illiteracy with an IEP
diploma.
USDOE'S NEW POLICY STATEMENT RE: STATE ASSESSMENTS
The Office of Special Education Programs, USDOE, has issued a new
policy statement regarding state assessments and alternate
assessments. (8-24-00 cite) Alternate assessments should be used
only in cases of extreme cognitive disabilities. I say, "Do not
implement an IEP diploma. It is discriminatory." I know my daughter
has said she'll go sit in the Governor's office until the cows come
home before she'll accept a diploma that "says I'm dumb." I believe
an IEP diploma system will likely be successfully challenged.
READING IS CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE
Reading is becoming a civil rights issue (Bush) (Vancouver link).
IT WILL PAY OFF TO INVEST IN OUR SYSTEM
Intervention is cheaper in the long run anyway. Parents have said
this forever. A new study will officially support it. (see study
link.)
CUT SCORE CHALLENGES
Cut scores might be a problem. The committees were divided into
three categories. They were subjective. (See article). Then, after
the scores were established by the committee, they were lowered.
(See cut scores). I heard they were lowered by one standard
deviation to allow for different abilities in the bell curve. I
went to a state board meeting at my LIO several months ago. I
listened to a fellow who had served on one of the cut score
committees ask Assistant Deputy Commissioner Bruce Johnson to
comment on why the cut scores had been lowered before they were
introduced. Mr. Johnson declined to comment. I believe businesses
and regular parents may have been poorly represented in the
construction of the exit exam. I've heard that the Fairbanks School
District has questioned the cut score construction.
POSSIBLE LEGAL CHALLENGES & SUGGESTIONS TO SUBVERT
I want the exit exam system to work. That means we have to really
mean it when we say we want to raise expectations for kids. We must
look to the potential problem areas, and address them proactively.
Likely successful legal challenges, in my estimation, will include:
A.) a child not having enough time to route in the required
subjects the exam tests upon (some kids haven't been required to
take the sequence of math tested on. This builds through years.)
B.) purposeful exclusion from regular curriculum being tested
on. (IEP diploma and exclusion/poor expectations for LD kids);
or
C.) exit exam construction problems; or
D.) cut score problems
Fix the first by immediately funding and requiring remedial opps.
Fix the second with appropriate work on SB71 and including special
ed kids in the high expectation movement. Fix the last two with a
legal review.
A LITTLE VENTING!
Sometimes I wonder if legislators are not looking to represent all
kids and families, but only the ones that they can get the most
bang for their buck with. This is a mistake. Particularly since the
kids with disabilities have the most legal protections. They have
these protections because they have so often been passed by in just
such a manner. Learning disabled kids can't rise to the occasion
of benchmarks and exit exams without good remedial efforts using
proven methods of direct instruction. Schools must rise to the
occasion. Schools must be given the resources to do so.
People still describe learning disabled kids as "those handicapped
kids," or the "kids with diminished capacities" or worse. The old
"slow," "stupid" and "lazy" labels are really annoying. It is the
21st century, for goodness sake. But I also understand. I didn't
know anything about learning disabilities until ten years ago
either. We must educate each other and raise expectations for all
kids. I believe Gov. Knowles was mistaken when he promoted an IEP
diploma. He said that our sped kids should get IEP diplomas because
they are doing the best they can with their God-given abilities.
Our LD kids in Alaska are not doing the best they can with their
abilities. Nowhere near it. Our kids don't need an IEP diploma.
They need a decent education including direct instruction using
research-based, proven methods of teaching.
WHO IS TO BLAME? WE ALL ARE
I don't blame simply the congress, or the state legislature, or
AkDEED, or the teacher's unions, or the school boards, or the
advocacy agencies, or the parents or the democrats or the
republicans. I blame everyone for not being real and working
together for the good of our kids. I listen to the arguments.
Congress has not funded IDEA 97 to the promised 40 percent. (I
think we'll see a shift in that area soon as both democrats and
republicans are coming closer to agreeing on it, but it will take
ten years to fully implement the increased funding.) Some people
say the state legislature is mainly Republican and interested in
reducing costs and that they simply want to require schools to do
better without giving them the resources to do so. Others say that
AkDEED doesn't have good accountability and internal controls.
Still others say that teacher's unions can encourage teachers to
follow tenets and beliefs that protect their personal and union
rights above children's rights. Some say advocacy agencies are have
political ties that must be protected and therefore present a
semblance of advocacy instead of true advocacy. Others say parents
might be too afraid to speak out due to fear of retaliation or
rejection. Another argument is that school boards are elected on
popularity and have too large a learning curve to be effective.
I listen to everyone's points of views. Eventually you get a
picture of the whole. All the bad stuff has to stop for our kids'
sakes. We must all be real and work together. I hope that's
possible and that you can help. Please contact me anytime.
Number 2293
MS. BEV TURLEY, Principal of Kotzebue Middle High School, made the
following comments on her own behalf. The benchmark qualifying
exam has brought the focus of education to the local level -
parents are looking at and comparing test scores and asking
questions. In addition, students are looking at what classes they
are taken. However, there are things we need to do with the exit
exam:
· It needs to be reviewed in its entirety to determine whether
it is appropriate for our students;
· Students who pass the exit exam need to be rewarded - the
passing score should be noted on their transcripts and
diplomas;
· The timeline needs to be reviewed as well as how other states
have phased in their exit exams;
MS. TURLEY said she believes the exit exam is important and the
focus on education that it has brought about is extremely
important. She does not favor eliminating it, but it needs to be
reviewed.
TAPE 01-3, SIDE B
MS. FREDA ARNHART, Superintendent of the North Slope Borough School
District, testified and submitted the following written testimony.
It is the District's belief that the requirement to pass
the exam should be postponed until 2006 for the following
reasons:
-Students need time to learn the standards.
In 1998, only three years ago, school districts were
mandated to adopt state standards and began aligning
their curriculum to those standards. Districts
frantically began the task without additional money or
manpower to assist.
As standards were aligned, textbooks become the next step
to align with the standards. Our textbook adoption is on
a rotation cycle of every five years. Therefore, math
has been adopted with language arts and health adoption
due this year. Needless to say, no additional moneys
were given to districts to complete this task either.
-Administrators and teachers need time to
analyze test data to determine students' strengths
and weaknesses and devise a plan to assist
students in areas of weakness.
After receiving the HSGQE scores in the fall 2000 from
the first tests taken in the Spring of 2000, our District
began the process of disaggregating the test results into
meaningful, useful data. Might I also add, no money was
given to the District for this task.
Approximately 3 weeks ago the District received the
second testing results. Our administrators have
proceeded to work together many hours on the data,
analyzing the information and presenting it to individual
sites in hopes that plans for remediation can begin ASAP.
Unfortunately, time is running out for the Class of 2002
to assist them in areas of weaknesses.
-Having test results for approximately four months
only gives students, who did not pass the test, one
summer and one school year the opportunity for
remediation. Also the administration and teachers
will only have the same amount of time to devise
and implement a plan for tutoring after school
classes, summer school, etc. The time frame is
almost impossible to ensure success.
The concern our district has is not teaching to the
standards or being accountable but we feel
· The state has put this plan together too fast
· Has not had time to review and analyze the
content and validity of the exam. Why are we
so sure the exam is valid?
We like the idea of having standards, being accountable
and preparing students for the future, but it is our
desire to stop, take a breath and analyze the situation
before we make one mistake after another.
We need time to assure
· Our curriculum is aligned with the state
performance standards
· We have textbooks and materials to support the
standards
· The state provides resources for summer school,
tutoring and special classes.
We believe all stakeholders involved, the legislatures,
education department, administrators, teachers, parents
should ask themselves one question, :Is this good for
kids?" "Who is being penalized?" "Whose future is being
destroyed?"
It's not the legislature, state department,
administrators, teachers nor parents, it's the kids. The
very previous commodity we are entrusted to protect.
We are pushing forward too fast without thinking of the
consequences. Is the state, as well as school districts,
prepared for the consequences when students are denied a
diploma?
Thank you.
Number 0227
MR. MIKE MILLIGAN, representing himself from Kodiak, said he is the
parent of two children who will be taking the exit exam in 2004 and
2006. He concurs that the nature of the exit exam is punitive. The
biggest reward that high school students get from passing the exam
is that they are not punished. Alaska needs an exam that helps to
develop the strength and the potential for development of our
students. Last year, in his 7th annual State of American
Education, President Clinton's Secretary of Education, Richard
Riley, stated, "Long summer vacations, a cherished perk, offsetting
the leave paychecks of teachers, must be abolished by American
public schools if students are to have a chance of meeting new,
ambitious academic standards. In 1985, Republican Governor of
Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, instituted a study that proved
conclusively using scientific principles that class size was a
determining factor of student performance in later years. That
study, which lasted for four years, went on to prove the
relationship that 1-18 class sizes would have. If we were to deal
with educational standards that would allow America, including
Alaska, to compete in a global economy, we have to make the
decisions now to how we will relate in five years. This is similar
to what has happened with the California power crisis, which is the
result of what California did five years ago. Alaska can do
better. Don't punish students who cannot pass the exam. He offered
to send articles to the committee.
Number 0548
MR. BILL MORISETTE, a fifth grade educator with 23 years of
teaching experience, testified on his own behalf. He asked that
the timeline be moved forward so that the first students that take
the exam will have had the opportunity to take the 8th grade
benchmark test. There are no decisions any legislator will make
during their legislative careers that will affect so many young
people. He believes in standards and that the exit exam is a good
idea but the timeline is a disaster waiting to happen for many
young people. His concern comes first as a parent and second as an
educator. His daughter, a junior, faces the possibility of not
passing the exit exam. She plans to go to college and has been on
the honor roll several times, yet she is not strong in math. Many
other students are in similar situations. Please consider that she
passed the reading and writing portions of the practice exam easily
but she did poorly in math. The past commissioner and some
legislators have said that students who are not seniors should not
be discouraged because they would not peak in math until their
senior year. His daughter completed algebra and geometry just
prior to completing the exam in her sophomore year - just prior to
taking the exam. She will not have had the benefit of taking the
grades 3, 6, and 8 benchmark exams to identify the areas in which
she is weak. She won't have the benefit of remedial programs.
Students in lower grades will have those opportunities. He
believes the math exit exam requirements are excessive. He
questioned the huge discrepancy between the reading and language
scores and the math scores. He requested that the date for
implementation of the exit exam be moved forward to enable students
with weak areas to identify and strengthen those areas.
MR. BILL WEBB, testifying from Anchorage, said he has operated
businesses in Alaska since 1975 and has hired about 2,000 employees
during that period of time, many of whom were graduates of Alaska
schools. He is now the guardian of an 8 year old boy. He strongly
supports no delay in the implementation of the high school exit
exam for everyone's sake. Alaska high school diplomas should
ensure that all persons who earn one can read, write and do math.
Regarding algebra and geometry, he noted he has two nephews who did
not go to college but are successful due to their knowledge of
algebra, geometry, carpentry and electronics. Another nephew did
not do well in those subjects and his options are limited. All
students need those options in this electronic and technical world.
Failure to ensure basic skills diminishes a person's opportunities
for employment and in life. As an employer, a lack of skills
causes expensive rehire and recruitment costs and presents
emotional difficulties for all involved when someone must be
terminated because of a lack of skills. The arguments for
extending the deadline for testing do not hold well under scrutiny.
Students have 12 years to learn the standards, which is enough
time.
MS. PEGGY COLE, Lower Yukon Education Association, gave the
following testimony.
As a parent, bush teacher and representative of our local
teacher's union, I support the efforts to improve the
education of our children. I advocate for the time
extension to pass the High School Exit Exam.
Our children in rural Alaska need this extra time to
adequately prepare to pass this exam. We do not want our
students to be singled out because of where they live and
because of their culture or socioeconomic status. As a
district we need more time to learn from other districts,
to assess our students and to implement a curriculum
aligned with those standards, which will develop in our
students the skills they need to pass the exit exam and
to be successful, contributing members of our society.
We, as teachers, need more time to adequately implement
standards in our classrooms.
Therefore, on behalf of our students in Lower Yukon
School District, I support the proposal to extend the
year for passing the exit exam to 2006. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak to this Assembly.
Number 1077
MR. LARRY JOHNSON, a 33-year teacher and parent, made the following
comments on his own behalf. The exit exam needs to be referred to
as a competency test since it simply qualifies students for a
diploma. It may be high stakes but it is not a high level test,
except perhaps for the math portion. He sat on the cut score
committee for the reading test. When the committee finished its
work, members were asked if they were satisfied with the score set.
He was not happy with it because he felt it was too low, but he
said he could live with it. After the committee finished, the test
"people" then lowered the number again and it was again lowered by
DOEED. He thinks the reading test is very basic - it does not look
at content. Committee members asked themselves whether the test
was "doable" and teachable. When members checked off on each item
for the cut score, they had to answer "yes" to both questions. In
addition, they asked themselves at what level this test is
necessary for students to lead a successful life. At the school he
teaches at, standards have been integrated into the curriculum.
The skills can be built into existing programs at the freshman
level. He noted the state has held quality schools institutes for
the past few summers, which has been attended by a number of school
districts. The resources are available but it is a matter of
thinking outside of the box. He asked legislators to consider
increasing the foundation formula from $3900 to $4200.
Number 1313
MR. DOUG WESSON, a Juneau School District school psychologist and
President of the Alaska School Psychologists Association, made the
following comments on his own behalf. Initially he was skeptical
when he heard about the qualifying exam. Historically, schools
have become scapegoats during major changes in society of which
ours is technological. As a school psychologist, he is very
familiar with tests. He cautioned that a single test can only
reflect a sample of skills, it does not look at the whole student.
Tests must be valid by measuring and predicting what it is meant
to. In his profession, test scores should never be used alone to
make a determination about a child. During the last two years,
however, he has seen a change in the middle school. Parents and
teachers like the standards and the public is asking for
accountability. He applauds those efforts because accountability
ensures that our mission to educate children in a changing world is
measured. Regarding school restructuring, he has seen schedule
flexibility to help students, he has seen more cooperation from
parents, and he has seen a change in attitude among students. That
should continue.
MR. WESSON said he is concerned that a student could pass all
classes and meet all requirements but not pass the qualifying exam
and receive only a certificate of attendance. He asked, if that is
continued, that the certificate be changed to one of completion.
Also, on behalf of the learning disabled students he works with, he
asked they be given the same accommodations during the test that
they are given to make it through school, such as calculators.
MR. WESSON's last concern was for students of military families who
may not attend Alaska schools until their later school years. He
concluded by saying, "Our mission is to educate the youth and we
hope that we don't measure by how many students are left behind in
the end of the high school qualifying exam." He felt a delay is
appropriate although four years may not be necessary.
MS. ELIZABETH BACOM, testifying from Petersburg, submitted the
following written testimony.
Thank you for allowing me to speak to you this morning.
My name is Liz Bacom. I wear two hats, and I would like
to give you my concerns about the delay of the exit exam
from both of these perspectives. My first hat is that of
president of the Petersburg School Board. Our district
has spent countless hours and a great deal of money to
align the education of our students with the Alaska State
Standards. I think we are doing a terrific job, but we
aren't done yet. Our district has performed quite well,
but I very well recognize there are many other districts
that have not. There are districts that are dealing with
many serious socio-economic issues, I am sure you are
aware of these, which hamper their ability to bring
students up to the mark. They certainly need more time
to nurture the education of their students, 4 years is
simply not enough time. The beauty of the benchmark
exams is to check the system for leaks, fix them and
proceed. The more benchmark exams a student is exposed
to, the better the overall education will be at the end.
I am therefore urging you to consider a timetable that
will allow students to be exposed to the additional
benchmark exams before requiring the "BIG TEST" to be the
final judgment.
All that said and done, I now put my other hat on, a more
important hat to me: I am a parent of two students, both
would be impacted if you delay the exit exam, one is an
8th grader, the other is a Sophomore. They have been
preparing, mentally and academically, for a "BIG TEST:
that they may not personally be thrilled about taking,
but they know it is a requirement. My kids may not pass
all three sections, I wish they had been educationally
nurtured from first grade to prepare for this exam. But
to tell them for 4 years this was coming, and then tell
them the adults that make the laws made an error gives
them the wrong message.
I would prefer that there be a SOFT LANDING for our kids.
The exam should be required to graduate. There are
several scenarios that could be considered:
1. The grade cut off could be adjusted based on how many
years the Alaska Educational System has had time to
prepare kids to pass the exam.
2. Another scenario: The class of 2002 would have to
pass one of three, the class of 2004 would have to pass
tow of three, and the class of 2006 would have to pass
all three.
This exam will make adults accountable to provide an
environment at home conducive to learning, students
accountable to learn, educators accountable to adequately
teach our children and most importantly, lawmakers
accountable to adequately fund education. I know you
will carefully consider the consequences of every
decision you make as lawmakers, especially in the arena
of education. Thank you for your time.
Number 1714
MR. G. SANBOURNE, testifying via teleconference from Unalaska, said
he is the Superintendent of the Unalaska City School District. In
his opinion, the concerns that have not been addressed are as
follows.
1. Special education students
2. ESL students
3. Out of state students, not only students from military
families.
4. The data has not been studied sufficiently to determine
how a student will do on the exit exam.
5. The issue of when a student can legally leave the school
system when it is obvious the student will never pass the
test.
MR. JIM CARDEN, CEO of the Pribilof School District, read the
following statement.
I have been an Alaskan educator since 1969. I was a
classroom teacher for 16 years, a principal for 6 and
[indisc.] administrator for four years, and a
superintendent/CEO for the past five years. My first six
years were spent in an urban school district and the
remainder of my years have been spent in three different
rural school districts. It has been my experience that
teachers will pass students and eventually make them
eligible for high school diplomas if the students make a
serious effort to do their school work. Admittedly, in
certain situations it is not the quality of the work done
that determines if a student passes or fails, rather it
is the judgment on the part of the teacher that the
student, who may not have the ability to do a certain
quality work, is making the best effort possible and is
living up to his or her full potential.
Once such a student receives a high school diploma, that
student is able to apply for postsecondary education
and/or employment opportunities. In effect a diploma
offers the graduate the opportunity to explore
opportunities after school. There are students who will
not pass graduation qualifying exams. For example, in
the two testing periods thus far, we have given 67
examinations and students have passed a total of 19
tests, 28 percent of the tests. Of the 16 students who
have participated in one or both testing sections, four
have passed all three, three have passed two, and one has
passed one. Looking at the [indisc.] students who have
thus far participated in our district, I estimate that up
to four students who are not identified with disability
will not pass all of these tests no matter how often they
take them. These are good kids, each of them have
potential to be good, positive, productive members of
society. However, it is my fear there is nothing in
place to deal with these folks. The lack of a high
school diploma will effectively eliminate them from
having the opportunity to apply for, and at least to have
the opportunity to demonstrate their personal positive
skills and personal attributes to potential employers.
As it is, the examination punishes individuals who may or
may not be responsible for their inability to pass the
examination. It may or may not affect the educational
institutions.
My question is: how do we differentiate between the
students who are living up to their potential and those
who are not. What do we have in place to give those who
have a positive work ethic and attributes but not the
ability to pass the test, the chance to demonstrate they
can do good work and become productive members of
society.
I ask that the effective date of the examination be
delayed so that the state and its business partners can
address this and like issues. Thank you for your time
and consideration. Thank you Representative Bunde and
committee members.
MS. JUDY DOYON, the principal of a K-12 rural village school in the
Kodiak Island Borough School District, testified on her own behalf.
She has been an Alaskan educator for 30 years, teaching from
kindergarten through college levels. She supports the standards
and qualifying exam and believes they have had a positive effect in
causing communities and parents to focus on educational issues at
the local level. However, she believes we need to proceed on a
reasonable timeline and not rush into this. We need time to re-
evaluate our educational programs. She has some concerns about the
math exam and believes it should be reviewed again, since only 30
percent of Alaska students are capable of passing that exam. She
believes the math test needs to be reviewed to determine whether it
is overkill, rather than basic information. She also questioned
what the goal is for students, and whether that goal is admission
to college. She noted that many students are not proceeding on an
academic track. Districts also need time to make adjustments to
make sure their curricula are in alignment with the standards, that
standards are implemented in classrooms, and that remediation is
available. Districts also need time to address the needs of
special education students and cultural differences. The dropout
issue is immense and we need to make sure we are not creating a
higher rate.
Number 2167
MR. JEFF RALSTON, a Mekoryuk High School teacher, said he was
originally an engineer. The reason he was able to work as an
engineer was because he could do math, which is why he teaches math
to students now. This exit exam gives him and parents an excuse to
require students to do their homework. Some students will fail the
test but that is not a bad thing: it will start a change in
education, which is necessary. He suggested lowering the score
rather than delaying the exam if something must be done. He
considers it an insult when he hears people say that students have
not been given the opportunity to learn. Public school teachers
have been teaching students the information on the exit exam.
Requiring this exit exam does a service to students in rural
Alaska. It is analogous to requiring one's children to go to bed
at night.
Tape 01-4, Side A
Number 001
MR. FRANK PLATT, testifying from Unalakleet, read the following
written testimony:
The primary concern of the community during these meetings
was whether the lack of high scores would affect the
communities access to the gym. The community leaders
assured me that the legislature would never implement such
a requirement, and with attitudes such as these I believe
it indicates the legislature did not have the intention of
[indisc.] communities around the state. And now that the
legislature has the intention of the communities in the
state, these same communities are wanting the legislature
to excuse their negligence in preparing for this high
school qualifying exam. So I would like to go on record
as strongly supporting the position that the legislature
keep the time line in place, while it has the attention of
the state's communities. Only through the diligent effort
of the communities will education change throughout the
state. Not only will it encourage communities who have
not been diligent in their educational efforts, it will
reward the hard work done by students, parents, schools,
and those communities that took the legislature at it word
that communities and their schools must be held
accountable.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that everyone's testimony is important but
time is running short. He asked the people who could not testify
to fax their testimony to the committee so it can be put into the
record.
Number 204
MR. CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), said he has submitted written testimony and AASB has
submitted a critical issues document on testing. This document
will provide background on testing specifics and how they are being
used.
MR. ROSE responded to an earlier question about what a diploma
should mean. A diploma should mean that kids graduating from high
school could exercise real choice.
MR. ROSE said AASB does support standards and an extension. AASB
has standards that prescribe to one membership that should take a
look at the vision, structure, accountability, and advocacy of
programs. Every classroom has to be looked at to determine if the
pieces are in place for alignment, ensuring that each child has an
opportunity to get what they need for successfully passing the
exams.
MR. ROSE said AASB has resolved to support an extension to the year
2004. An additional two years will give an opportunity, with a
caveat, that an investment needs to be made. There are critical
elements that need to be in place to ensure that kids have this
opportunity, from technical assistance, materials, and in-service
training.
MR. ROSE said that for this investment, some things have to be put
in place for aligning the system to make good on the promise that
was made. AASB wants higher standards for the students, but the
reality is that legal challenges are coming. What burden of proof
is there to ensure that every student has been given an
opportunity, and will the remediation requirements be met.
MR. ROSE commented that recently a group of bipartisan individuals
met in Girdwood to look at how this problem might be addressed
statewide. They looked at data from individual districts and asked
what common statewide causes create these results. Time was one of
the elements looked at, time within a day and the school year, to
ensure that there is alignment and that professional development is
there.
MR. ROSE said alignment is the most critical issue. The state
system has to be looked at classroom by classroom. Is every
classroom in every district aligned and is every student receiving
this opportunity?
CO-CHAIR GREEN commended AASB for their excellent publication -
Critical Issues. She asked if people could access the publication
on the net.
MR. ROSE responded yes.
Number 517
MS. SARA GANTT, testifying via teleconference from Anchorage,
submitted the following written testimony:
TESTIMONY TO SPECIAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE FOR DELAYING THE HSQE
My name is Sara Gantt. I am the parent of an elementary, middle
school, and two high school students at Service High in Anchorage.
I am also the Vice-President of Curriculum for Service High School
PTSA and speaking on behalf of the Board. Service is the largest
high school in the state with a current enrollment of 2360 students
and projected enrollment of 2441 for next fall.
The Service PTSA Board is opposed to any delay of the High School
Exit Exam.
Simply stated, it was not until this fall when the first round of
test results were received that the PTSA witnessed any attempt to
address the individualized curriculum needs of the students in the
building. However, we do recognize the unique situation with
special needs students and feel their situation has not been fairly
addressed.
Students and their parent(s) were counseled in the fall to take
remedial courses in whatever area(s) they did not pass. Two weeks
ago, parents and students were again involved in schedule changes
to help the 32 juniors who did not pass the reading section, the
164 students who failed Math, and the 112 who did not pass the
writing test this fall and to be placed in what remedial classes
are available.
Personally, my oldest is a current junior. She was a 7th grader
when the legislation was passed in 1997 and I have not witnessed
until this fall any individualized attempt to address the obvious
failings of the curriculum as highlighted by the dismal state-wide
exit exam results. However, I have seen by the ASD attempts in the
last two years to address reading and spelling issues at the
elementary, middle school and high school levels.
The first graph shows the cumulative percent passing to date for
the ASD High Schools. The numbers are not 100%accurate as we have
not made adjustments for new kids coming into the school, kids
transferring out or dropping out. [GRAPHS CAN BE VIEWED USING PDF
SELECTION.]
The graph below shows the percent of students passing the Oct.
2000 exams. Remember, this also reflects the results of the
students who retook the test or were new to the school and took
the test for the first time. [GRAPHS CAN BE VIEWED USING PDF
SELECTION.]
I also wanted to share some concerns that have been raised by
principals, teachers, and parents. The exit exam is a very good
example of the havoc of unfunded mandates. The administration and
PTSA at Service are currently wrestling with the logistics of
delivering this next exit exam in the spring to 1000 students.
Also, we are extremely concerned with the loss of six more
instructional days. We would like to suggest moving this testing
to a weekend format similar to the SAT/ACT. The building is
essentially shut down and we are faced with having to come up with
creative activities for the rest of the students. Some of the
suggestions include motivational speakers, college admission
preparation, tutorials on taking the exit exam, and recreational
activities just to mention a few. In addition to coordinating the
activities, we are faced with funding and supervising these events.
Not all schools have the resources to be able to do this.
What are we going to do with the potentially large number of
students who only receive a certificate of attendance rather than a
diploma? What impact will this have on the education system and on
the community resources? At the education level, will we still
have 21 years old attending high school with 15 yr old freshman?
How does the validity of the GED fit into the picture? If the exit
exam is not required for students opting to take the GED are we
encouraging marginal students to drop out school and take the GED
to avoid the exit exam to receive a diploma? How does the diploma
from a private institution compare to a public school since private
schools are not being held to same standards?
While raising some questions, we also wanted to offer some
suggestions. Instead of delaying the exit exam, we did feel the
test results indicate that both the Math and Reading pass/fail mark
needs to be revisited. The former being potentially set too high
and the Reading too low. The other approach is to revisit the
contents of the two tests particularly the Math to ensure that if
Algebra 1 is the minimum curriculum requirement for mathematics to
receive enough credits to graduate then the exam should be
reflective of that standard. Also, a clear and fair determination
needs to be made in regards to the special needs students. Change
the testing format so not to impact six more instructional days in
the school year.
Again, we would encourage this committee not to delay the exit
exam. Doing so is public admission of the failings of the public
school system. More importantly, it is readily agreeing to six more
years of graduating students who are not academically prepared to
enter the work force.
Thank you for your time this morning and concern for the kids in
Alaska.
MR. RAY FENTON, PhD., President of the National Association of Test
Directors, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. Mr. Fenton
submitted the following testimony:
Let me introduce myself that you will have a context for my
remarks and concerns about our Alaska assessment system.
I am currently the President of the National Association of Test
Directors and also have served on the Board of Directors of that
Organization for three years. I have served as a member of the
Joint Committee on Testing Practices that authored the National
Standards in Student and Psychological Testing. During the past
year I have served the United States Department of Education as
a consultant reviewing state assessment programs for compliance
with the requirements of Title 1.
I currently serve our Alaska Department of Education as a member
on two committees related to our state assessment system: Alaska
Technical Review Committee and the Alternative Assessment
Committee.
I have been an educator in Alaska for more than 25 years. First,
I was a teacher at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. I now
serve as the Supervisor of Assessment and Evaluation for the
Anchorage School District.
There are only four points that I would like to make with you
today. My remarks support acceptance of the Governor's proposal
by a delay in the implementation of the graduation requirement.
They also support the effort that the Alaska Department of
Education and Early Development is now making to assure that
Alaska will continue the effort to reform education through high
standards, quality instruction, and assessment for student and
school accountability,
1. There is now evidence that our Alaska assessment system may
need some fundamental changes to make it valid for high school
graduation decisions.
Alaska implemented the High School Graduation Test on a fast
track. You may recall that Professor James Popham from the
University of California provided testimony when the legislature
was first considering use of a high stakes test to validate the
diploma. Dr. Popham is a national expert on high stakes
assessment and developed assessment systems for states and
school districts. The day after Dr. Popham spoke to the
legislature in Juneau he met with the Technical Advisory
Committee here in Anchorage.
Dr. Popham said that we could have a test based graduation
requirement that we could defend in court if every element of
our fast track implementation worked perfectly.
• Standards had to be developed and adopted that would
reflect what a student needed to know and he able to do to
qualify for graduation.
• Instruction for every student had to be aligned with the
standards to assure that we had provided direct instruction
and remediation where necessary to every student held to
standards.
• Assessment instruments had to be developed that were fit in
measures that produce valid and reliable scores.
• Cut scores had to be developed that would fairly reflect
the level of knowledge and performance to be expected of
all Alaska high school graduates.
None of these are simple and every one has proved to be a
problem in one or another of the states that have adopted high
stakes tests across the United States.
Dr. Popham gave his testimony in 1996. While Alaska had done
work as early as 1992 on voluntary educational standards and
reform, the requirements of a high stakes testing system to
support a high school graduation decision are quite different
and more demanding than the system planned in 1992. Senate Bill
36 calling for performance standards was only signed into law in
1996.
Substantial evidence is now being generated across the state
that there are problems with our assessment system. It appears
that it will be unfair to deny diplomas to the class of 2002
based only on the scores generated by the High School Graduation
Qualifying Examination.
Professional staff members from school districts in Fairbanks,
Anchorage, Juneau, and Kenai have examined the results relative
to other indicators of student performance and can provide the
committee with ample evidence that students who appear to
deserve high school diplomas will not get diplomas because our
Alaska Assessment System is not yet ready to serve as the basis
for high stakes decisions.
The evidence shows that there is a good reason to step back from
the 2002 date specified in AS 14.03.075. Standards, benchmarks,
opportunity to learn, assessment instruments and cut scores all
need reexamination.
2. We need to ask some very careful questions about the fairness
of the system for LD students.
It appears that there are some substantial performance
differences between male and female students, students from more
and less affluent families, and students from urban and rural
Alaska, students with differences in ethnic and racial heritage.
Our position at the National Association of Test Directors is that
assessments and assessment systems need to be fair for all
students. Court decisions have made it clear that the state has a
direct interest in education and can set standards for students for
high school graduation and promotion so long as fairness and
instructional validity (opportunity to learn) are met.
The gross differences in performance among Alaska groups indicate
that there needs to be a careful review in terms of fairness and
instructional validity. The internal studies of the tests and
validations of the testing system provided by the test contractor
and the methods of test development have been exemplary. But, we
need to go further.
More needs to be done to examine fairness and instructional
validity in terms of the obvious differences between males and
females, urban and rural students, and the obvious and disturbing
differences in average performance among heritage groups.
We need to be certain that the tests are fair to all.
3. We need to ask some very careful questions about the treatment
of students with differences and students who come from homes and
communities where English is not the dominant language.
English as a second language is of special interest here in Alaska
where we have schools where instruction in early grades is offered
only in Russian or Eskimo languages. Parents also raise questions
about the denial of diplomas to students who have been successful
in schools outside the United States and come to Alaska as high
school seniors.
There are two issues around special education students. One issue
is the accommodation of students through changes in testing
procedures or test format so that the disability does not stand in
the way of the demonstration of Reading, Writing, or Math skills.
The other issue is the fair treatment of students who can reach
minimum competency in most of the skills that are needed for
success in everyday life but not on some of the more advanced
academic standards included in our Alaska tests.
Alaska has not yet resolved some of the issues that most be faced
with Special Education and English as a Second Language Students.
While I cannot speak to you in detail about the U.S. Department of
Education review of state testing systems for compliance with Title
I requirements, I am familiar with the reviews that have been
completed for other states with similar assessment systems. I have
little doubt that Alaska will have some serious issues that must be
dealt with in relation to special education, English as a Second
Language, and the desegregation and reporting of test performance
by heritage and special education groups.
It is my belief that the Federal Government will recognize the
overall quality of the Alaska Assessment System and our efforts to
date while calling for Alaska to make changes to address these
important issues.
4. We need to take a very close look at the differences in
curriculum and instruction among schools with an emphasis on
programs at very small schools.
Alaska is no different from other states in our desire for high
standards, a good educational system, and students who will be
able to demonstrate that they have gained the skill and
knowledge needed for success in life. We are somewhat different
than other states in that we are a very rural state and that
there has not been a tradition of high school education that has
gone back beyond the Molly Hooch decision in many of our rural
communities.
When I started as an Alaska educator twenty-five years ago at
the University of Alaska, I quickly learned that not all
communities were created equal when it came to education.
Students from small, rural communities would generally not reach
their sophomore year.
Things have gotten better. Our Alaska students have much more of
a chance to go to school though some schools are very small and
curriculum choices are very limited. Parents still have to
agonize about sending their children away from home to get the
education that is available in a large urban high schools.
I am pleased to have been part of Alaska education long enough
to see that all Alaskans can now expect to get a high school
education. But, I am not at all certain that we have a system
where there is an equal chance for a student in very small rural
schools and large urban schools.
It is my belief that we need to be certain that every child has
had the opportunity to learn what is on the required high school
graduation examination. I do not believe that has been
demonstrated. The gross differences in performance among
Communities and school districts raise some very, very serious
questions about the fairness of failing students in 2002 who
have not had the instruction required to reach the performance
levels required by the tests.
This is an area where we need some sophisticated research that
looks at the standards, looks at curriculum, looks at
instruction and looks at the individual test questions. 1 think
the efforts planned by the Alaska Department of Education will
do this.
However, I do not believe that improvement will come in time to
help the Class of 2002.
Conclusion
In conclusion I would like to say that Alaska has come a very
long way since 1996 when the legislature mandated that the
students in the class of 2002 pass competency exams in Reading.
Writing, and Math to get a high school diploma.
We have high expectations for education. Now we also have
standards, we have benchmarks for student performance, and we
have produced our first high stakes tests, and we have made our
first effort to develop cut scores. We have moved forward on a
very fast track.
Unfortunately, the evidence from our first application of the high
stakes testing system indicates that we have some problems. There
is lots of evidence. The evidence is coming from all around the
state.
A reasonable person would conclude from the evidence that the
application of the current system to the class of 2002 would be
unfair and would punish students who deserve a high school diploma.
I believe that your committee should recommend accepting the
proposal being made by the governor with the support of parents,
PTA groups, school boards, and educators.
Moving the implementation date for the diploma requirement does
give up on standards. Does not give up on or high expectations.
Does not reduce our ability to assess the relative performance of
schools and educational programs.
Moving the implementation date will provide time to reassess the
assessment system and to assure that it will be fair for individual
Alaska students.
Number 987
MR. JACK MILON, testifying via teleconference from Barrow, said he
is a longtime educator. He has taught elementary school through
university doctoral programs. He has a PhD in educational
psychology. Mr. Milon said he hopes the legislature will delay the
implementation of the high school graduation qualifying exams, if
not stop it entirely. This would be futile unless the legislature
and DEED can find someone competent to construct a testing
instrument which does not have a serious negative impact on Native
Alaskan students. There are districts where no Native Alaskan
students have passed. This is completely unacceptable. Civil
rights issues involved, and Mr. Milen hopes the legislature will
address these issues when taking action.
Number 1056
MS. DALONNA COOPER, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks.
Ms. Cooper read the following testimony:
My name is Dalonna Cooper. I have been a resident of
Alaska for twenty-four years. My husband and I are both
CPA's in Fairbanks. We have three teenage sons in the
public school system.
I am here today to tell you as a businessperson, parent,
active community member and PTA officer, no one disputes
the need for accountability and standards in education in
this state and nationwide. However, your original bill
has huge flaws. The very population you sought to help,
our kids, are the ones about to be penalized by the law.
By not allowing for a phase in of the program you're
expecting change to occur overnight. And, yes, it takes
change - as early as elementary school, programs need to
be expanded and revised to meet the learning styles of
all kids.
Failing to allow the law to be phased in over time,
doesn't allow the benchmark exam results to be used as
intended. Students caught in the transition of this law
need time and assistance to help them meet the standards.
You invite lawsuits to challenge this weakness in your
law. The state will be tied up in the courts for years,
perhaps jeopardizing the entire process and costing the
state lots more money, money better spent in supporting
the educational mandates you propose and have not funded
adequately to date.
The kids who have been successful in passing the exam are
the college bound kids. The same kids who have always
scored well test taking and who have demonstrated the
abilities we want to see in all kids. The way the law is
written, providing benchmark exams in third, sixth and
eight grades allows for students to be tested over time.
Schools around the state need time to react and respond
to the benchmark results.
Our oldest son is a high school senior who will not have
to take the exam. He is a capable independent learner
and he would pass the exam. He will be going to college
in the fall. But he's not our only child. We have twin
sons who are eighth graders. We believe they have had
the best of what public education in our state has to
offer. Our twin sons were born premature and as a result
were developmentally delayed and learned to read late.
This has put them behind grade level from the beginning.
We recognized their problem early on and sought tutoring
outside the public school system to teach our sons to
read. They have been tutored since third grade. One
remains on the IEP, the other has been exited from his
plan.
These boys will take their first benchmark exam this
spring and they will be freshmen this fall. Is that
enough time to react to their individual needs or those
like them? We are pleased with their progress but will
it be enough to meet your standards? We believe the
stakes are too high for the kids caught in the middle.
To withhold a diploma when they have met all other high
school requirements marks them for life. They become the
victim from the very law that was meant to prepare them
for life beyond public school.
In summary, we challenge you and your fellow lawmakers to
each take the exam this session using the present cut
scores so your constituents can fairly evaluate whether
you have the basic skills required to be effective public
servants leading us into the new millennium.
Better yet, just do your job. Make good laws. Listen to
parents, educators, the Alaska PTA the state Board of
Education and your governor. Postpone the effective date
of the exam, give your law time to work and the result
will be better-educated kids. We can then all be proud
of having worked together to find solutions to the
problems facing us today.
MS. KAREN DEMPSTER, Superintendent of Schools, Yukon-Koyukuk School
District, testifying via teleconference from Fairbanks, said she
holds four university degrees - psychology, math, administration
supervision, and law. She is a licensed practicing attorney and
she is profoundly dyslectic. Ms. Dempster asked the committee to
"please avoid a demonstration of how to shoot yourselves in the
foot. Better known as, you have a fine, wonderful idea, but to
fail to implement it correctly will be the bullet through the
foot."
MS. DEMPSTER noted that the high school exam is excellent. Without
the legislation that was passed, it would be hard to implement
changes that are necessary to bring a system into compliance with
state requirements for curriculum and high school graduation
requirements.
MS. DEMPSTER said she has three fulltime grant writers. The grants
are needed to fund programs for teacher training and improvement of
teaching skills, which are not funded with money from the state.
They have implemented accountability of instruction from top to
bottom. They are training teachers to up their skills. They are
aligning their curriculum and extending contract time - this is
where they will need the help of the legislature. Grants can be
written for helping to provide trainers but grant money cannot be
used for extending contract time for salaries. The principal's
contract was extended because there was no time for planning and
implementing plans, which are necessary for this program.
MS. DEMPSTER said that what the legislature is doing is right.
Speaking as a lawyer, the diploma is a property right. If the
proper foundation is not laid, there will be litigation. This exam
is a criterion reference exam. This exam is similar to the bar
exam, it is based on a set of criteria. It has to be assured that
the criteria is accurate and reflects what the student should know.
MS. DEMSTER pleaded with the committee to allow the validity of the
exam to happen.
MR. JOHN HOLST, testifying via teleconference from Sitka, said he
agreed with Ms. Dempster's testimony. He said no one is opposed to
the standards. Mr. Holst said Sitka did not do very well on the
high school graduating qualifying exams; their benchmark results
are much better though. He thinks that putting the test
requirement for the qualifying exam for two or four years is a good
idea.
MR. HOLST'S district went through a dramatic drop in school
enrollment. They lost 141 students, eight percent of the student
population. The largest group that left were 25 students between
the 10th and 11th grade year. They took the qualifying exam last
spring for the first time.
MR. HOLST said it would be a shame to see this effort stopped
because the standards are desperately needed. The exit exams hold
everyone accountable and this is a good thing. It is important
that this is done in a reasoned and thoughtful way.
MS. CHRISTIE WILLETT, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan.
She said she is concerned about the qualifying exam. Changing the
process at the end of a student's high school years rather than
building a foundation earlier in the process is not fair. She is
in favor of standards but they should match the curriculum. The
earliest class that should be considered prepared for a new higher
standard is this year's fourth grade. While she feels math is
important, she is not convinced that every student needs algebra,
geometry and trigonometry. College bound students need these
classes but students who are interested in vocational technology
need different skills.
MS. WILLETT wondered where the plans are for the students who do
not meet the benchmark standards. Retesting without remediation is
senseless. High schools are losing teachers and programs at an
alarming rate; this is not a good formula for success.
Number 1758
MR. KEITH LANE, testifying via teleconference from Kodiak, said he
has a son with learning disabilities. His son has been receiving
special needs and resource time for about ten years and he does not
feel his son will ever be able to pass the exit exam. This will
have a huge impact on his son's future when he tries to join the
military. The air force requires a high school diploma; a
graduation certificate will not be adequate. This is causing
tremendous stress on children with learning disabilities.
Number 1814
MS. SHERRI SPANGLER testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. Ms.
Spangler said her 11th grade son has a learning disability in
reading, writing and math. She is concerned with the time line on
the exit exam. When her son was in elementary school, she
questioned his teachers about his poor writing skills and inability
to spell. Each time she was told it was more important that he
learn the content of what was being taught. She was told he would
be able to use spell-check and have a secretary when he entered the
work place. When her son was in the ninth grade, she was told that
the exit exam would major in spelling and writing ability. It has
been difficult finding help for her son. Special summer classes
have not been available and other special classes have been
cancelled after a few weeks. When help has been available, his
scores improved. Ms. Spangler feels it is unfair that for the
first nine years of her son's education there was one set of rules
and now he has to meet another set of rules. Ms. Spangler feels
the exam should continue but she asks that it be delayed, so that
kids like her son are not penalized.
MS. SHERI WIKAN testified via teleconference from Petersburg. Ms.
Wikan read the following written testimony:
My name is Sheri Wikan. I am a parent of five children,
two that graduated in Washington, two that graduated here
in Petersburg and a junior to graduate in 2002. I have
served on the PTA and am currently a school board member.
I am here to speak on my concerns on the implementation
of the state high school exit exam. I feel the concept
of having our schools and students accountable for what
they learn is right, however I feel before you can expect
our teachers to teach to the standards and our students
to learn the teachers need to know what the standards
are.
In an article this week in our weekly newspaper it was
stated that Bunde said the Department of Education took
three years to develop the test and has set its own cut-
off scores for a passing grade. The thing I find
disturbing about this comment is that DOE takes three
years to develop the test, and how do you know that in
our schools our children have been taught the standards
that is in the test?
I attended an AASB conference last year and one of the
topics discussed was the state high school qualifying
exam. I asked a question of "why are you choosing the
then sophomore class to be the first ones to take the
exam?" Their response was - that was the way the
legislature wanted it.
We had our 3rd, 6th, and 8th graders last year take the
benchmark testing and now know where the focus is for
assisting those students for being successful when they
someday will need to take the high school qualifying
exam. I feel our high school has done an excellent job
of preparing our students. Last springs test was an
unknown to administration, staff and students - our
students did exceptional. This falls test was difficult
because we did not have the results in time for
scheduling, based on needs and to fully prepare the
students for the test. The exam in February/March this
year will be more of a known. It is difficult for me to
understand without the early learning of standards and
the benchmark exams how you can require this for a high
school graduation with a diploma, something most of these
kids have looked forward to for a very long time.
Since the middle school my daughter has planned to go to
college for pediatric nursing, and she is worried about
graduating with a diploma. She is constantly advising us
she wants to leave her senior year to graduate elsewhere.
I wonder how many other students are out there concerned
about that as well?
There is also the issue in the schools, when you mandate
anything such as the exit exam that you do not fund it.
Last year we purchased new math books for the middle
school and high school. This year we will purchase books
for the elementary school. We have also added a new math
teacher in the high school. There is a possibility of
high school with four years of math, if you have not
passed the math portion of the exit exam. Not to say a
fourth year is bad but if they would have been taught the
standards in the first place this may not be necessary.
I guess what it all boils down to is let our staff know
what the standards are and educate our students first
then have the expectation of this exam.
Number 2085
MR. MICHAEL MITCHELL testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
Mr. Mitchell read the following letter:
Just when you thought there was nothing more to say about
the high school qualifying test (HSQT), here I am with a
suggestion.
I have proctored the test, read the test, read the news
articles about the test, talked to the educators in
Juneau who are responsible for constructing and
establishing passing criteria for passing the test and
have come up with these thoughts about the test.
Firstly, the reading and writing part of the test are
appropriate. No one who cannot perform these two parts
or the test should be awarded a diploma. If you can't
read and write you should not have been promoted to the
10th grade, anyway.
Secondly, my tilt comes with the "math" part of the test.
I do not have any problem with the arithmetic problems.
Arithmetic includes only addition, subtraction,
multiplication and division of whole numbers, fractions,
decimals and percents. These arithmetic skills are
necessary to achieve in the real working world and every
graduate should be competent in arithmetic. My problem
is with the "math" concept. Arithmetic is a sub-set of
math. Math includes many things that few graduates need
or use in the real world. Some math teachers want
problems in geometry and algebra to be included in the
HSQT. True a high school graduate should be able to find
the area and perimeter of a plain object. However, no
one needs to prove the congruency of triangles by proving
that the sides, angle, side, are equal et cetera.
Furthermore, few people use algebra outside of the
school. Oh, yes, I will hear from those vocal people who
do use algebra but they are in the minority. I know from
45 years of teaching experience that many of the students
who are enrolled in geometry and algebra are not
proficient in arithmetic. I believe that arithmetic
proficiency in both calculations and solution to work
problems is critical to success in life.
Let's make the HSQT a real measure of the practical
skills that are valued by employers.
Now there is another issue, and that is intensive needs
students.
Intensive needs students are those with an IQ of 60 or
below. Intensive needs students receive a certificate of
attendance instead of a high school diploma.
If the high school diploma is to mean anything we must
test all students.
The federal government has established specific
requirements for student placement in the intensive needs
program. However, the Alaska State Board of Education
has mandated that the intensive needs teachers do a
complex and time consuming additional alternative
assessment. Why?
The intensive needs students will never learn to read,
write, or calculate. You can assess until the world ends
but the intensive needs students will never be able to
read, write, or calculate. The teachers do their best to
help their students to be able to function independently.
That's all. Anything that takes away from the time that
the teachers of the intensive needs students spend with
their students hurts the students.
Please don't hurt the students by taking the teachers
away from their teaching tasks and away from their
students by loading them up with more paperwork.
Number 2230
MS. DIANNE KIANA testified via teleconference from Anchorage. Ms.
Kiana said she is a member of Parents for Effective Reading
Curriculum (PERC). Ms. Kiana said she is opposed to the delay of
the state exit exam. She is opposed to her children having to
settle for IEP diplomas, which she feels are a direct result of not
being properly diagnosed with specific disabilities. These issues
affect the children in urban Alaska but have the same, if not worse
effect, on children in bush Alaska.
MS. KIANA has three children who are learning disabled. All three
of her children continue to fall further behind despite the fact
that they have been provided assistance in special programs. They
are passed from grade to grade, even if they have failed several of
their classes. Her children are smart individuals who work hard at
home to improve their grades. She feels that her children can
achieve the academic goals set before them if they are given the
proper tools in which to learn from. She believes they can pass
the exit exam if they are first properly diagnosed with specific
disabilities and then given an effective educational program which
includes a research based reading curriculum.
MS. KIANA does not believe the exit exam should be delayed but that
proper diagnosis should be provided for those not passing and then
proper tools for remediation should be applied. Ms. Kiana believes
delaying the exit exam is a cop out for accountability.
Tape 01-5, Side A
Number 001
MS. CHRISTINE SMITH, testifying via teleconference from Fairbanks,
said she is the principal of Lathrop High School. She grew up in
Fairbanks and attended the University of Alaska. Ms. Smith said
she applauds the legislature's support of standards and
accountability. She supports the state's underlying philosophy
that education is important for all students and that all students
can learn.
MS. SMITH strongly urged the legislature to delay the effective
date of the high school graduation qualifying exam. The effective
date of 2002 has mandated great changes in education, but these
changes are just starting. Ms. Smith's district has recently
received data from the first test, in a form useful for making
effective changes in an efficient and reasonable manner. A delay
will mean that educators can progress with changes that are needed.
MS. SMITH commented that until 2006, the students who complete the
requirements for a diploma would receive a diploma. A delay will
give the department and the districts the opportunity to address
both the test and the preparation for the test. The test itself
needs review and revision. A delay would also accommodate the need
for change in curriculum and instruction.
Ms. Smith asked, "Are all the items on the test really what a
student needs to know to make the basic diploma meaningful?" She
urged lawmakers to take the practice test and then vote.
Number 235
MS. MARY FORNER testified via teleconference from Kodiak. Ms.
Forner said she is the parent of a freshman and junior in high
school. As she understands the issue, there are two areas of
responsibility - accountability and implementation of the exam.
MS. FORNER is concerned that sufficient scrutiny has not been used
for the timeline. The benchmark is the most useful tool that has
been developed for the district, teacher, student and their
parents. The exam creates something independent of the report card
for measuring a student's achievement.
MS. FORNER supports extending the exam up to the class of 2004.
She believes that within this time frame DOE will continue to
respond with the benchmark exam as well as the exiting exam so that
the standards set by the legislature are truly reflected.
MS. FORNER said she is also concerned with funding. There has been
no mention of where the funding will come from for support
services, both educational and counseling, or how the students will
be integrated.
MS. FORNER commented that legislators have talked with business
people, educators, and parents, but have they spent time with the
students who will be negatively impacted by this exam.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that several legislators have attended high
school classes and talked with students this past year.
Number 561
MS. BARBARA LEFLER, testifying via teleconference from Anchorage,
said she has furnished the committee with a packet of information.
Ms. Lefler read the following testimony.
My name is Barbara Lefler. I am also with PERC and you
have just met my husband Doug and learned a little
about our son Neal.
I would like to direct your attention to document 5
called Alaska High School Graduation Qualifying Exam. It
is Neal's report from his first experience taking the
High School Graduation Qualifying Exam. Neal was a
sophomore at the time this test was taken and as you saw
in a previous document, Neal was reading at a 3rd grade
level. If you will look at the top right hand corner, you
will see not only how Neal scored on the three parts of
the test but also where the passing cut off score is.
Neal came home after the test experience under a lot of
stress. He said the reading portion was so difficult for
him that by the time he had merely flipped through a few
pages of the test booklet he wrote, "I can't read this"
at the top of page 10. His frustration became so great
that he ended up putting "see page 10" through out the
rest of the test. Then Neal proceeded to do all he could
do and began randomly filling in the bubbles on the
answer sheet. I hope you are as amazed as we were to find
that Neal had guessed himself halfway to passing the
reading competency portion of the test. PERC is adamant
that when the standard deviation was applied to the cut
scores, it virtually invalidated the true measure of
competency.
Please turn to the final document 6 called Quality
Schools Grant Application. As an example of lack of
accountability, on page one you will note that a school
district received $94,600 for "Materials and training
opportunities for parent-teacher collaboration in working
with students and training parents to work with
students." When applying for the grant, schools had to
answer the question found on page 4 of this document,
"How will parents be involved in learning to help their
children meet standards?" The answer to this question is
astounding. We read, There is not a concerted, district-
wide effort to "involve parents in learning to help their
children meet standards," rather there is ongoing
encouragement from the School Board, the Superintendent,
and the Administration to remind parents of their
essential role in sending us students ready to learn,
regardless of the grade level." This district was given
$94,600 after it was clearly stated that "there is not a
concerted district wide effort to" use the funds as
specified.
Can you imagine how many teachers could have been trained
in scientific based, systematic, comprehensive reading
instruction for $94,600? Can you imagine how many
specific, supportive reading curriculum materials could
have been purchased? Can you imagine how many children's
lives could have been effected and how many more of our
children could have been as prepared as Neal now is to
face the competency exam and possibly graduate with their
peers?
Parents are tired. We can and we will continue to fight
for the rights of our children individually, but we are
battle weary. We need your help to insure our children's
success. We need our districts to be held accountable for
the funds they receive.
Please help us. You have the power to require
accountability. You are using that power to hold our
children accountable. Now is the time to use that power
to hold the education system equally accountable. Stop
allowing our money to be wasted. Our children have a
right to read. Our children are capable of learning. The
window is closing. With the 2002 deadline pressing we
need intensive remedial programs for our children NOW.
These programs must include proven, research based,
systematic instruction, just like the state of Idaho is
requiring. We will support the 2002 deadline, if our
children are provided with the appropriate curriculum to
insure they have an opportunity to graduate with their
class.
NUMBER 801
MR. JEFFREY R. STEPHAN, testifying via teleconference from Kodiak,
read the following testimony:
Senator Green, Representative Bunde, Representative
Stevens, and members of the senate and house committees.
My name is Jeff Stephan, and I have the privilege and
honor of serving as the president of the Kodiak Board of
Education.
The Kodiak Board of Education supports standards, we
support assessment, and we support accountability. We
applaud the legislature for your initiatives with respect
to standards, assessment and accountability. The Kodiak
Board of Education supports the delay in the effective
date of the high school competency exam; therefore, we
support HB 94 and SB 56.
We believe that the board of education, the
administrators and educators of the Kodiak Island Borough
School District should be accountable to the public, to
the parents, and most of all, to the students whose
future employment, future success and future
contributions to society rely greatly on the education
that they receive in our school district.
The Kodiak Board of Education is very proud of the
quality, commitment and dedication of our teachers, and
of the level of instruction that our teachers provide to
our students. We are confident of our teacher's ability
to align curriculum to meet state standards, and to teach
relevant content that prepares our students for the high
school competency exam. However, we agree with others in
the state that the Alaskan school districts need more
time to allow our professionals to readjust to the new
task of addressing the subject exam.
We fear that the premature implementation of the exam
will stigmatize young people with the label of failure;
that is, a certificate of attendance may result in
imposing a negative stigma on our young people,
improperly influencing them in their education and career
choices, and having unintended unfavorable consequences.
Our Alaskan students need your leadership to provide them
with positive encouragement to continue their education,
and to feel good about themselves.
We ask you to consider that we are dealing with
predominantly young folks here. There are significant
issues of maturity, age and self-esteem that we believe
you should take into consideration. We ask you to
consider a system whereby students who meet local high
school graduation requirements should receive a high
school diploma, and students who pass the high school
competency exam should receive some type of a special
high school diploma; for example, similar to the "regents
diploma" system that is used in the state of New York,
and in many other states. This adjustment will still
provide you with the statistical data on individual
district and school performance, while removing the
unnecessary stigmatization that a certificate of
completion will represent to many of our valued Alaskan
students.
By delaying the implementation date of the high school
competency exam, you will provide Alaskan school
districts with the time to adjust the curriculum and
instruction with Alaskan standards and the high school
competency exam.
Thank you for your attention. We appreciate your
consideration of our request that you delay the
implementation date of the high school competency exam.
Number 974
MR. DOUGLAS LEFLER, testifying from Anchorage, testified and
submitted the following written testimony.
My Name is Doug Lefler. I am the father of four children.
I am a member of Parents for Effective Reading
Curriculum.
Our family moved to Alaska when our son Neal was in the
sixth grade. By the time Neal was 3 years old, we knew he
didn't process information the same way you and I do. We
knew by kindergarten, that Neal would have difficulty
learning to read and write. Over the years my wife and I
have spent thousands of dollars and thousands of hours to
teach our son to read. Neal has qualified for special
education services since he was in 2nd grade. Special
Education is designed to provide individual instruction
to meet a child's unique needs. During Neal's entire
school career, every meeting we attended with school
staff we were assured that Neal was a nice boy, who was
making progress. But, were determined that our son would
be literate. If you will look at document 1 labeled Neal
Lefler, you will see that by the time Neal was 16.5 he
had made only half of a year gain in reading in the last
three years in special education. Here was a bright young
man in the class of 2002, facing a competency exam and he
could only read on a third grade level. It was a hopeless
feeling. Fortunately, we learned of a private clinic in
Anchorage who used a method that was proven to teach
reading.
Because we believe that every child has a right to read
and every school has a responsibility and obligation to
teach this basic skill, we turned to our school district
for support in our efforts for Neal to learn to read. It
was a time consuming and heart wrenching challenge, but
with the help of a parent advocate, we used the process
laid out in the IDEA. We had to go to the point of
mediation with our school district for support in our
efforts to insure an appropriate education for our son.
Last March, Neal read at a 3rd grade level. In April and
May, Neal attended that private clinic and, 20 hours per
week for 7 weeks of intensive remediation using the
Lindamood-Bell Learning Process. Neal's reading went up 2
grade levels. The summer passed with no further
instruction.
When Neal returned to school for his junior year in
September, he received support in his classroom by a
teacher trained in the Lindamood-Bell Learning Process,
the same process he received at the private clinic. In
December, right before Christmas, Neal brought home an
envelope with a big gold bow on it. We opened the gift to
learn that Neal was reading ON GRADE LEVEL. He was
reading slowly, but his accuracy and comprehension were
commendable. It is now possible for Neal to pass the High
School Graduation Qualifying Exam and graduate with his
peers.
PERC believes that every child in Alaska deserves this
opportunity. I know that there are those within the sound
of my voice who are looking for public support in keeping
the 2002 deadline for the competency exam. PERC is here
to voice our support. We believe our children are capable
of meeting or exceeding state standards. However, our
support must be conditional. Our children are being held
accountable when many haven't received the instruction
necessary to meet the standards. We are looking to the
legislature to hold the school system equally
accountable. We are looking to the legislature to only
budget funds for remedial programs that meet rigorous
standards. In Idaho, legislators passed laws that
mandated specific guidelines for the state school board
to uphold. Documents 2 and 3 in your packet are Idaho
State Statues produced by the legislature. If you read
nothing else, please read these 2 documents. Document 4
is the Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Plan that is
mentioned in the Idaho State statues.
As a father and a member of the Alaska community, I
request your immediate attention to this matter. Follow
Idaho's leadership for the sake of our children.
Number 1196
MR. ISHAMEL HOPE said he graduated from Juneau Douglas High School
in the year 2000. He testified on his own behalf but said he hoped
to advocate for students.
MR. HOPE said that because a person has a high school diploma does
not necessarily mean that that person is capable of being a
successful member of society. Mr. Hope believes that everyone
deserves the chance to be successful and to be a competent member
of society. "A diploma should not carry the major weight of how a
person carries on their life - that is up to the individual, not a
standard."
MR. HOPE said that on the other hand, he supports the exit exam as
long as "empirical data," not just a national fad, can show that
the qualifying exam will truly raise the level of education - in
all facets. Every student needs the chance to succeed.
Number 1390
MR. DARRYL HARGRAVES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators (ACSA), said the Association of School
Administrators (ASA), a sub-group of ACSA, has passed a resolution
which says that they believe Alaska's public schools are educating
children at a higher level than ever before. They think that
Alaskan educators desire to see improvement and work very hard to
seek that there is accountability among students and staff. ASA
also believes the high school graduation qualifying exam was put on
an ambitious time line and if the unintended consequences could
have been foreseen, a different time line may have been set.
MR. HARGRAVES commented that ASA thinks there are many legitimate
social issues confronting children, some of which are not based on
education. ASA is concerned that some children have not had access
to the necessary curriculum directed toward the standards and
benchmark test for passing the exit exam.
MR. HARGRAVES said ASA recommends the effective date for fully
implementing the exit exam be suspended until all students have a
reasonable opportunity to go through the lower grades and access
the curriculum required to be successful. ASA recommends that the
exam be kept in place but it should be delayed.
MR. HARGRAVES commented that ASA is not opposed to the state
implementation of standards for high school graduation. Some
students will need mentoring, summer school, and extended day
instruction and work to come up to standard.
Number 1640
MR. ROBERT BRIGGS, staff attorney for the Disability Law Center of
Alaska (DLCA) in Juneau, said he is not an agent of a legal
challenge of this law. DLCA has a new executive director, Mr. Dave
Fleurant, who has specific expertise in special education. DLCA
has hired a new attorney, Ms. Amy Headrick, in Anchorage to deal
specifically with special education issues.
MR. BRIGGS said DLCA has expressed to the board of education
concerns with the way the current administration is administering
current law. DLCA's first concern is the lack of reported
performance on the exam, on both the state and local level, for
students with disabilities. This is required under federal law -
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. DLCA expects to see
data that will show how students with disabilities have done on
these tests as compared to their peers.
MR. BRIGGS said DLCA's next concern is the importance of using the
test as a predictor of success. If this test instrument
disproportionately affects a segment of the population, and the
test instrument does not validly predict success, then that is
illegal. It is very important to show whether the test has a
disproportionate impact or whether the test has been validated as a
predicator of success. Evidence has not been seen yet that there
has been proper validation of this test instrument. There is
support for delaying the deadline of the qualifying exam.
MR. BRIGGS urged the committee to explore alternative ways of
demonstrating competency besides using a single test. One
alternative is to delay implementation until the Alaska Board of
Education has determined if the test instrument is a fair predictor
of success and does not unfairly discriminate against any group of
students.
MR. BRIGGS said a class action legal challenge is a last resort
after all means of political change have been exhausted and he
urged all members of the committee to seek and find consensus on
this subject. DLCA is committed to helping, so that unnecessary
legal challenges can be avoided.
MR. DAVE BUSEY, testifying via teleconference from Sitka, said he
is speaking for himself. He has taught college and high school
mathematics and computer science for many years. He is the parent
of two students who are now in college.
MR. BUSSEY said he believes the exam is a good tool; he favors
standards and accountability. The exam is a good tool for school
assessment but it is not good as a single criterion for graduation.
A single written math exam inadequately represents a student's
mastery of high school math. He suggested the exam be broadened to
include more varieties of student measurement, and instructional
time for teachers should be cut in some areas so they can prepare
students for the exam.
MR. BUSSEY asked the committee to delay implementation of the math
test and to restudy ways for a better math exam.
MR. LES DENZER, Assistant Superintendent for instructional
programs, Lower Kuskokwim School District (LKSD), testified via
teleconference. Mr. Denzer submitted the following testimony:
Thank you for the opportunity to voice our opinion and
position today. As we all know, the role of the public
school in our society has taken on and continues to take
an evermore challenging and demanding role. The
increased number of dysfunctional families, the
widespread use and abuse of drugs, inhalants and alcohol
at an increasingly younger age, the increase of violence
in the homes and in our schools have all taken a great
toll on the instructional delivery system. All to the
point that it is fruitless to determine an effective
delivery system until safety, security, and healthy life
choices are fostered and assured. Schools need to be
provided with adequate resources in order to deal
effectively with these social concerns before they can
see even slight success and progress in the basic
academic pursuits for all children.
Alaska is not unique when it comes to social malady as a
state we share in this challenge. Social ills show no
preference for race or community size. Urban and rural
alike fall victim to the negative news reports we hear
all too much. These social ills need to be addressed by
society and all too often the burden falls upon the
shoulders of the school staff with little or no financial
or professional support from the appropriate agencies or
authorities.
Alaska is unique however in the responsibilities of the
schools in other areas. Village schools of rural Alaska
are required to be the stewards of the community's
wastewater management program. They are considered the
sole source of funds and personnel to manage a healthy
water quality program for the community as well. These
are only two examples of issues that rural schools are
asked to manage, support and finance both directly and
indirectly. These issues or programs do not fall within
the responsibility of the urban school districts. Rural
schools are often asked to support these community
programs at the expense of educating the children in our
schools. Money intended for education is often siphoned
off to provide adequate facilities and support for the
community at large.
These and other responsibilities are taken care of by the
public school system in rural Alaska and always at the
expense of the child in the classroom. While we are
asked to consider the option of requiring passage of a
qualifying exam now or later for graduation, we ask the
legislature to simultaneously consider appropriate
funding which would allow adequate and timely instruction
for all students. Especially now given the challenging
role of public schools in the new millennium and also to
provide other agencies of rural Alaska the necessary
resources to manage and support community social and
physical infrastructure. Then schools can be about the
business they are trained to do and can thus be justly
evaluated.
In relation to the timing of the high school graduation
qualifying exam and when passage should be required. The
LKSD would like the legislature to know that we welcome
the purpose of the qualifying exam and the accountability
it guarantees to the students and communities we serve.
Also know that we will abide by the decision of the
legislature and work toward as great a success as
possible if the decision is to let stand the current
requirement. However, at a recent LKSD board meeting it
was decided that the LKSD's official position and
recommendation be:
· The state require that students graduating in
the year 2002 pass any one portion of the current
exam and meet local district requirements before
he/she can receive a state high school diploma.
· The state require that students graduating in
the year 2003 pass any two portions of the current
exam and meet local district requirements before
he/she can receive a state high school diploma.
· The state require that students graduating in
the year 2004 pass all three portions of the
current exam and meet local district requirements
before he/she can receive a state high school
diploma.
If the state changes the passage requirement of the HSGQE
to a later date, the LKSD may decide to phase in the
HSGQE requirement anyway as stated above unless our
policy would be in conflict with state regulations.
Once again thank you for the opportunity to share our
concerns and our position on the deadline for passage of
the high school graduation qualifying exam.
CO-CHAIR GREEN said she looks forward to the Senate HESS Committee
delving into this matter to see if they can come up with a
solution. She is not sure that one test will adequately suffice to
be the determinate of whether a person graduates or not.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE thanked the people who participated in the meeting
and said there was a considerable amount of testimony that schools
are working toward improvement. It is important to note that this
is not the legislature's test or DOE's test. When the bill was
passed in 1997, it became Alaska's test. Everyone has a right and
responsibility to make sure the bill is crafted to be an asset to
the students. Co-chair Bunde's personal goal is to increase the
investment in education but with the investment of state funds
comes accountability. Almost three quarters of a billion dollars
are spent every year to support the public schools. In some
schools that is more than $20,000 per student per year. This money
should be well used and the students should receive the benefit of
every nickel of that and future money. This is not a punitive
action; the ultimate goal is for improvement and to not leave
anyone behind.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that on February 14 the House HESS Committee
will hear HB 94.
With not further business to come before the committee, CO-CHAIR
GREEN adjourned the meeting at 1:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|