02/28/2001 08:04 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
February 28, 2001
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chair
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Joe Green
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Gretchen Guess (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 99
"An Act relating to school discipline and safety programs; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 94
"An Act relating to initiatives for quality schools; relating to
pupil competency testing and the issuance of secondary school
diplomas; relating to certain reports regarding academic
performance of schools; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 99
SHORT TITLE:SCHOOL DISCIPLINE AND SAFETY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MCGUIRE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/31/01 0212 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/31/01 0212 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
01/31/01 0212 (H) REFERRED TO EDU
02/28/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 94
SHORT TITLE:PUPIL COMPETENCY TEST;ANNUAL EDUC. REPORT
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/26/01 0171 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/26/01 0171 (H) EDU, HES
01/26/01 0172 (H) FN1: ZERO(EED)
01/26/01 0172 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
01/26/01 0172 (H) REFERRED TO EDU
02/14/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/14/01 (H) Heard & Held
02/14/01 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
02/28/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL McGUIRE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 418
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 99.
SANDY ANDERSON, Teacher
and Co-Facilitator of Conflict Resolution
Chugiak High School
PO Box 770218
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 99.
MELODY RADCLIFF, Teacher
Chugiak High School
P.O. Box 770218
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 99.
JUDY MATHEWSON, Teacher
and Co-Facilitator of Conflict Resolution at
Chugiak High School
P.O. Box 770218
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 99.
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Legislative & Administrative Liaison
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110635
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 99.
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
National Education Association-Alaska
114 2nd Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 99.
PHILIP REEVES, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 94.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commission of Education
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education & Early Development
801 West 10th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions of HB 94.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-10, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR CON BUNDE called the House Special Committee on Education
meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Bunde, Porter, Wilson, Stevens,
Joule, and Guess (via teleconference). Representative Green
joined the meeting as it was in progress.
HB 99-SCHOOL DISCIPLINE AND SAFETY
CHAIR BUNDE announced the committee would hear testimony on
HOUSE BILL NO. 99, "An Act relating to school discipline and
safety programs; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0163
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL MCGUIRE, Alaska State Legislature, came
forth as sponsor of HB 99. She explained:
HB 99 ... amends Title 14 of the Alaska Statutes to
include policies that will seek to initiate student
conflict resolution curriculum. It seeks to recognize
and enforce existing behavior standards by giving
students alternatives to solving problems besides the
use of violence. It is our hope that students learn
valuable lessons that will result in a safer education
environment, by integrating this way of learning
[into] schools' core curriculum. These policies are
[targeted] at helping students resolve problems before
they escalate.
Number 0231
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE stated that the need for this bill has
been brought to light through a series of incidents across the
state, beginning with the taping of a fight at Service High
School [in Anchorage] that was observed by approximately 150
spectators. In Representative McGuire's district, at Dimond
High School, there was a fight in which one [student] used an
aluminum bat and rendered [another student] unconscious. He was
in a coma for a couple of weeks. She said that two students at
East High School were recently in a fight in which one student
used a knife, and this past Saturday, in Soldotna, two teenagers
were arrested after fighting each other with a knife and a
hammer. She added that this bill is a meager attempt at trying
to allow schools to focus on the problem of dispute resolution
and violence. She noted that her original bill would have set
up an actual program, but that is not possible now with the lack
of finances. Therefore, she seeks to amend the bill and replace
it with language that would allow [schools] to implement
policies.
[In packets was a document marked "sponsor's Proposed CS
Language", which read: "(7) Policies for implementing student
conflict resolution strategies that include the nonviolent
resolution or mediation of conflict and must provide procedures
for reporting and resolving conflicts." This was later adopted
as Amendment 1.]
Number 0328
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE stated that one success story is the
[Chugiak High School Peaceable Program]. Chugiak, without the
help of legislation, sought ways to help train its students in
nonviolent conflict resolution, and has received a federal grant
to create a pilot program.
Number 0406
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN shared that his oldest daughter led a
conflict resolution program in a high school in Orange County,
California, for about five years. The program was dropped
[because of financial difficulties]. He remarked that when the
program was instituted, [gangs and violence] significantly
decreased. He added that since the program was dropped,
fighting has gone back up. He stressed that the program does
work; however, it is expensive.
Number 0495
CHAIR BUNDE asked why the bill is necessary if [schools] are
already able to [have conflict resolution programs].
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE answered that HB 99 amends HB 253 that
was instituted last year. She remarked that some of the same
questions were asked about HB 253, such as: Why put into law
something that some schools are already doing? She expressed
that the point [of HB 99] is to raise awareness, both on a
public level and an individual school level. While some schools
do take the initiative, most do not. She added that even with
the lack of resources to create a program, this is a step in the
right direction for schools to focus on existing resources,
counseling staff, and teachers who might have a dispute
resolution background. One of the things that Chugiak has done
is to use peers who have been involved in conflicts. She added
that her other hope is that [HB 99] will encourage schools to be
innovative and seek grants.
Number 615
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that he is sensitive to unfounded mandates.
He clarified that the bill, as originally written, would cost
somewhere between $20 and $100 for the conflict resolution
materials for each teacher, and about $30,000 for staff
training. He added that although [HB 99] doesn't have a fiscal
note for the state, it would have a fiscal impact for school
districts. He asked: If a school voluntarily decides to do
this, what would [teachers], whose days are already so full,
have to give up?
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE replied that she thinks some of those
concerns were addressed when HB 253 was passed last year. She
noted that it was encouraging when the Anchorage School District
newsletter had a profile on HB 253, which brought to light what
schools were required to do. Many of the schools "waived out"
and many already had policies in place that addressed these
concerns. She said that she feels the safety of children and
developing skills to help them prevent violence are important
enough topics to require some innovation from the schools. She
said in the event that it is not possible for schools to seek
federal and state grants, perhaps students could be briefed with
something as simple as Chugiak's basic policy. She added that,
at a minimum, this would start a conversation at the school
level. She stated that she is not proposing that schools
dramatically take away teachers from other coursework, or create
programs that would drain resources from other required areas.
By the same token, she said, any effort to raise awareness in
schools is going to be helpful.
Number 0847
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt the sponsor's
proposed language [provided previously] Amendment 1. There
being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0890
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE remarked that he took a class [in high
school] called Social Studies, which dealt with conflict
resolution. He asked whether this could be something put into
the curriculum at minimal cost so it would just be a matter of
course for students.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE responded that when she took Social
Studies at Dimond High School, [conflict resolution] was not a
component. She added that many of the programs in schools, such
as student government, already encourage student leaders and
incorporate some of these methods. However, in her opinion,
they are not reaching a broad enough base.
Number 1049
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that he is concerned that if
something is being put into statute that is merely a suggestion,
without some form of incentive, it won't be accepted. He asked
whether Chugiak's response could be administered throughout the
school districts without having to change that statute.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE answered that it is complicated. She
said that in the past month and half she has explored many of
the ideas Representative Green has suggested and can't come up
with one that works. She remarked that Representative Dyson,
last year, faced the same challenge when he presented HB 253.
He sought to find a way to implement basic values in the school
systems in order to keep students and educators safe; however,
there wasn't any success. She added that it is wrong to say
that because [HB 99] won't accomplish everything, it's not a
worthy effort. Any step that will raise the level of awareness
about violence and alternative dispute resolution is positive.
She said it is necessary to think realistically; it is going to
be more effective if schools can find grants and ways for
funding.
Number 1229
SANDY ANDERSON, Teacher and Co-Facilitator of Conflict
Resolution, Chugiak High School, testified via teleconference.
She said that [Chugiak High School] implemented the [conflict
resolution program] through references or requests for mediation
from the discipline office, the security office, and the
teachers. Through education on how the process works and how
effective it could be in the classroom, [the staff] have learned
that it can be used as an early intervention to classroom
conflicts and disruptions.
MS. ANDERSON stated that school districts do need some incentive
on implementing this program. She said that working with the
teachers in the classroom and with the discipline principle has
helped to infuse the [conflict resolution] program in the school
so that it is part of the every day operating schedule. She
said that the program receives requests on a daily basis, and
staff members plan and utilize their lunch hour and conference
periods to help supervise mediations. She added that Chugiak
has over 20 trained [student] mediators this year who will give
up their lunch hour to help mediate or to work with their peers
to help settle a problem. Through this process, a lot of
potential suspensions have been eliminated.
Number 1334
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the remediation requests come from the
students, the teachers, or both.
MS. ANDERSON answered that they can come from both. She noted
that the percentage of requests coming from teachers and
students has increased this year. She remarked that students
are seeing this as a way of interacting more appropriately with
their peers when they have a confrontation regarding a rumor,
name-calling, or pushing and shoving. Teachers are looking at
it as, "I've got a couple of kids in my class that are
interacting inappropriately. It's not to the point that it's a
disciplinary issue, but it is distracting. I don't have time to
deal with it; I'm doing academic things. Can you handle this
situation?" Therefore, [these students] are referred [to
mediation]. In those instances, many teachers, afterward, say
that the entire classroom atmosphere is more pleasant and more
positive.
Number 1394
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if this is being done with peer
counseling, with students, or with just counselors.
MS. ANDERSON answered that this is being done with peer
mediators, students who have been trained in a special workshop
so that they can lead the process. She said that this is more
effective, peer relating to peer, because they can relate on the
same level.
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether [the mediations] are done under adult
supervision.
MS. ANDERSON replied that they are. She said that there are
five teachers who have helped with mediations who are able to
sit in with the student mediators. She added that there is also
adult supervision for the teacher-to-student disputes.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if she knew the cost to the district per year.
MS. ANDERSON replied that right now it is costing approximately
$5,000 to $6,000.
Number 1450
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if she could be more specific as to
what the costs are.
MS. ANDERSON answered that part of the cost has to do with the
training workshop and part has to do with reimbursing time for
teachers who give up their time to do the training and
mediation. She said she shares the concern that teachers
already have a full load. She added that she and Judy
Mathewson, co-facilitator, have flexible schedules so that they
are able to give up their conference and lunch period on a daily
basis to help set up the mediation, attend the mediations when
necessary, talk with parents and students regarding the
mediations, and go into the classroom and work with the
teachers. She said that the principal supports the program "110
percent" and is willing to take grant money to compensate the
sponsors and provide financial support. She stated that in the
spring she and Judy Mathewson will be teaching a class, open to
all Anchorage School District employees, that will teach other
schools in the school district how to set up a program like the
one in Chugiak. Two high schools [whose representatives will be
attending] the class have received grants to carry through the
Peaceable School Program in their schools.
Number 1551
CHAIR BUNDE said that the committee has been led to believe that
it would cost $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000 a year per school,
depending on the school.
MS. ANDERSON replied that she had only addressed the cost of the
peer mediation, which is just one portion of the Peaceable
Schools Program. [Peer mediation] is the most visible and
active portion; however, there are other programs, such as the
Positive Action Committee.
Number 1610
MELODY RADCLIFF, Teacher, Chugiak High School, testified via
teleconference. She stated that the Drug-Free Schools Program
receives a grant that is distributed to the various high
schools. Chugiak High School has received about $4,500 for
various aspects. She said that the Positive Action Committee is
a committee of representatives from each of the school's clubs
and activities that meets four times a year for scheduled
meetings as well as during a crisis situation. The purpose of
this body is to make sure that when there is a problem, accurate
information is distributed among the student body. Another
committee that was created is the Student Forum, which is a
governing body that has homeroom representatives who work on
problems in the school.
Number 1714
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that this is a very important
program, and he said it seems to him that it is crucial for
every student to understand how conflict resolution works before
a crisis arises. He asked how [Chugiak High School] ensures
that every student has an opportunity to learn about how to
resolve conflicts before they occur, how it is worked into the
curriculum, and which curriculum it is worked into.
Number 1745
JUDY MATHEWSON, Teacher and Co-Facilitator, Chugiak High School,
testified via teleconference. She answered that student
mediators go into the homerooms every other week and give a
presentation about conflict resolution and peer mediation, not
only to educate all the teachers but also to educate all the
students on how to deal with conflicts. She added that there is
also in-service training for the staff members.
Number 1797
MS. RADCLIFF added that there is a curriculum, written by Carol
Leiber (ph,) who is affiliated with Partners in Learning in the
Chicago area. The Anchorage School District has invited her at
least four times to help train staff and students on the
principles of having a peaceable classroom and running a
peaceable school. There is a 36-lesson curriculum to pull from.
Ms. Radcliff stated that there is not a separate class for
teaching these skills at this point but several teachers are
using parts of the curriculum in their classroom to solidify
those peaceable principles with their students.
Number 1853
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Legislative & Administrative Liaison, Division
of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health & Social Services,
came forth to testify in support of HB 99. He said that the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has
developed a conflict resolution program guide. He explained:
The tenets of conflict resolution present a new model
of interacting with, and thinking about, other people,
one that challenges us to go beyond stereotypes, to
consider the other's point of view, and to reach a
mutually satisfactory agreement in which all parties
win. If we can succeed in teaching our youth this
framework for resolving their disputes, the results
for them and for our society could be profound.
MR. BUTTCANE said that by the time kids get into the juvenile
justice system, the damage has already been done. He said that
it is his job to "pull bodies out of the river" and then fix
[the damage] if he possibly can, but the better solution is to
keep them from getting in the river in the first place. He
stated that programs like this will do that.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if it is possible for a school to take the
information already available from the state and try to
implement a peer-mediation program.
MR. BUTTCANE replied that using the ingenuity and the energy of
students works to everyone's advantage, which was part of the
success of Alaska's youth courts. He stated that peer mediation
is another example of a how something can happen when a teen
talks to a peer that doesn't always happen when an adult talks
to a young person. That might help minimize some of the
expense. He added that he thinks in the long term the rewards
from these kinds of programs will far exceed the costs needed to
be borne today.
Number 1989
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if it would be helpful, with the
amendment now [Amendment 1], to use this as a basis for applying
for grants for these kinds of programs.
MR. BUTTCANE answered yes, that there are a number of grants
available that support mediation programs for adults, victim
offenders as well as students. He stated that creating policies
within the school is one demonstration to a granting agency that
there is the interest, and they could move forward and possibly
consider a funding request.
Number 2030
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, National Education
Association-Alaska (NEA-Alaska), came forth to testify in
support of HB 99. He said that NEA-Alaska has been dealing with
legislation regarding safe schools and discipline for four
years. National Education Association-Alaska believes that the
schools will be better when the communities get better.
Oftentimes, the schools are reflecting what is actually going on
in communities. He said this has caused NEA-Alaska to redefine
its budget to deal with the issue of school safety from the
perspective of students, teachers, administrators, and parents.
Number 2100
MR. MARSHALL stated that the incident that occurred in Bethel
caused NEA-Alaska to see that there was a need to do things
differently. He said that NEA-Alaska is deploying more dollars
relative to the whole issue of parent involvement and student
discipline. He added that NEA-Alaska has a number of training
programs and people on staff who spend a considerable amount of
time working with school management, school districts, and
teachers to deal with the implementation of the statute passed
last year. He said establishing a policy that deals with the
issue of how to address and handle anger is something that is
woefully needed.
MR. MARSHALL continued, stating that there are probably more
personnel in districts who are addressing this issue, and that
more money is being spent on situations in which anger and
disruption occur in schools [than ever before]. He stated that
the whole issue is for kids and parents dealing with aggression
to divert their anger in more productive means. He added that
NEA-Alaska has training in programs that address conflict
resolution and programs for teachers dealing with classroom
management and discipline. He concluded, saying NEA-Alaska
hopes that HB 99 will encourage the [University of Alaska] to
take a look at how teachers are trained for classroom management
and discipline.
TAPE 01-10, SIDE B
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that the committee will not be taking any
action on HB 99. [House Bill 99 was held over.]
HB 94-PUPIL COMPETENCY TEST;ANNUAL EDUC. REPORT
CHAIR BUNDE announced the committee would hear testimony on
HOUSE BILL NO. 94, "An Act relating to initiatives for quality
schools; relating to pupil competency testing and the issuance
of secondary school diplomas; relating to certain reports
regarding academic performance of schools; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 2124
PHILIP REEVES, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came forth
to address HB 94. He told the committee that a number of states
are looking at high-stakes examinations that must be passed in
order for [students to receive] their high school diplomas. He
stated that the Department of Law believes the challenges to
Texas's and Florida's examination, both discussed and decided in
detail by federal courts, may be helpful for Alaska. Both those
cases were challenged under the Civil Rights Act, [under the
theory] that there was a disproportionate effect on a particular
minority group. However, the focus of the courts was on the due
process issue of whether there was a fair opportunity to learn.
MR. REEVES remarked that the issue [on the opportunity to learn]
is divided into two sections. One is content validity, which
asks whether the test accurately measures the test-takers
knowledge in the content area being tested. Mr. Reeves said
that the Department of Law feels good about the program's effort
in developing this examination and hopes the program addresses
the question about whether there might be cultural bias in
certain questions. The other major issue is instructional
validity, which asks whether the curriculum and total
educational program offer each student a reasonable opportunity
to gain the knowledge and skills that are tested. He mentioned
that in the Texas case there was a fairly significant state-
mandated remedial program that was applied, which [resulted in]
an increase in the passage rate of the plaintiff class.
Number 2016
MR. REEVES stated that in Alaska there is a program that uses
the exit examination as a culmination of the educational
program. Testing begins with the third-, sixth- and eighth-
grade benchmark tests, which identify those children who need
particular instruction or remediation along the way so that they
don't fall below the curve. He added that this information
[from the benchmark tests] could also be used to assist the
districts and schools in determining whether a different
emphasis needs to be placed on the curriculum.
MR. REEVES said he is concerned with the timing of the
implementation. The results from the [2000] benchmark and high
school competency exams were available to the districts and the
schools for the first time in the fall of 2000. He stated that
those results are being used to identify children who need
specific assistance, as well as educational programs that need
to be "tweaked." He questioned whether there is [adequate] time
between the receipt of those results and the current date of
2002, at which time a diploma would be withheld. He also
questioned whether the children were given an opportunity to
learn under the curricula provided.
Number 1943
MR. REEVES stated that the requirement for an exam was enacted
in 1997. He said Representative Green had asked, "Why didn't we
develop a curriculum based on the [exam] then?" He stated that
according to the requirements of the courts, in order for n exam
to be valid, it must be aligned with the curriculum. He said
the first question that would be raised, as to whether an exam
could have been developed in 1997, would be whether there was a
uniform curriculum across the state and in all the schools in
1997. He remarked that it takes time to develop a test that is
considered to be valid under the type of standards that are now
applied. He stated that it's the [EED's] position to offer the
districts and schools some time to utilize [the test] results to
effect their programs as necessary in order to provide children
with the opportunity to learn, and to bring the curriculum into
alignment.
Number 1869
MR. REEVES pointed out that there have been many articles and
considerations nationally about this high-stakes testing issue.
The office of the civil rights of the U.S. Department of
Education published a fairly major set of guidelines in December
2000. He said that he had read comments from [Education Law
Reporter, May 1999] that helped him capture one of the problems
seen across the state. He read:
Where policy makers use high-stakes tests to "lead"
changes in curriculum and instruction, there is
inevitably -- by design -- a gap between what the test
measures and what students have been taught. - Tests
should be used for high-stakes decisions about
individual mastery only after implementing changes in
teaching and curriculum that ensure that students have
been taught the knowledge and skills on which they
will be tested.
MR. REEVES said the concern is not whether a good and fair
testing system has been developed, but whether the testing
system has been in place long enough for the districts to
provide their students reasonable opportunity to learn the
material.
Number 1778
MR. REEVES stated that a whole other area is the question of
special education students. Briefly, he mentioned that there
are two federal statutes that set the standards that have to be
met. One is the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which requires that
any state program that accepts and expends federal funds may not
discriminate on the basis of a person's disability. He
mentioned that the major case on this Act is Brookhart v.
Illinois State Bd. of Ed., from 1983. In this, he said, case
the court held:
Denial of diplomas to handicapped children who have
been receiving the special education and related
services required by the Act, but are unable to
achieve the educational level necessary to pass the
[graduation exam], is not a denial of a "free
appropriate public education".
MR. REEVES clarified that the foregoing was particularly
referring to the precursor of the Individual Disability
Education Act (IDEA). He continued, stating that on the
Rehabilitation Act, [the court] stated:
A student who is unable to learn because of his
handicap is surely not an individual who is qualified
in spite of his handicap. Thus denial of a diploma
because of inability to pass the examination is not
discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act.
Number 1697
MR. REEVES stated that this does not imply, as a policy measure,
that the legislature and the EED aren't concerned with how high-
stakes requirements impact children with disabilities and
children who are taught under and Individualized Education
Program (IEP). He explained that the courts have said if
[schools] wish to set a separate standard that's within the
discretion of the legislature, then [the Rehabilitation Act and
IDEA] do not require that a separate standard be met. He added
that this does not mean there would not be a potential challenge
[on behalf of] children with disabilities.
MR. REEVES suggested that challenges would come in two areas.
One area would be the challenge to a denial of a particular
testing accommodation that the student had requested. For
instance, an accommodation provided under the student's IEP,
such as the use of a calculator, may affect the validity of the
test itself. He remarked that the state may be required to
allow the use of a calculator in an area of the test that is not
directly testing computational ability. The EED has developed
participation guidelines so that [tests with accommodations] are
available for review based on input from parents, students, and
schools in an attempt to ensure that the appropriate
accommodations are allowed.
Number 1651
MR. REEVES stated that the other area in which there could be a
challenge from a special education student would be on the same
grounds that any student would have regarding the content or
instructional validity. However, the instructional validity
question would be applied to the IEP of that child; since a
child with a disability receives an education under an
individualized program, the question would ask whether that
program provided a reasonable opportunity to learn what's been
tested on the examination.
Number 1565
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that he and the committee have discussed
how to deal with people with disabilities as far as this test is
concerned. He added that no one wants to treat anyone unfairly;
however, whether there's a test or not will not impact the
reality of some folks' disabilities or abilities. He said it
appears, from Mr. Reeves' testimony, that the governor's
proposal for an IEP diploma that acknowledges that people may be
working nearly or at full capacity in their IEP would be legally
defensible.
MR. REEVES responded that the main requirement under the IDEA is
to include all children in all assessment programs. He said,
however, that he doesn't believe this carries over in the use of
the results of the exam in determining whether somebody receives
a diploma or not. He said there would be a problem in not
including children who are educated under an IEP in the
assessment itself, but he is not aware of any legal prohibition
of having a separate standard as far as what a passing grade or
what the requirements would be to allow a diploma to be issued
to those students.
Number 1485
CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were limitations in the law for a
diploma to indicate accommodations, such as the use of a
computer or a calculator.
MR. REEVES answered that to his understanding, there is not a
legal decision against that; however, that is a focus of some
current challenges that are going on across the country.
CHAIR BUNDE clarified that this is not just a legal discussion
but is also a policy discussion. He said that parents, whose
children have IEPs, have told him that they are concerned that
school districts may be giving students IEPs just because they
are difficult to educate. Chair Bunde said that an argument
could be made that a high school competency test could not be
implemented without a 12-year delay, and people could argue that
these students had their entire school career to prepare for
this. He asked if that would hold sway in the courts and
require the full 12 years.
MR. REEVES responded that that argument was presented in the
[Florida and Texas] cases. He said, as a lawyer, he would not
suggest to his client that there must be a 12-year period in
order to survive a court challenge. He stated that it is
important to look at the educational program that was provided,
as opposed to how long the program must be in place.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if it has been ten years or so [for the
Florida and Texas cases].
MR. REEVES replied that in Florida's initial case, the court
immediately issued a four-year injunction and said to the state:
"You will not withhold a diploma for four years." At the end of
the injunction, a new suit was brought and the court looked at
it and said: "OK, now we can see, based on this list of
information, such as we discussed at your last hearing, that we
believe there was an education program in effect that provided
the opportunity to learn." He added that that was not a 12-year
program.
Number 1322
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that because of the local-control policy
issue, some school districts have chosen to, or have been able
to, align the curricula and feel that [the curricula is] now
defensible; others either haven't been able to or have chosen
not to. He asked, if HB 94 goes forward and there is a district
that chooses not to [align its curriculum], whether the lawsuits
would be focused at the districts and not at the state.
MR. REEVES answered that he believes since it is a state
statutory requirement that a diploma not be required, the state
cannot avoid being part of a lawsuit, particularly at an early
stage of the program. He added that a lot of the focus would be
that the state first offered the test in 2000, and first offered
the results to the districts in the fall of 2000. The argument
will be that that's the first time definitive information was
given to the districts, parents, and students as to what they
needed to meet.
CHAIR BUNDE asked: Suppose ten years down the road there is a
district that chooses not to align its curriculum?
MR. REEVES responded that this relates to another portion of the
program with the high school exam, which is a school-by-school
determination as to how the schools are doing. As long as the
state has this program in place and is using efforts to require
that schools move into compliance, then that would be important
to the defensibility challenge down the road.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that one concern is the delay in getting the
results from the test. He asked Bruce Johnson, Deputy
Commission of Education, what he anticipates as turn-around time
for results from the tests being implemented today.
Number 1240
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commission of Education, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Education & Early Development,
responded that the publishing company CTB/McGraw Hill is
guaranteeing a 60-day turnaround. Therefore, the [EED] will be
receiving the results for the test taken right now in early May
in time for planning for summer programming and fall scheduling.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked whether Alaska would be liable or
subject to lawsuits if a military family arrived in Alaska for a
student's senior year [of high school] and the student, who had
been progressing well in [the state he or she moved from],
didn't get his or her diploma.
MR. REEVES responded that he is not aware of any lawsuits in
that area and feels that based on the decisions in the [Florida
and Texas] cases, it is up to the legislature or the state board
of education of each state to determine what a diploma standard
will be. He remarked that the state would be defensible if a
student who arrived very late didn't have the opportunity to
participate in the program offered.
Number 1169
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if it is the position of the EED
that accommodations should be available for students in areas
that would not negate the area being tested.
MR. JOHNSON replied that the participation guidelines are
attempts to accomplish that and to identify the types of
accommodations [the EED] feels are appropriate, given a
particular disability. A big change from last year is providing
a tape with oral directions and questions for the writing and
mathematics [portions of the test]. He added that this is not
done in reading because, obviously, that changes the "playing
field" altogether. He stated that one of the challenges in the
instructional program and through the IEP is that there is no
distinction between accommodations and modifications. He said
that once there are modifications, complex policy issues arise
that would have to be sorted out. He stated that some people
are advocating for allowing modifications that go far beyond
that, for example, having somebody read the reading exam to a
child. This would test comprehension through oral
communication, but not the capacity of a young person to read.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he was told that one of the test's
criteria would be its ability to predict success as it relates
to a child's future. He asked if Mr. Reeves had every heard of
an extension of test validity going this far.
Number 0984
MR. REEVES replied that he had not heard of this. He stated
that [the Florida and Texas] cases didn't focus on the potential
outcome in life.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE mentioned that about two weeks ago a lady
had gone to different communities in rural Alaska and found out
that although English was being spoken, it was a different
dialect, often referred to as Village English. He asked if the
[EED] has taken a look at where the use of the language in many
parts of the state intersects with the test.
Number 0863
MR. JOHNSON answered that this is part of the data analysis
[EED] is gathering and will be examining. He added that
districts are not very good at having students fill in the
appropriate keys [on the test]. For instance, if students were
considered bilingual, there may be underrepresentation in that
year's high school qualifying exam. He remarked that a
researcher toured Western Alaska and looked at those kinds of
issues. Mr. Johnson stated that the test and the law clearly
indicate that it will be conducted in English; therefore, the
[EED] has not focused much energy beyond that.
MR. JOHNSON remarked that accommodations have been provided for
young people involved in a first language program other than
English, primarily in rural Alaska, to delay the benchmark
assessment at the third grade until the fourth grade, when
English is taught as a formal language. He stated that there
was some consideration that some of those communities might
desire not to test their young people in the English language
until the sixth grade benchmark; however, these communities
wanted a check as soon as possible for diagnostic purposes.
Number 0698
AMY HEADRICK, Disability Law Center of Alaska, testified via
teleconference. She noted that the Disability Law Center of
Alaska supports including students with disabilities in
statewide assessments. The IDEA requires that [students with
disabilities] be included. She expressed that if [schools]
raise the expectations of these students, they will perform to
the level of their abilities rather than the low expectation
that falls under their disabilities. She stated that President
Bush has referred to this as a "soft bigotry of low
expectations", and is a motivating factor behind his initiative
to not leave any child behind. If children are held to low
expectations, they will only perform to that level; therefore,
they never reach their full potential. The IDEA needs to raise
the level of expectation, to bring those students the full
opportunity to learn. She stated, as the First Lady had noted
recently: "We must do more than say all children can learn; we
have to believe it."
Number 0511
MS. HEADRICK stated that a diploma is defined by Webster's
Dictionary as a document signed by confident authority
conferring some power, privilege, or honor that's given to
graduates of colleges and universities upon completion of
graduation requirements - an official document. She said it is
the same [requirement] for a high school diploma as it is for a
college or university diploma, yet it might even be more for a
high school diploma. She explained that for 12 years [high
school] students work hard to meet all the requirements in order
to receive that official seal of completion, and students with
disabilities often work even harder.
MS. HEADRICK said that because the IDEA is intended to provide
all students with the equal opportunity to learn, school
districts must provide students with disabilities appropriate
education in order for them to meet the same graduation
requirements as for students without disabilities. She said she
has heard a lot of people ask: "What is a diploma, really?"
She recounted that in Bethel, the LKSD (Lower Kuskokwim School
District) has recently implemented a policy whereby every
employee must have a high school diploma. Two janitors who
attended LKSD have learning disabilities and were not able to
obtain a diploma, but have worked there for many years. She
expressed that now the very school district that failed them is
going to take away their jobs as well.
MS. HEADRICK continued, stating that every year the IEP teams
review whether a [special education] student will be included in
the statewide and districtwide assessments, as well as what
accommodations, if any, will be used. Those students who won't
participate, which the EED determined to be less than 2 percent,
will take an alternate assessment. The remaining students in
special education will take the exam, whether it is with or
without the accommodations. She stated that accommodations are
required under federal law and are designed to take away the
test's potential to measure the disability rather than the
ability. Therefore, she said, [the Disability Law Center of
Alaska] feels it is blatant discrimination to flag a diploma to
reflect legally entitled accommodations. She said this issue
has been raised in other cases in other states, but mostly in
regard to pre-entrance exams, such as the SAT (Scholastic
Aptitude Test), the MCAT (Medical College Admissions Test), and
the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test). She said the difference
with a high school diploma is that students have accommodation
rights under the law. Ms. Headrick stressed that by flagging
diplomas and saying that [students] have exercised their right
it says to the world that they have a disability, which is not
acceptable under the laws.
Number 0173
MS. HEADRICK remarked that another issue, related to that of the
flagging, is the creation of different levels of diplomas. She
said that [the Disability Law Center of Alaska] has heard that
there may be an IEP diploma, a certificate of mastery, a
certificate of attendance, and possibly a vocational or
occupational diploma. She explained that the problem is that it
takes away the accountability of the schools as to what the exam
is supposed to be doing. In the states that have had [these
different diplomas], students had been referred to special
education way beyond the time that most students [in other
schools] with disabilities had been referred. She remarked that
this is a strong indication that schools are grabbing students
that they know won't be able to pass the test and putting them
into an IEP program in order for the school's accountability to
stay intact.
MS. HEADRICK stated that for the students who are so severely
disabled that they take alternative assessments, an IEP diploma
is OK. She stated that [these students] are not on track to
receive a regular diploma. The idea is that the schools are
supposed to be accountable and teach these children at the same
level of education as every other student, just by different
means.
MS. HEADRICK stated that the biggest concern that [the
Disability Law Center of Alaska] has is that students with
disabilities have not been given the opportunity to learn or
been provided with the same curriculum. She said that the
school districts have failed these students.
TAPE 01-11, SIDE A
Number 0048
MS. HEADRICK continued, stating that it is necessary to take the
time to develop an appropriate IEP. She shared that she is
involved in a situation in which an IEP team has put hours and
hours, since last November, into an IEP for a student in seventh
grade who is reading at a first-grade level, and it still is not
ready. She said it is going to take a lot of money and a lot of
effort to get him back on track, and that there is no way he can
pass the exam. She stated that the school district typically
wouldn't put in that much time, unless there is an advocate or
an attorney with the parent to try to work on the IEP. She
remarked that the school district spends 15 minutes or an hour
developing these programs; teachers read what they are going to
do with the student, then shove it in front of the parents to
sign. The parents aren't aware of their rights, of what they
can advocate for, or that they can push for the different
methods of teaching that are out there. By the time [the
Disability Law Center of Alaska] gets involved, it is often too
late to catch the student up.
MS. HEADRICK stressed that year after year parents fight in IEP
meetings and get the same responses from the school district:
They cost too much, we can't do that, we're not obligated. By
the time these kids are in high school they can't be caught up
without incredible sums of money. Eventually, they drop out of
school, develop poor study habits, have behavior problems, and
many end up in juvenile detention centers. She expressed that
all of these kids have the ability to learn, but because the
failures of the school districts, year after year, they feel
stupid. She reiterated that it is incumbent that these students
are given a real opportunity to learn and to pass this exam.
MS. HEADRICK stated that out of all the students who took the
exam in the spring of 2000, 75 percent passed the reading, 48
percent, passed the writing, and 33 percent, overall, passed the
math. Out of the community of students with disabilities who
took the exam, only 31 percent passed the reading, only 6
percent passed the writing, and only 4 percent passed the math.
She remarked that those [numbers] show a very large, disparate
impact on students with disabilities.
Number 0333
MS. HEADRICK remarked that there are two possibilities [for the
numbers]: the test itself is invalid as to these students,
which would be unintentional, or the exam could be testing a
particular [inability] as opposed to the ability. If so, it can
be examined, improved, and changed within a year or two to
remove the bias. However, she said she thinks that the real
problem is that these students haven't been taught or given the
opportunity to learn the curriculum. When [students] don't meet
the goals, instead of finding new ways to teach them, schools
lower the goals and expectations, which is exactly what the IDEA
and state laws work against. She said she understands that the
main purpose of the benchmark exam and the exit exam was to hold
schools accountable and to make sure that the amount of money
[schools] have been given is used to provide an appropriate
education to students. It is a great goal and one that [the
Disability Law Center of Alaska] fully supports, but the idea of
giving different diplomas or flagging for accommodations
undermines this exact goal.
Number 0482
CHAIR BUNDE asked if an [IEP] diploma would be acceptable if it
were given to someone who has a severe disability.
MS. HEADRICK replied that it would still [abide by] the federal
law. She stated that these students are so severely disabled
that cognitively they aren't able to perform up to the same
level of other students. They are caught at an early level, and
their IEP determines that they won't be participating in the
statewide assessment. However, she added that this should
account for less than 2 percent of all students.
CHAIR BUNDE added that [the committee] shares her concern that
the IEP would become a "dumping ground" for less-defined
learning disabilities.
Number 0655
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Ms. Headrick to what she would
attribute the IEP being a "dumping ground."
MS. HEADRICK answered that there is a lack of special education
aides who might be able to help these students in their
mainstream classes, or be available for extra help during the
school day. She said she thinks that the main problem is the
lack of the school districts' willingness to adopt a different
methodology of teaching from an early level.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if she thinks it is appropriate or
legally invalid to deny an accommodation for a learning
disability such as reading, if reading is the subject of the
test.
MS. HEADRICK answered that this is a big concern of hers. She
said she thinks that, in general, students who have learning
disabilities that affects their ability to read can be taught to
read if the right method of teaching is used. The reading
portion of the exam is only testing between a seventh- to
eighth-grade level. She remarked that she does have an issue
with regard to deaf students whose first language is ASL
(American Sign Language). She said she thinks it invalidates
the test somewhat to have an interpreter read the reading
portion to those students because, again, those students could
be taught to read. However, their first language is not the
same form of language that most are used to; the grammatical
structure and their arranged vocabulary is different. She
stressed that the focus needs to be on teaching [students] to
read.
Number 0918
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if she was assuming that there is
not one person who can't be taught to pass these tests with a
significant amount of individualized instruction.
MS. HEADRICK replied that she is not suggesting that there are
no individuals who could not learn. She explained that those
would be the individuals whose IEP teams would determine they
are so severely disabled that they would not be able to
participate in the statewide assessments.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER remarked that that's the "rub": how to
determine where that level is.
MS. HEADRICK responded that that's the reason why a group of
people makes these determinations. She said that a proper IEP
team is made up of parents, regular education teachers, special
education teachers, school district administrators, school
psychologists, and other experts who have the range and ability
to make that determination. The IEP is reviewed every year and
the student is reevaluated every three years through
psychological and educational testing. [The IEP team] should be
able to determine if students are making progress or if they
were assessed wrong.
Number 1072
MR. JOHNSON clarified that the statistic on the reading ability
portion of the test had been attributed to a district that
looked at the field-test version of the exam. He said in the
final analysis, 40 percent of the questions that were field
questions were eliminated from Alaska's pool.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that the committee has been asking that the
test demonstrate minimum competencies, and that's why math
apparently needs to be revisited, because in some people's
views, it was mastery. He said that it has been his view that
math will be "off the table" as far as denying a diploma if a
student fails that portion of the test.
MR. JOHNSON answered that there is discussion about math having
higher-level concepts than the legislation intended, and perhaps
higher than what is reasonable to expect of all students. He
stated that continues to be [reviewed]. He added that the same
process is going on in writing and reading.
Number 1247
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. Reeves whether [the state] would
withstand lawsuits with the timeline as it is right now.
MR. REEVES replied that he thinks that with the timeline now, it
is difficult to say that the current program provides the 2002
graduates with the assistance [the EED] is seeking to provide to
people in the future. He said he thinks that the focus of where
[the state] is going with the whole program and the benchmark
testing now would be used against [the state].
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that he thinks it is fair to say that
whether the implementation date is 2002, 2004, 2006, 2010, there
will be lawsuits. [HB 94 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1348
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at 10:00
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|