Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/02/2001 08:12 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
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
April 2, 2001
8:12 a.m.
EDUCATION MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Gretchen Guess
EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Brian Porter
HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Reggie Joule
HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kohring
Representative Cissna
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 133(HES)
"An Act relating to a two-year transition for implementation of
the public high school competency examination and to
establishing a secondary student competency examination as a
high school graduation requirement; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD [AND HELD IN EDU]
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."
- NOT HEARD [PART OF HB 94 WAS INCORPORATED INTO HCS for
CSSB 133, VERSION B]
HOUSE BILL NO. 204
"An Act relating to the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education and the Alaska Student Loan Corporation; relating to
student financial aid programs and the financing of those
programs; establishing the Alaska Advantage Loan Program and the
Alaska Supplemental Education Loan Program; increasing the
bonding authorization of the Alaska Student Loan Corporation;
providing for liens resulting from a default under AS 14.43 or
AS 14.44; relating to the duties of the recorder regarding those
liens; relating to defaults under the Western Regional Higher
Education Compact; relating to the prohibition on discrimination
regarding programs under AS 14.43; relating to fees for the
review of certain postsecondary institutions; making conforming
amendments; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED [SCHEDULED IN EDU ONLY]
HOUSE BILL NO. 166
"An Act relating to the year in which public school student
competency testing begins."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED [SCHEDULED IN EDU ONLY]
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 133
SHORT TITLE:PUBLIC SCHOOL COMPETENCY EXAM
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/09/01 0598 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/09/01 0598 (S) HES, FIN
03/09/01 0600 (S) HES WAIVED PUB HEARING
NOTICE, RULE 23
03/10/01 (S) HES AT 10:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/10/01 (S) Heard & Held
03/10/01 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/12/01 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/12/01 (S) Heard & Held
03/12/01 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/14/01 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/14/01 (S) Heard & Held
MINUTE(HES)
03/16/01 (S) HES AT 0:00 PM BELTZ 211
03/16/01 (S) Moved CS(HES) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(HES)
03/20/01 0732 (S) HES RPT CS 5DP NEW TITLE
03/20/01 0732 (S) DP: GREEN, LEMAN, WILKEN,
WARD, DAVIS
03/20/01 0732 (S) FN1: (EED)
03/26/01 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/26/01 (S) Moved CS(HES) Out of
Committee
03/27/01 0819 (S) FIN RPT CS(HES) 6DP 1NR
03/27/01 0819 (S) DP: DONLEY, KELLY, HOFFMAN,
LEMAN
03/27/01 0819 (S) GREEN, OLSON; NR: WILKEN
03/27/01 0819 (S) FN1: (EED)
03/28/01 0838 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/28/01
03/28/01 0840 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/28/01 0840 (S) HES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/28/01 0840 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/28/01 0841 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/28/01 0841 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
133(HES) AM
03/28/01 0841 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
03/28/01 0841 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
03/28/01 0844 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/28/01 0844 (S) VERSION: CSSB 133(HES) AM
03/28/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
03/29/01 0767 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/29/01 0767 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
04/02/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/02/01 (H) HES AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR LYDA GREEN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 125
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: As chair of the Senate Health, Education
and Social Services Standing Committee, sponsor, presented SB
133.
GREG MALONEY, Director
Special Education
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West 10th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question on SB 133.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of Education
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West 10th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 133.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-20, SIDE A [House EDU tapes]
Number 0001
CHAIR CON BUNDE called the joint meeting between the House
Special Committee on Education and the House Health, Education
and Social Services Standing Committee to order at 8:12 a.m.
Members present at the call to order from the House Special
Committee on Education were Representatives Bunde, Green,
Wilson, Stevens, Joule, and Guess. Members present from the
House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee
were Representatives Dyson, Coghill, Wilson, Stevens, and Joule.
SB 133-PUBLIC SCHOOL COMPETENCY EXAM
[Part of proposed CSHB 94, Version J had been incorporated into
the proposed HCS for CSSB 133, Version B]
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the committees would address CS FOR
SENATE BILL NO. 133(HES), "An Act relating to a two-year
transition for implementation of the public high school
competency examination and to establishing a secondary student
competency examination as a high school graduation requirement;
and providing for an effective date." [SB 133 was officially
before only the House Special Committee on Education.]
Number 0263
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that he would like the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee (HES) to take
notice of the following areas of ongoing discussion [for when
that committee officially takes up the bill]: whether or not
the diploma that is a given is the "diploma-plus" or the
"diploma-minus"; the degree of accommodation or modification to
the test for those with disabilities; the alternative ways those
with disabilities can be evaluated; what reports coming from the
tests are required of the Department [of Education and Early
Development] (EED); and convergence of implementation dates.
Number 0557
SENATOR LYDA GREEN, Alaska State Legislature, came forth as
chair of the Senate Health, Education and Social Services
Standing Committee, Sponsor of SB 133. She stated that Senate
HES spent over eight weeks in hearings and gathering information
[for SB 133]. She said there were three or four main issues to
[the Senate HES committee's] goal. One was to continue giving
the exam in order to not lose the momentum and for the students,
faculty, and community to go on believing in the idea of the
exam. [The committee] thought it was important to continue the
work of the [EED] in retooling the exam to the essential skills
subset. [The committee] wanted to work on the addition of
language concerning those students with learning disabilities in
order for Alaska to comply with federal IDEA [Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act] legislation. [The committee] also
discussed methods for having a waiver process. Essential skills
language, she said, was used in the bill to ensure that the
skills students are expected to have mastered are focused on.
SENATOR GREEN stated that [the committee] also noticed that in
Alaska state statute there is a fairly weak listing of what
courses a student is required to take. Also, in the listing
there is no mention of the degree of those courses. She said
there is always going to be an occasion when an extraordinary
circumstance arises; [the committee] has decided not to handle
that in statute but to turn that over to [the EED] and the State
School Board. She explained that SB 133 has the addition of
endorsements shown on the transcripts and the diploma. She
remarked that she thinks it is a good idea for people to be
rewarded for good performance and would recommend that there be
endorsements of all sorts on a student's transcript and/or
diploma if a district chooses.
Number 0794
SENATOR GREEN stated that it was also discussed that throughout
the last couple of years there have been different standards
used by those giving the exam. She stated that [the committee]
felt it was important that the state be given a prepared script
so that the test is given very similarly across Alaska. She
added that [the committee] met regularly in order to ensure the
test would be defensible and fair and would continue to require
accountability and responsibility on the part of every person
involved in the education scene.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that he wanted to take note of the Senate's
eight weeks of testimony as well. He stated, "Should people
feel we're moving too rapidly now, it's been a long time in
coming."
Number 0900
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if this is truly a minimal standard
- one either passes or doesn't pass - is there any rationale of
putting [the endorsements] on the diploma?
SENATOR GREEN responded that there have been, nationwide,
several methods by which students are getting credit for
accomplishments on the diploma. Kenai's district, she noted,
currently [puts endorsements on the diplomas]. She added that
she thinks if a student has done well, it should be shown.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that this is a requirement expected
of all people to graduate. He asked if honor rolls,
valedictorians, or football scholarships would also be [put on
the diploma]. He said he is concerned that [the diploma] could
get cluttered.
SENATOR GREEN replied that the test is the only thing that would
be on the diploma. However, placing good performances on the
diploma is being encouraged strictly if a district chooses to do
so. She said:
There's a mixed message you will receive on the idea
of those students who function with the ability to
take the exit exam according to their IEP (Individual
Education Plan). We would encourage everyone to take
the test and not have anything waived, and certainly
have all but those students who are developmentally
disabled and already qualify for alternative
assessments to take this test and to do the very best.
... It would create less students having to come back
and go under their IEP and have accommodations. We
would like to see that they come at first (indisc.)
and take the exam. ... We all respond to rewards.
Number 1200
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether there is any "wiggle" room
for the House or if the Senate is "fixed" on [CSSB 133(HES)].
SENATOR GREEN responded that she couldn't say that no
consideration would be given to the House's input on this. She
added that she thinks the Senate's priority is the transcript
and that she sees no reason why praise should be withheld on the
diploma.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if "Pass" or the actual score would be put on
the transcript.
SENATOR GREEN answered that if she had been in the 99th
percentile in all three areas, she would want that to show on
her transcript. However, with the way the exit exam exists, cut
scores could be different from year to year; therefore, it would
be a pass or a fail for everyone.
Number 1317
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON suggested that the "present score out of
the total score" should be put on the transcript. He stated
that he is concerned that in accommodating those students with
developmental disabilities, there will be a huge amount [of
accommodation]. He asked if there is a way to standardize the
accommodation or modification for kids who have FAE (Fetal
Alcohol Effects) or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).
SENATOR GREEN responded that [Senate HES] had discussed this as
well. When an IEP team works with a child and sets up a
learning plan there is some sort of justification for the plan
chosen: what is the child's need that has to be met through
this; what is the goal and how they are going to get there; and
could this child function in a regular classroom setting. She
stated that this satisfied her and that [the IEP teams] would be
doing that anyway. She said there are well-recognized norms of
what could reasonably be expected without there being an
anomaly.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that it is clear that if a child is
blind, the test will have to be provided in Braille or with a
reader. He asked whether there needs to be a separate
accommodation or modification for every child with [ADD], for
example, or if there could be a general test for all the kids
with [ADD].
SENATOR GREEN responded that these are questions that [IEP
teams] answer every day and there would be no incorrect answer.
She stated that she doesn't believe [the legislature] should be
making those decisions. She remarked that she thinks there are
hard decisions that are made with regard to these children every
day, knowing full well that some of these children will never
take the exam. A student cannot be denied assistance if it is
recognized on his or her IEP.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked, if there are 4,000 ADD students in
Alaska, whether there will be one general way of accommodating
their testing or if there will be 3,000 or 4,000 [separate
accommodations] in order to conform to the federal guidelines in
IDEA.
SENATOR GREEN stated that she could not answer that.
CHAIR BUNDE clarified that there is a huge difference between
accommodations and modifications. He stated that he would share
[Representative Dyson's] concern about having modifications for
every person with an IEP because there would be as many
different tests as there were IEPs. However, if someone has had
accommodations all through his or her school career while on an
IEP, then legally he or she should be allowed that accommodation
when taking the test. An accommodation, he explained, would be
one that does not change the basic structure of the test.
Number 1770
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that he understands that the IEP
[team] is a legally constituted organization that has a
tremendous amount of responsibility, authority, and power. He
asked if the IEP team could decide that the scores should be
lower for a special education student.
SENATOR GREEN responded that she would have to defer to the
[EED].
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked that the IEP process is put in
place early on when there is need to help a child learn to the
best of his or her ability. This process, she said, is reviewed
every year. By the time the student takes the exit exam, the
schools know how that child is handled and what modifications or
accommodations have been taking place all along. She asked if
Senator Green is implying that the IEP should be the deciding
factor for how the test will be given.
SENATOR GREEN responded that it is her understanding that
someone will begin an IEP for a child with the hopes that less
will be required as time goes on. She noted that the percentage
of a school's population that has IEPs decreases [over time].
She stated that in the Senate version of the bill everyone would
be required to take the test except for those students who would
automatically qualify for an alternative assessment. It's
important for the [EED], the school districts, and [the
legislature] to know whether "we" are being successful in
teaching. She added that the [EED] and the legislature need to
know what the performance of learning disabled children is.
According to statistics, there are any number of fairly good
statistics and performances on behalf of learning-disabled
children who passed the test. There were, however, some who did
not pass the test and will probably never pass the test without
some accommodation.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if legally there could be a
differentiation of the diploma, since the public is not supposed
to be able to tell who is in special education and who isn't.
SENATOR GREEN responded that it is her understanding that
because of Alaska's constitution, the recognition that it is a
"special IEP diploma" is not allowed.
Number 2055
CHAIR BUNDE stated:
It isn't as if the House majority woke up one morning
and said, "How can we make life more difficult for
schools and students?" I think all of us have heard
that litany of concerns from employers who aren't able
to employ people with basic skills. And either the
employer has to provide the remediation or they have
to let the person go. In any case, people are really
frustrated that 46 percent or more of our students
[who have] gone to college are having to take remedial
classes, that even our highly talented Alaska scholars
program - where the top 10 percent get the
scholarships - many of those are struggling and some
are failing because of lack of academic preparation.
I think while reasonable people can disagree on the
route of where we want to go, it is very obvious that
[the] status quo is probably not something many people
would support.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that the test is a "living document" and that
the legislation that created this said the [EED] will provide
for a competency test. He remarked that it is currently in the
process of being adjusted and that one of the biggest areas of
adjustment is the math test. It was decided that [the math
test] did not reflect basic competencies. He explained that the
House is focusing on the following: accountability so that the
schools and the students could be reasonably comfortable saying
they need more support from the public; changing the effective
date from 2002 to 2004; whether there should be reciprocity for
those who transfer in; whether the endorsements on the diploma
should only be valid for two years to reward and recognize those
who have taken the competency test very seriously; what waivers
might look like; whether or not an appeals process is useful;
and whether or not modifications are useful.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if anything will be discussed about
the portfolio.
CHAIR BUNDE responded that [the House Special Committee on
Education] has also focused on the option of a portfolio as an
alternative assessment for people with IEPs. He added that [the
committee] also acknowledged that there are students who are on
non-diploma tracks, those who experience serious disabilities as
well as those who do not always receive a diploma.
Number 2314
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt the proposed HCS for
CSSB 133, version 22-LS0607\B, Ford, 3/30/01, as the working
draft. There being no objection, the proposed HCS for CSSB 133,
Version B, was before the House Special Committee on Education.
TAPE 01-20, SIDE B
Number 0018
CHAIR BUNDE explained that the difference between Version B and
the Senate version is that Version B reinstates a certificate of
achievement for those students who are not able to pass the
test. It includes the sections the student passed, the
student's attendance record, and other items that the school
district would like to include. He stated that this certificate
of achievement may be very useful for a potential employer.
Version B discusses that the accommodations provided by IEPs
should continue and also be used when taking a competency test.
He explained that Version B does suggest that the IEP team
should be able to recommend that a student not retake the test
if this is not in the student's best interest. He stated that
the law requires a student to take the test in tenth grade, but
it does not say a student has to continue taking the test until
he or she passes it.
CHAIR BUNDE continued explaining the differences. He stated
that the House agrees with the Senate that there should be
standard implementation language in regard to reciprocity. The
House has expanded accountability and suggested that this be a
required report to the legislature rather than a report that was
simply available if the [legislature] chose to get it. Finally,
the implementation date, of 2004, was agreed upon.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that he would like to hear from
[the EED] concerning accommodations, specifically about whether
or not the scores can be lowered for special-education students.
Number 0477
GREG MALONEY, Director, Special Education, Department of
Education and Early Development, came forth and explained that
under federal IDEA 97 the goal is to have all kids, including
those with disabilities, held to high standards. One of the
major goals is to have all kids participate in all statewide
assessments. He remarked that this also encourages that all
appropriate accommodations and modifications, as it reads in the
federal law, be provided to students in order to allow them to
demonstrate and to be held to the highest standard possible. In
addition, he said, part of that is to ensure that the districts
are being held accountable for providing appropriate
instructional programming to students with disabilities. The
goal now is to ensure that students who had been excluded in the
past are included in these assessments and for districts to
provide for that.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Maloney to clarify the difference
between an accommodation and a modification.
MR. MALONEY responded that [the EED's] participation guidelines
discuss the difference between the two. He explained that an
accommodation is something that is provided to a student to
enable the student to have an equal playing field. For example,
a student with a visual impairment would be provided Braille or
some kind of magnification device. This changes nothing about
the content that is being measured, but it does provide the
student an opportunity to be fairly assessed. A modification,
he stated, by definition modifies or changes what is being
tested. For example, having the reading test be read to the
student would be a modification because reading ability is
intended to be measured by that test. Another example would be
providing a calculator for the math test.
MR. MALONEY clarified that there are no categorical
accommodations. For instance, a student with ADD does not get a
certain set of accommodations that are not available to other
students. The individualized nature of IEP teams is that
appropriate accommodations are determined after assessing the
student's performance disability. He stated that these are
required to be in place a certain length of time prior to the
testing so that accommodations are not introduced just for the
test.
Number 0708
MR. MALONEY pointed out that under federal law [the EED] is
required to report three things on the assessments: the
participation of students with disabilities; the graduation rate
of students with disabilities; and the performance of students
with disabilities. He added that [the EED] is also required to
report dropout rates. He stated that there has been some
confusion about the alternative assessments. He explained that
the alternate assessment is a portfolio assessment that has been
designed and implemented for students with significant
disabilities. These are students who have significant cognitive
impairments and who are not currently being instructed by using
an academic program but are on more of a functional life-skills
program. He said this may include students with autism, Down
syndrome, or significant retardation for whom taking the
traditional assessment would not be meaningful. He added that
the [the EED] measures the performance of students with
disabilities including the participation rates on a statewide
level. The goal is to have kids with disabilities not only take
the test, with or without appropriate accommodations, but also
pass the test.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if a portfolio specifically deals
with having the same knowledge of what is tested in the exit
exam.
MR. MALONEY responded that the portfolio is a process, not an
outcome. It is one method of assessment in which certain
products are collected, held, and compared to the alternate
performance standards that were adopted by the State Board of
Education. He stated that the collection process is the
portfolio and the outcome is how that portfolio is used to
evaluate what that progress is.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if the standards would be the same
as in the exit exam.
Number 0923
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of Education, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development,
responded that the portfolio currently being discussed is one
that is built on a different standard. These are for the 1 or 2
percent of students who are so impaired they are unable to take
the written exams meaningfully. He stated that [the work draft]
refers to a different set of students and a different approach
to the portfolio.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that the discussion was that there would be
another portfolio in addition to the one that already exists for
the people who are not on a diploma track. This portfolio would
require that the students achieve the same minimum competencies
as these in the regular test.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked whether the child who has the reading
test read to him or her would get a passing grade in reading.
MR. MALONEY answered that that would be a modification, and
modifications, by definition, do not allow students to pass the
test under the current legislation. He added that [in Version
B] it would have to depend on how "portfolio" is defined.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that this was one of the items that was asked
of the [EED] and the State Board of Education to give [the
legislature] guidance. They have been asked to give guidance on
waivers, portfolios, and appeals processes.
Number 1131
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if through this process a person
could be given a passing grade in reading if he or she couldn't
read.
MR. MALONEY responded that one of the issues that comes up when
working with students with disabilities while maintaining
standards is to also recognize that disabilities, by definition,
change the person's ability to respond. He stated that in the
Senate version there is an alternative process to review or
assess the students' progress by using a different process than
the test. He noted that it is important to keep in mind that
the instructional program should be based on standards. Also,
in the Senate bill there is the recognition that for some
students the different process that would be designed by the IEP
team would be appropriate. Under [Version B], there would be a
portfolio of work to demonstrate the mastery of state
performance standards. He added that he thinks [Version B]
holds students with disabilities to the same standard as
students without disabilities; therefore, the intention would be
to not penalize students unfairly for having a disability.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if he would be correct in saying that
the [EED] wants an alternative way of demonstrating intellectual
mastery for the child who can't read. Under the Senate bill
that child would get a diploma but would not be recognized as
having competency in reading, while under [Version B] that
person would get a certificate of achievement.
MR. MALONEY answered that he was correct.
Number 1286
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if looking good on the report that
[the EED] is required to send to the federal government means
getting more kids with IEPs to graduate.
MR. MALONEY responded that IDEA 97 does not necessarily speak to
graduation requirements for kids with disabilities. The goal is
to have the kids held to a high standard and to be given every
opportunity to demonstrate their achievement. He stated that
what is important is to have districts and students move closer
and closer to being able to pass the exam with or without
appropriate accommodations. He added that he thinks it always
looks better if students with disabilities are passing the test
and graduating. He noted that historically, nationally and
statewide, there are low graduation rates and high dropout rates
for kids with disabilities that are proportionally way out of
"whack" compared to rates for students receiving a regular
education. At the same time, the goal is to ensure that
students with disabilities are receiving an appropriately
standards-based curriculum and have every opportunity to pass
the test. He added that it is an appropriate role for the IEP
team, under federal law, to look at not only an appropriate
assessment process but also what the outcomes of that assessment
could be.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that he is concerned with not
wanting to pressure [the EED] into doing anything but what is
best for the kids.
MR. MALONEY responded that he appreciates Representative Dyson's
concern. He stressed that [the EED's] goal is accountability
and that the EED wants all kids to participate meaningfully in
the assessments. Under both bill versions, kids with
disabilities would be expected to take the exam. The question,
he said, is for those who don't pass: what are the processes,
implications, and consequences going to be?
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON expressed that he doesn't care what is on a
piece of paper. He said he is interested in the students'
getting the help they need, whether or not they pass the test.
Number 1494
CHAIR BUNDE asked if under the Senate bill, since the IEP team
would set the competency test for the students, there would be
as many variations of the competency test as there are IEP
teams.
MR. MALONEY answered that is not his understanding of the
process. Under the Senate bill, once the student has taken the
test and has not passed, the IEP team would determine an
alternative process for examining student progress; it may be
taking the test with modifications. The IEP team, he explained,
could also consider having the student retake the test, with or
without accommodations. He stressed that [the EED's] focus is
on the kids and their success. He added that [the EED] also has
to look at what happens to the kids as they leave school.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that, unfortunately, [students] are leaving
school now in the same condition as if they didn't receive a
diploma because they are getting a diploma that doesn't indicate
ability in these basic areas. He remarked that there is no
problem if a student takes the test and passes. However, if a
student with an IEP takes the test and fails, the IEP team has
the opportunity to modify the test in an attempt to help the
student pass. He stated that there indeed could be as many
competency tests as the IEP team chooses to create for
individual students who failed.
MR. MALONEY replied that is one of the options an IEP team could
choose. Another option could be the portfolio assessment. He
stated that he thinks one of the differences comes back to what
the external standard a student is compared to. Under the
Senate bill, the IEP team would have the authority, which is
consistent with federal law, to determine not only what the
alternative process could be but also what the standard for
evaluation could be. If there are IEP goals and objectives,
[the EED's] focus is for those objectives to be based on
standards. If a student does not pass the tenth-grade
competency exam, the IEP team looks at that information and
determines whether continuing to take the regular assessment
with or without accommodations is appropriate or whether an
alternative process that could include modifications [is
appropriate].
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that he understands the goals in theory;
however, he is afraid that in practical realities there are kids
who are condemned to mediocrity because modifications would
reduce expectations.
Number 1700
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked again, for clarification, if an IEP
team could require a lower score.
MR. MALONEY answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that to be fair to the special-
education students, the test shouldn't be made easier for them.
If the standards are kept the same, then it is up to the school
to work extra hard to bring [the special-education] students up
to their highest level. By lowering [the score], it is allowing
the schools to say that they don't have to work as hard to bring
those students up because they only have to be at a [lower
level]. She said it is important to be fair to two different
sets of students: the students who have to pass the test
without accommodations and the special-education students.
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that he has heard this from many parents of
special-needs children. They want the standards kept high, and
they want their children brought up to the standards; they don't
want the standards lowered to their children. He added that
this puts pressure on the schools, the parents, and the
students.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that it is necessary to be careful
with the amount of changes to the test that are allowed.
CHAIR BUNDE responded that the law is very clear - it requires
accommodations. He remarked that he is concerned with allowing
modifications.
Number 1858
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked, if students go through high school
with an IEP and move from secondary education to postsecondary
education, whether they are still working off an individual
education plan.
MR. MALONEY answered that most postsecondary universities have
programs for students with disabilities, which could include
modifications or accommodations in the classroom.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if this would be substantially
similar to an IEP.
MR. MALONEY responded that it would not be, but that he is not
as familiar with postsecondary education as he is with
secondary.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if a postsecondary education plan
would require a diploma.
MR. MALONEY answered that he would think so, depending on the
postsecondary institution. He added that most trade schools
require either a GED [general equivalency diploma] or high
school diploma.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if [acceptance] would not be based
on demonstrated ability, but on a diploma.
MR. MALONEY replied that he believes the diploma is the standard
that most people would use. He added that most people review
the high school transcripts in order to see what the performance
level was when getting the diploma.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the transcript level was
sufficient to demonstrate competency and whether the student
would be accepted, notwithstanding a diploma.
MR. MALONEY answered that he is not aware of alternative
entrance requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained the reason for asking the
question. He stated:
We're trying to get a diploma where it says everybody
is the same. When things are different, they're not
the same. We have, certainly, individual education
plans that deal with people with disabilities; that's
called special education. There's certainly a great
majority of those that could probably get this diploma
in competency testing, but there ... are going to be
some that can't. There's a significant dissimilarity,
and we're trying to fit them into this diploma. ...
I'm just wondering if trying to get them a diploma is
so important as really trying to find out what they're
capable of doing.
Number 2020
CHAIR BUNDE stated his understanding that Representative Dyson
has the opinion that the lack of a diploma has virtually no
impact on one's total life. He noted that all of the University
of Alaska branches have open admissions; one does not need a
diploma. He stated that the irony for students who aren't able
to get [an Alaskan] diploma is that in order to go to a
university or college, one must take a placement test.
Therefore, those students will have challenges. He said the
remediation at college is non-credit, costly, and not very
successful. He added that from his observation "we" want to
make everybody equal, but obviously we can't do that. There
should be, he said, a minimum standard for everyone. Hopefully
people will go far beyond that minimum, depending on their own
ambition and abilities.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated:
We're looking at some way to make special education
children acceptable in society. And so we make
accommodations for them and then we have this thing
called a diploma. In society there are those who
can't attain that degree of education - they just
can't learn that - and there are those who won't. We
don't make special dispensations for those who won't;
they can, they just decide not to. But now we are
trying to force-feed those who can't, in saying that
because of doing this, or that, or lowering standards,
or making special dispensations, they have achieved
this, and then they'll go out and conquer the world.
And I think that does a tremendous disservice to that
child.
I think it is far better to say that ... there are
certain measures as the education process goes along.
They can't spell. Well, then, they finally learn to
spell, and so they've accomplished that - maybe far
below what's necessary for the diploma, but they have
accomplished something. Those kinds of rewards,
certainly, we all think those are essential to let
that child know that they are escalating up the
ladder. But to ... now say that you jumped this bar
is a disservice to them and society. So I think what
most of us are saying is we shouldn't change the
standards for them; we should make every effort to
make them available to accomplish that. But don't
lower the standards because they then are going to
have a false sense of accomplishment.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this is going to fit with what
[the EED] is working on as far as the state standards.
Number 2179
MR. MALONEY responded that he thinks everyone's goal is to hold
kids to high standards and to ensure that the instructional
program is standards-based. He stated that there are students
with disabilities who are not going to pass the test. The
tension that comes in, he said, is whether or not kids with
disabilities are being unfairly penalized because they have a
disability. He stated that he believes having a standards-based
curriculum provided in their instructional programming and
allowing the IEP teams to make determinations based on the
instructional program can help maintain those standards.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN shared that as a freshman in high school he
became disabled. He stated that he had wanted to be a jet
pilot. He asked if he should have been allowed, since he lost
his right eye, to have been given a different test than the
other pilots. He also asked if the focus for special education
should be on an area in which they can succeed.
MR. MALONEY replied that "we" want what's best for the kids and
to give them every opportunity to fulfill their potential.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON remarked that [Version B] indicates eight
or nine different reports that the [EED] should get from the
individual schools and then give to the legislature. He said it
seemed to him that they came in two broad categories. One is in
the reports that demonstrate what's going on with the children,
and the other one is the work that the school district is doing
in a remedial fashion. He asked if [the EED] would get any
useful information from the second category.
Number 2328
MR. JOHNSON responded that he thinks times are changing and that
school districts recognize the need for accountability. To
date, he said, there hasn't been a lot of accountability. [The
EED] gives the money to the local level and says, "Do good work
with the young people." He stated that he thinks there will be
improvement in the districts in providing evidence for each of
the required reporting pieces.
TAPE 01-21, SIDE A
Number 0070
CHAIR BUNDE stated that it is his understanding under the Senate
version that a person with an IEP can get a diploma without
passing the competency test.
MR. JOHNSON remarked that he was correct.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that under existing regulations if a student
is under an IEP and still doesn't complete all of the existing
requirements, he or she is denied a diploma. Therefore, he
said, under the new [Version B], if a student with an IEP
doesn't complete all of the requirements, that student could
also be denied a diploma.
MR. MALONEY remarked that this is his understanding as well.
Number 0171
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which
read:
Section 3
(c) A student shall receive an endorsement on the
student's diploma and transcript identifying the areas
of the examination successfully passed.
(2) A student who is a child with a disability and who
does not achieve a passing score on the examination
required under (a) of this section is eligible to
receive a diploma if the student successfully
completes an alternative assessment program required
by the student's individualized education program or
required in the education plan developed for the
student under 29 USC 794 that conforms to the maximum
extent practicable with the state performance
standards on the competency exam established by the
board; and
(3) The department shall by regulation establish
"alternative assessment program" and uniform standards
and processes in creating an alternative assessment
program.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS stated that she thought it was appropriate
to offer an amendment that is similar to the Senate version in
order to make a conscious decision about what approach to take
with children with disabilities.
CHAIR BUNDE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS explained that she thought [the committee]
might have overlooked that every child with a disability should
be required to take the examination. The other problem she said
she had with the House version is that having portfolios puts in
statute something that is very narrow, instead of allowing the
regulation process to define what an alternative assessment
program is. She added that there may, over time, be other
assessments that are meaningful and appropriate. She clarified
that her amendment does two things regarding the Senate version.
She said she kept the broad language that the IEP can determine
alternative assessment programs and added the sideboard "that
conforms to the maximum extent practicable with the state
performance standards on the competency exam established by the
board". She explained the reason for that is because of the
concern regarding the broad range of students with disabilities.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS stated that the goal is to get all of these
children up to the competency standards, and that she didn't
feel the Senate bill's language was strong enough. She remarked
that there is a group of students being discussed who are not
going to [reach the standard]. The discussion is whether or not
a diploma should be given to those students because they can
reach a high standard at a lower rate. On the flip side, she
asked, "Should students be denied a diploma who really have met
the highest standard that they could have met?" Finally, she
explained that the third part of her amendment would put into
regulation what an alternative assessment program is.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that in response to his objection he would
ask, "What does a diploma mean? Does it mean someone has basic
literacy?" He said as he reads the amendment, people would be
given a diploma indicating they have a basic literacy when they
do not. He added that while his goal is not to make life more
difficult for students, he doesn't think it makes life more
simple for them if they receive a piece of paper that says they
can read if they cannot.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS responded that the Senate version in some
ways shifts that discussion to the endorsements. A student
would not receive an endorsement even though he or she may have
received a diploma. She stated that employers may be trained to
ask about the endorsements. For example, a person could be
applying for a job for which reading is not a significant
portion of the job.
Number 0678
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that he supports the amendment;
however, he is concerned that continuing with [Version B] might
disallow the majority of special-education students from ever
getting a diploma.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, if a child does not get a diploma
because of a disability, whether a prospective employer would
better know what a person's limitations are through
certification.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS responded that in either case, employers
are going to be retrained. Either they will have to understand
what a certificate of achievement means or they will have known
what the endorsements on a diploma mean. She stated that if the
employer knows that these endorsements exist, then he or she
should ask [to see them]. The purpose of this amendment, she
stated, relates to whether or not children with disabilities are
being treated unfairly.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated that in order to pass the reading
test, a person has to be able to read. However, in order to
pass, the person must also be able to understand. He remarked
that there are times when a student may have trouble reading,
but once the questions are read to him or her, the student has
comprehension and retention. He stated that employers should
know this as well.
Number 1012
CHAIR BUNDE stated that he has worked in special education, and
the classes were divided into groups. He said the students,
very quickly, knew who the slow students were. He explained
that a diploma without endorsements would be a special-education
diploma. He reminded the committee that parents have said that
they don't want the standards brought down to their special-
needs children; they want their children brought up to the
standards.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that she doesn't think there should
adjustments so that every special-education student gets a
diploma, because there are going to be kids who are not in
special education and are not going to get a diploma. She asked
how fair it is for everyone in special education to get a
diploma while some of the other kids will not.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS responded that she was correct. She stated
that the IEP team might set standards and the child won't meet
those standards or get a diploma. She clarified that this
doesn't guarantee that every child with a disability will get a
diploma. She added that she agrees with Chair Bunde that every
parent with a child with a disability wants their child to reach
the same standards as everyone else. However, she said, the
question hasn't been asked whether parents whose children can't
reach the standard want their children to be denied a diploma.
Number 1150
A roll call vote was taken of House Special Committee on
Education members. Representatives Stevens, Joule, and Guess
voted in favor of the Amendment 1. Representatives Green,
Wilson, and Bunde voted against it. [Representative Porter was
absent.] Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-3.
[SB 133 was held over in the House Special Committee on
Education.]
ADJOURNMENT
The joint meeting of the House Special Committee on Education
and the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee was recessed at 10:00 a.m. to a call of the chair.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|