02/13/2002 08:04 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
February 13, 2002
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
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 23
Proposing amendments to Uniform Rule 20 of the Alaska State
Legislature; and providing for an effective date for the
amendments.
- MOVED HCR 23 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 342
"An Act relating to appropriations for operating expenses for
primary and secondary public education; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 342 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 352
"An Act extending the dates for assignment of performance
designations of public schools and the dates for reports and
monitoring based on those designations; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 352 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HCR 23
SHORT TITLE:LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES:SPLIT HOUSE HESS
SPONSOR(S): EDUCATION
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/11/02 2204 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/11/02 2204 (H) EDU, HES
02/13/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 342
SHORT TITLE:EDUCATION FUNDING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STEVENS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/18/02 2007 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/18/02 2007 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
02/13/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 352
SHORT TITLE:SCHOOL PERFORMANCE REPORTS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/23/02 2042 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/23/02 2042 (H) EDU, HES
01/23/02 2042 (H) FN1: ZERO(EED)
01/23/02 2042 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/13/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
BRUCE JOHNSON, Director
Quality Schools/Quality Students
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West Eleventh Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 23; testified
in opposition to HB 342; testified in support of HB 352.
EDDY JEANS, Manager
School Finance and Facilities Section
Education Support Services
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 342, explained that
the bill has a zero fiscal note.
DAVE JONES, Director of Finance
Kodiak Island Borough School District
722 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615-0000
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 342.
ED McLAIN, Ph.D.
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 320
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 352 to the committee on behalf
of the administration.
MARK LEAL, Director of Assessment
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 352 to the committee on behalf
of the administration.
NICK STAYROOK, Executive Director
Planning and Evaluation
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
520 Fifth Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701-4756
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 352.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-6, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR CON BUNDE called the House Special Committee on Education
meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives Bunde, Green,
Wilson, Stevens, Joule, and Guess were present at the call to
order. Representative Porter arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HCR 23-LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES:SPLIT HOUSE HESS
Number 0200
CHAIR BUNDE announced the first order of business to be HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 23, Proposing amendments to Uniform
Rule 20 of the Alaska State Legislature; and providing for an
effective date for the amendments.
[This was the first hearing for HCR 23, which was sponsored by
the House Special Committee on Education; however, there was
considerable related committee discussion under HCR 11 on
February 6, prior to the introduction of HCR 23.]
Number 0231
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS explained that Section 1 removes the
current [House and Senate] Health, Education and Social Services
Standing Committees [from the list of committees in both
houses]. Section 2 replaces the Senate Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee; it also lists the House
standing committees to include Health and Social Services, to
address programs and activities of the Department of Health and
Social Services; and Education, to address programs and
activities of the Department of Education and Early Development
and the University of Alaska. She reported that Tamara Cook,
Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services, had proposed
this language. Representative Guess concluded, "I believe it
does what this committee wanted."
Number 0302
CHAIR BUNDE offered that the committee could seek answers to
legal questions from Ms. Cook.
Number 0330
BRUCE JOHNSON, Director, Quality Schools/Quality Students,
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB), indicated AASB had
submitted written testimony. He said AASB supports HCR 23;
[education] issues are complex and deserve the full attention of
committee. He encouraged passage of HCR 23.
Number 0369
CHAIR BUNDE stated that his experience in chairing both
committees has evidenced for him the privilege of the focus
afforded by the House Special Committee on Education (HEDU). He
recounted the full calendar in the House Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee (HHES).
Number 0439
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN acknowledged his support for [HCR 23], but
raised the question of establishing a standing committee for
education, as opposed to the subject's remaining in a special
committee such as the House Special Committee on Oil and Gas.
Oil and gas has been a major issue in the state, and yet it
remains a special House committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested HEDU has many more things to do
than members can accomplish this session. He speculated that
perhaps in several years, much of the major work will be
accomplished and the subject of education might not warrant a
standing committee's status. The legislature always has the
freedom to designate special committees; he said he'd brought
this up for discussion.
Number 0522
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON emphasized her belief that a standing
education committee should be established. She offered that
North Carolina separates the two committees; in the years she
served there, a shortage of issues was never a problem. She
remarked, "Children are our most important ... product."
Number 0566
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that he serves with Representatives
Joule and Wilson on HHES, which he believes has a full plate.
The state has a constitutional responsibility to education; a
standing education committee would recognize the subject's
importance to the legislature and the state. He expressed his
support for the establishment of a standing education committee.
Number 0643
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS pointed out redundancy in HHES and HEDU -
the policy discussion occurs twice. She offered that HCR 23
helps the subjects of both education and health and social
services. [Education] represents a large part of the state's
budget. She acknowledged that the issues addressed in HHES are
complicated. She expressed her belief that many years of
struggle are ahead to determine "how to do this right." She
said she doesn't foresee a decreased workload for HEDU in the
next ten years. She added that another benefit is that some
proactive measures have been taken to address education issues.
Number 0737
CHAIR BUNDE expressed his belief that the interim meetings to
address teacher shortage issues would not have been possible if
education issues fell only into HHES. He pointed out that
education spending ranks second behind permanent fund dividend
(PFD) funding - the state spends $4.7 million per school day to
pay for schools.
Number 0830
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN at first said he is in favor of continuing
the House Special Committee on Education. He pointed out that
80 percent of the state's income is from oil and gas revenues,
and yet oil and gas doesn't have a standing committee. The
discussion of finances "rings hollow" with him, he noted. He
indicated that if enough education issues continue in the years
ahead, then education might warrant a standing committee. He
concluded, however, "The concept of what we need to do,
unbridled from other issues, ... that sells me."
Number 0960
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said the House has the luxury of more
members [than the Senate], which prevents members from being
spread too thin. He highlighted the matter of time that can be
devoted to issues [of education]. He continued, "I think we're
... embarking on a ... time in reform of education." He offered
that this [reform] would evolve in the future; members need to
devote time to address the future the state is building for its
children. "This is the right thing to do," he concluded.
Number 1034
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON suggested the ultimate question is, "Is it
good for kids?" She added, "That tells it all, right there."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report HCR 23 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HCR 23 was reported out of the
House Special Committee on Education.
HB 342-EDUCATION FUNDING
Number 1090
CHAIR BUNDE announced the next order of business to be HOUSE
BILL NO. 342, "An Act relating to appropriations for operating
expenses for primary and secondary public education; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 1099
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS presented HB 342 as the bill's sponsor.
He explained that HB 342 provides for early funding of
education; this has been considered [by the legislature] in the
past. He recounted his frustration as school board president in
determining the school district's budget for the upcoming year
with funding from the borough and the state. He'd also served
as borough mayor, caught between demands of the school district
and the legislature's slowness in funding. House Bill 342 would
require the governor to submit a separate appropriation bill to
the legislature for education before the fourth day of each
regular session. It asks the legislature to pass and send to
the governor a bill funding the following fiscal year by April
1. School districts would be required to have budgets to the
municipality by May 1.
Number 1182
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS offered that the problem lies in
districts' having to base upcoming budgets on assumptions of
funding. The state is facing changes in education and teacher
shortages, he said. He expressed surprise at the opposition to
HB 342, which he attributed to political strategy. Surmising
that other opposition has to do with the Constitutional Budget
Reserve (CBR), he remarked, "The CBR is not going to be there
much longer, so maybe we don't need to worry about it for too
much longer."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said the present system gives school
boards very little time to plan; education requires planning.
An enormous amount of the state budget goes to education, and
this bill would "ease things up considerably." The district
would know how much money it had early in the bargaining
process. He echoed Representative Wilson's sentiment, asking,
"What's best for kids?"
Number 1284
EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Education Support Services, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), stated that HB 342 has no fiscal impact on
EED. He commented that Representative Stevens had covered the
issue well.
Number 1309
MR. JOHNSON returned to submit AASB's position on HB 342. He
paraphrased from a written statement and said:
Our association is supportive and appreciative of the
work that the bill's sponsor continues to undertake on
behalf of education and the children of our state.
That being said, our association is not in support of
early funding for education at this point in our
state's history. We do not believe that public
education will be well served by HB 342. Our members
believe strongly that adequacy of school funding is
paramount to the urgency of knowing a funding level by
April 1 of a given year.
Many of us recognize that our schools are
transitioning from an accreditation-based system to a
standards-based system in an effort to support the
concept of "no child left behind," the mantra of our
President; that our school systems are currently mid-
stream in this transition, at a time when recent
history has shown that our funding level hasn't kept
pace with inflation over the past decade - making it
extremely difficult for schools to meet the needs of
all children; and finally, that our schools are
balancing a variety of unfunded and underfunded
mandates, as well as many additional responsibilities
that require more resources to achieve the desired
result.
Education initiatives currently being undertaken in
Alaska beg for additional funds for school districts
to do their job well. Our association, as well as the
majority of Alaskan citizens, believe that education
is the highest priority. In times of scarcity, the
educational needs of our children are best served by
adequate funding, not by an accommodation of early
funding that, by definition, could easily short-change
education given the current fiscal condition of our
state.
Number 1412
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked Mr. Johnson if he would still
disagree with this policy if the legislature guaranteed that
education funding would be the same whether funded on May 15 or
April 1.
MR. JOHNSON replied that if the amount were determined and set,
AASB could agree to that. Nonetheless, this is not how the
system works. The final days and hours of the [legislative]
session are key in determining funding allocations. He offered
that education is well served to be "at the table" and involved
in that funding conversation.
MR. JOHNSON explained that municipalities' funding is unknown
[until the end of session], so districts are told to plan
budgets on the same municipal funding as the previous year; in
June, this amount may be changed when funding is known. He
added that supplemental education funding might be available at
the end of the session [and might be precluded by early
funding]. He reiterated, "We would prefer, as an association,
to be at the table at the end of the session ... advocating for
what we believe is right for children."
Number 1500
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE inquired whether AASB would perceive itself
to be at the table if the date were moved to an earlier time.
MR. JOHNSON answered that the association would be invited and
present at the table in the earlier funding scenario. He
acknowledged that the legislature's task of balancing competing
needs is enormous. He said:
From our perspective, if you were to simply dispatch
[with] education by April 1 of each year, it would be
very easy to say, "Our situation is so challenging in
the state, ... take flat funding and be happy with
that." We don't think that puts us in the best
position ... at the end of the session.
Number 1550
CHAIR BUNDE queried, "You want to stay alive to the last minute
in hopes that you can bargain politically to increase funding?"
MR. JOHNSON replied, "Absolutely."
Number 1582
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that the intention of HB 342 is not
to underfund education. He cautioned that last-minute
bargaining in the legislature might not serve education well.
Number 1624
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS agreed with Representative Stevens that
this [legislation] is good education policy. She remarked, "If
we want to be able to hold people accountable for how they're
spending money, they need to be able to have the time to plan
appropriately for their budget. It saddens me that this isn't
going to move forward because it's not good politics."
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS emphasized that the CBR argument is the
weakest argument. She indicated that the legislature might want
to reevaluate the way it does business - with the final 72 hours
determining much of the funding. She concluded, "Unfortunately,
because of testimony like we heard today, no one will risk
making good policy because of the politics that we choose to
have in this body."
Number 1700
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE offered that an early deadline might be
helpful by isolating the issue of education and focusing the
efforts of the lobbying. He acknowledged that school boards,
administrators, and teachers have been an effective lobby in
mobilizing the state and subsequently the legislature. He
offered his opinion that the early funding date might help
education's position.
CHAIR BUNDE said, "What you're saying [is] rather than being at
the end where everybody is at the table, ... your voice may not
be as loud because of all the voices there."
Number 1800
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered that the legislature is facing
"one heck of a fiscal dilemma." He reported that many other
states and some Canadian provinces have made up to 25 percent
across-the-board budget reductions, including education. This
[funding deadline] might be a better idea for the next five
years [as the state faces budget shortfalls], he suggested.
Number 1858
DAVE JONES, Director of Finance, Kodiak Island Borough School
District, testified via teleconference. He noted that the
Kodiak district is currently in the budget process. He
characterized the district's position regarding state funding as
"uncertainty" that affects the district's ability to educate
students.
MR. JONES told members that Quality Schools funding and Learning
Opportunity Grant (LOG) funding are not part of the Foundation
Formula. This funding may or may not be funded each year.
Teachers who are hired with these grant monies are placed in an
uncertain position each year - they can wait [to seek other
employment] in hopes that the funding is renewed, or they can
seek a more secure position funded with Foundation Formula
monies.
Number 1898
MR. JONES noted that the April 1 commitment would eliminate six
weeks of uncertainty, and it would reduce staff turnover. He
explained that the middle school and high school principals have
each requested one new teacher to help students pass the High
School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE). An April 1
commitment of Foundation Formula funds by the legislature would
put his district in the "recruitment wars" six weeks earlier; in
today's market, those six weeks are critical for recruiting the
better teachers. By May 15, he noted, many teachers have
already committed to teaching positions for the following school
year.
MR. JONES reported that he is the president of the Alaska
Association of School Business Officials (ALASBO). He stated
that he'd told the ALASBO board of directors about HB 342, and
had received only positive comments about it. Statewide, he
offered, people would like to have the extra six weeks to plan.
Mr. Jones said he would like to see this passed to help Alaskan
districts educate students.
Number 1999
CHAIR BUNDE reminded members that they'd heard comments in
support of earlier funding in the House Special Committee on
Education hearings on recruitment and retention of teachers.
Number 2007
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked, "What happens if we fail to pass a
bill by April 1?"
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS expressed his understanding that this
would be a suggestion to the legislature, and it is not binding
to the legislature in any way.
Number 2032
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said, "This really is a dilemma." She
added that politics truly is involved with fiscal decisions made
by the legislature. The legislation would give districts
certainty in planning budgets, but the uncertainty of funding
issue is a reality. She asked: How do districts know they've
received as much as possible? She concluded that there is no
quick answer to this dilemma.
CHAIR BUNDE added that "pink slips" don't add to teacher morale
or retention.
Number 2113
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that one year during his tenure as
a school board member, all first-year teachers were pink-
slipped. The district intended to rehire most of these
teachers, but the pink slips were distributed nonetheless,
because of budget uncertainty. In light of the teacher shortage
in the state, more funding certainty would serve districts well.
He said, "'We're giving you a pink slip.' If I were a teacher,
the first thing I'd do is check around Seattle. ... Many people
are doing that."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS offered that other states pay teachers as
much or more than Alaska. He referenced the comment by Mr.
Jones indicating districts could be in the job market six weeks
earlier - a tremendous advantage. The "cream of the crop" may
be gone after that, he concluded.
Number 2185
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN drew attention to the state's dependence on
oil revenue, characterizing the prognostication of oil prices as
a "crapshoot." He suggested Alaska could not expect a sudden
increase in oil prices, and pointed out that the state, in
recent years, has been spending more than it has been taking in.
He offered his experience at the end of session, that discussion
doesn't focus on increasing education spending by cutting other
expenditures. Typically, he noted, the discussion instead
centers on "holding the line" on education funding. He
predicted that this would not change in the future, and he
suggested that waiting until the end puts education funding in
greater jeopardy. He noted the uncertainty of recruiting good
teachers. He suggested an early start will help the state.
Number 2263
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER informed members that his son is teaching
in Oregon. After teaching in Anchorage for five years and being
pink-slipped two or three of those years, his son left the
state.
CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on HB 342 and sought the
wish of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to report HB 342 from committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 342 was moved out of the
House Special Committee on Education.
HB 352-SCHOOL PERFORMANCE REPORTS
Number 2299
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 352, "An Act extending the dates for assignment
of performance designations of public schools and the dates for
reports and monitoring based on those designations; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 2320
ED McLAIN, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education
and Early Development (EED), presented HB 352. He explained
that the bill moves the implementation date of the school
designations to January 2005. One aspect addresses essential
skills and brings alignment with the focus of SB 133,
particularly at the high school level. House Bill 352 also
aligns the date for reporting and monitoring progress with the
general reporting dates to the public and the legislature.
DR. McLAIN explained that the date-change request followed
conversations with the school designator committee, the
legislative forum, and school and educational leaders. This
delay will do three things. First, it will allow EED time to
align with the federal designation system incorporated in U.S.
House Resolution 1 {H.R. 1}, the No Child Left Behind Act. This
resolution, also referred to as the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), includes a school
designation system; EED wants to be certain it can align with
that. The House Special Committee on Education will be meeting
with the ESEA federal personnel, he said, noting the importance
of having one designation, rather than both a state and a
federal designation.
DR. McLAIN explained that second, the delay will allow EED to
incorporate growth information into the designation. School
status information already exists for public use, he noted.
Third, the delay will allow for "capacity building" for data
collection and management by schools, districts, and the state.
As this data becomes higher-stakes, its accuracy becomes more
important, he added.
DR. McLAIN recounted the state's first experience with the
federal designation for Title I schools and the steep learning
curve this entailed [for educational personnel]. He offered
that these new designations are much more extensive in nature;
EED wants to "get this right." Dr. McLain explained that Mark
Leal has been chairing the school designator committee.
Number 2440
MARK LEAL, Director of Assessment, Teaching and Learning
Support, Department of Education and Early Development, pointed
out three documents in the committee packet. One is a summary
of school designations and gives an overview of the school
designator committee.
TAPE 02-6, SIDE B
Number 2462
MR. LEAL said this document summarizes school designations in
two pages. The second document, "Description of School
Designator System and Questions and Answers," answers common
questions asked regarding school designations. The third
document, "SAMPLE Alaska School Report Card," attempts to answer
the biggest question about school designations: Why do we
concentrate so much on test scores?
MR. LEAL emphasized that the school designator committee has
focused on the results in student achievement, rather than
looking at process or context of the school. He offered that
process and context are important, but many process and context
items are based on the "effective schools" research in the mid-
'80s and '90s. These items include parent and community
involvement, school-business partnerships, site-based
management, and other elements of effective schools. The
standards movement has transferred the focus from process and
context to student achievement of the standards. He explained
that both are important; a school that received a "poor"
designation based on student performance would want to review
those context and process issues in the school to see how they
might be affecting student performance.
Number 2353
MR. LEAL stressed that the list of school context and school
quality issues on the sample report card is for illustrative
purposes only. It is not intended to be a comprehensive or
final list; the designation will be based on student performance
and a variety of context and quality issues. Some of these
issues are already an element of the report card.
Number 2307
CHAIR BUNDE offered his opinion that schools are primarily a
reflection of the communities. When a school is in crisis, it
is because the community is in crisis. He added that the
legislative and administrative intent behind the [school
reporting mandate] was not a "gotcha" for schools. He remarked,
"Obviously, we'd like to suffer from 'Lake Wobegon syndrome'
where all our children are above average." The focus of this
will not be on average or above-average schools, he said, but on
schools deemed to be in crisis. He asked Mr. Leal to estimate
how many schools would be currently designated "in crisis" if
the designation criteria were enacted.
Number 2250
DR. McLAIN responded that half the schools would be below
average. He offered that this is one reason EED is requesting
the date change; EED wants to focus on growth. Some schools are
in a community in crisis. If EED proceeds with the status
scores alone, a variety of schools will be identified as
deficient. A focus on growth will allow reward and recognition
for that growth. The growth will also serve as a foundation for
future progress. He said, "That's what the growth focus ...
allows us to do, so that we don't forever have a school ...
[designated] down simply because of the population or ... the
community mechanics."
Number 2191
CHAIR BUNDE said:
You think a two-year [delay] will ... get these people
to wake up and smell the coffee and focus on growth?
... Is ... your delay going to give you different
testing mechanisms? My concern is, if this mechanism
is going to be bad for our schools, it'll probably be
bad for our schools in two years.... Is just delaying
sufficient? Or does the whole legislation have to be
changed substantially?
Number 2250
DR. McLAIN acknowledged that EED has wrestled with similar
questions. He said, "It is not simply to delay and not do
anything differently." The federal legislation also contains
designation pieces; EED wants to ensure alignment with those
and to [have an effect on] the federal designations. He said
Alaska has requested a seat on the rule-making committee to have
some input to ensure that the designations are not simply
punitive. Status scores are already in place; those are
available to the public. He remarked, "When we disaggregated
that data, that started to raise the attention about the
differing achievement levels."
DR. McLAIN said EED has asked schools to focus their Learning
Opportunity Grants specifically on intervention strategies, to
focus on students who were not succeeding. He said, "Will the
world be suddenly reborn in two years? I don't think that's
what we're talking about. But there is ... an awareness that
there was not six months ago. There is a new legislation behind
us now, ... the federal legislation pushing us that we want to
align to."
Number 2087
CHAIR BUNDE said the last time he'd addressed this, his attempts
had been characterized as advocating public embarrassment of
schools. He continued:
If we take this legislation with schools that are in
crisis and take it to its ultimate conclusion,
nationally the results have been mixed when a state or
a municipality takes over [a] school district ... in
crisis. It was my view, ... and I think shared by
some that have looked into this arena, that the
"schools in crisis" really does ... little more than
just focus a bright light on this school, which may
serve to publicly embarrass them. And some research
has said that helps.... What is the ultimate possible
sanction, and how [will that] help a school in the
administration's view?
Number 2030
DR. McLAIN replied that this matter of sanctions is a critical
question; it is one reason for the delay request. He said U.S.
H.R. 1 identifies a series of steps that, practically speaking,
don't make a lot of sense. The proposed solutions in U.S. HR 1
include providing transportation for students to attend another
school, for example, which doesn't make much sense to a single
school in an isolated setting.
DR. McLAIN noted that Alaska hopes to have impact on these
proposed solutions. Another provision calls for the replacement
of staff in a failing school. Alaska's problem, however, is
with retention of teachers and stability. This solution is
therefore problematic. The state legislation calls for failing
schools to develop - with community input - a plan [for
improvement]. He said, "We agree wholeheartedly with you that
this is not just what goes on ... in the school...; it is a
community issue. And so the plan would call for that."
Number 1968
DR. McLAIN indicated the supports EED could provide to failing
schools depend upon actions of the legislature. Other
initiatives include proposing that the Alaska Center for
Excellence in Schools do research and act as a broker for
resources to help [failing schools].
DR. McLAIN noted that EED has requested monies for a fund slated
for assistance for targeted instruction and intervention in low-
achieving schools. This funding request also includes monies
slated for high-achieving schools, to provide support for
successful strategies and use them as a model for other schools.
He noted that EED still needs to determine how much flexibility
is allowed in the federal legislation. He noted that this is a
major focus for EED.
CHAIR BUNDE remarked, "You don't make hollow threats when you
want to get people to comply with important public policy." He
said he looks at this possible state takeover as "pretty much a
hollow threat." He added, "I guess it doesn't hurt, but it sure
doesn't help any."
Number 1866
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked how EED is dealing with the issue of
transience. She referenced page two of EED's "School
Designators - Summary of Issues," which discusses growth of [a
class from year to year]. She noted her understanding that EED
is working on [individual] student identification. She
emphasized the importance of appropriate accountability in
schools with high student turnover rates. She requested an
update of EED's efforts in this area.
Number 1838
MR. LEAL replied, "That's been a real thorny issue for the
committee." The consultants the committee has been working with
have done preliminary studies with Alaskan data and data from
other states. These consultants have found very little
statistical difference between a matched-student growth model
and a growth model that compared groups of students one grade to
the next, he reported. Alaska, however, presents some special
dilemmas with small school size. The reason for this small
statistical variation between the two groups is because in most
states, transient students' profiles are quite similar.
MR. LEAL said the committee is addressing this issue by allowing
the unique student identifier to calculate matched-student
growth. He continued, "If there was an indication that by
matching it up, that the school was really providing more growth
than it was through the original calculation, then ... we could
talk to the school about that or look at exactly what was
happening there." He stated that EED does not want to send the
message that transient students don't count. So this is a
dilemma in having a system that is perceived as fair without
sending the unintended message that only non-transient students
count. He said other states have dealt with this issue in a
variety of ways.
Number 1733
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS offered her opinion that this is one of the
most important reasons for this delay. She emphasized the
importance of this doing this part right; the state doesn't know
how to do this yet, because there is such a migrant population.
She asked about the use of Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) as a school context designation and whether EED
was considering reporting on poverty. She indicated that
poverty is a large issue when addressing school context.
MR. LEAL responded that the AFDC component in the school context
is the place where EED will report on poverty. Currently, the
information received by EED is self-reported; usually, this is
through free-and-reduced-lunch counts and other things. There
would need to be some measure of economic level of the school.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS sought clarification that there was no plan
to use an AFDC count.
MR. LEAL replied, "No. ... All of these are placeholders for
items that we would want to [measure]." He said the purpose of
the school report card is to show that schools are more than
test scores. Many things affect test scores. He said, "We're
looking at the school designation based on student performance,
and these other ... school quality factors and school context
factors would fit into the mix and ... may affect the
designation." He offered the example of high parental
participation in a school with low student achievement; EED does
not want to be in a position of identifying this school as
exemplary - the focus is student achievement. He stated that
parent participation plays a role in student achievement and
needs to be listed as an element of school quality while
retaining the focus of student achievement.
Number 1600
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS reported her understanding that research
shows parental involvement in the home is a greater factor in
student success than is parental involvement in the school.
Number 1591
CHAIR BUNDE clarified that low student achievement does not
directly correlate with low socioeconomic status. Many other
factors play a role in student success.
MR. LEAL said a designation system using only status indicators
would highlight socioeconomic factors. A designation system
based on both status and growth would provide a more accurate
reflection of a school's accomplishments.
CHAIR BUNDE commented that many times "A" and "B" students don't
exhibit expected growth.
Number 1538
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to Representative Guess's comment
and offered that in his geographically small district, a
disparity exists among schools with regard to student turnover
rates. One school might have a turnover rate of 30 percent;
another, 100 percent. When comparing these two schools, one
might surmise that the latter school has a deficient program.
He expressed concern that unless both schools' nontransient
students' achievement were compared, an inaccurate designation
might be imposed. He asked what EED plans to do with this issue
as a result of the proposed delay that it wouldn't have
otherwise done. He also asked how this issue is addressed
currently.
Number 1467
MR. LEAL indicated there is no mechanism in place for addressing
this issue; a system that calculates growth is not being used.
He said, "When we report test results for a school with a
transient rate of 100 percent, ... that's the status scores -
that's the snapshot in time of that school's performance." By
calculating growth, he indicated, the progress of students who
were present in that school or district could be measured.
MR. LEAL reported that the center for assessment is finding that
much of student movement occurs between schools within a
district. Some occurs district-to-district and state-to-state,
but the majority is within a district. The unique [student]
identifier will allow student growth to be measured by groups or
individual students. So the assessment of a school with a high
transient rate would include the matched-student growth; this
school still needs to be accountable in some manner, he noted.
This school needs to be assessed in its effectiveness with its
student population.
Number 1385
MR. LEAL said, "In some manner, we need to be able to measure
how effective they are with those students. We can't say,
'Because you have a transient population, we don't know how you
do, or we don't care how you do.'" He added that EED is trying
to build in mechanisms to measure growth. It has initiated the
[student] identifier, and some sophisticated databases need to
be built at the state level to manage test results. The two
years will allow for this development, he noted. He pointed out
that EED is concerned about the issues of transience and small
schools that will reduce the reliability of the system.
Number 1323
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired whether a transient student who
has low achievement scores as a result of his transience would
be consequently identified as a special education student.
Number 1286
MR. LEAL replied that this student would not be identified as a
special education student unless he was tested and then
identified as such.
Number 1260
NICK STAYROOK, Executive Director, Planning and Evaluation,
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, testified via
teleconference. He stated that he is a member of the school
designator committee. He referenced a resolution dated January
15 from the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
requesting a delay in the school designations law.
MR. STAYROOK noted his district's concurrence with the
governor's transmittal letter that outlines the reasons needed
for the delay. He indicated his committee believes growth is an
important factor when looking at school quality. No growth
information currently exists. He said the assessment system has
been evolving for several years; growth data will be available
by next year. He explained why the district views this as
important:
If we went forward with designations based simply on
status - and the law does have a consequence that
schools will begin to make school improvement plans
based on these designations - we may be having many
schools in the state producing school improvement
plans based on status only, whereas when we get the
growth data, [we might] find out that they didn't
really need to do school improvement plans, and vice-
versa.
MR. STAYROOK added that the school board resolution also draws
attention to the issue of specialized schools. Many districts
across the state implement alternative programs. Fairbanks has
a high-school-level alternative program. At-risk students are
the targeted population for this alternative program; many of
these students are low-performing students. He said, "We're
just afraid that these kinds of specialized schools are going to
result - inherently - in an 'in crisis' or 'deficient'
classification." He added that correctional facilities and
special education schools would face this same dilemma.
MR. STAYROOK said the committee is also grappling with the issue
of small schools. The current analysis for creating the
designations is solely based on student achievement test scores
on benchmark tests, norm-referenced tests, and the HSGQE test.
He noted that of the approximately 500 schools in the state, 135
have enrollments of fewer than 50 students. This means that, on
average, about four students are being tested at each grade
level. He suggested that attempting to determine statistical
validity of growth or achievement scores based on four students
at a grade level is invalid.
Number 1035
MR. STAYROOK offered that additional measures need to be used
for small schools. He indicated measures of parental
satisfaction would be added, along with student measures, in
determining the quality of a school. He pointed out that the
Fairbanks district has recently incorporated parent evaluation
forms for schools, which have been a valuable tool for
correcting parent-identified issues.
MR. STAYROOK explained that the items for which schools will be
held accountable in their designations will be the things that
schools will concentrate on for improvement. Therefore, if
designations are narrowly defined to consist of achievement in
reading, writing, and math, those are things to which schools
will pay particular attention. Other areas such as science,
social studies, art, music, or other important subjects may be
less emphasized and possibly ignored, he noted. He referenced
an editorial by Darroll Hargraves, executive director of the
[Alaska Council of School Administrators], that addressed the
issue of narrow [curricular] focusing. Mr. Stayrook highlighted
the importance of designation systems and the intent of them.
MR. STAYROOK explained that the reauthorization of the ESEA is
requiring a school accountability system. He expressed his
opinion that one important thing to consider in the ESEA is the
difference in the achievement gap among students of different
ethnicity, gender, and [family income] levels. The Fairbanks
district has been tracking this and has an initiative to close
the achievement gap between these students. If closing this
achievement gap is important in Alaska, that might be an element
in the designation for each school. He remarked, "In other
words, it's not good enough just to bring up the average
performance of students in the school, but it's also important
to close the gap in achievement between different types of
students."
Number 0885
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Stayrook if he was comfortable that this
[delay] issue would not be revisited with the same argument.
MR. STAYROOK replied that he was certainly comfortable with the
two-year extension. He offered that this was due to the current
lack of a growth score. He said:
Recent studies done by our test contractor will allow
us to produce growth scores from the spring of '02 ...
to the spring of '03. We think that we'll begin to
have the growth scores there, and that having another
year to pilot test this around the state - supply
designations to schools, let them begin to working on
their plans ... - would certainly make ... the entire
legislation much more palatable.
MR. STAYROOK said he saw no need to delay beyond 2004. This
delay brings other dates into alignment with the HSGQE dates.
Those results also can be incorporated into the designations
specified in the summer of 2004, he concluded.
TAPE 02-7, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BUNDE announced that public testimony on HB 352 would be
closed following Mr. Johnson's following testimony.
Number 0020
BRUCE JOHNSON, Director, Quality Schools/Quality Students,
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB), testified in support
of the delay of the school designations, for reasons already
outlined by other witnesses. Noting that two AASB members have
served on the designator committee, he said:
It's been a hardworking group of people that have been
very serious to try to do this in a fair ... manner.
... Our very first meeting, we invited a couple [of]
consultants from other states - one of them was from
California - and we asked them how they dealt with
small schools in California. And what we found out
was that any school of 100 or fewer students was not
included in the designation system. Obviously, we
didn't feel that that would match the intent of the
legislation that we were attempting to implement at
that point in time.
MR. JOHNSON said he'd offered the foregoing to help members
understand the challenges Alaska faces with small schools in the
designation system. Turning attention to the issue of growth,
Mr. Johnson said he believes all people agree that the role of
public education is to add value to a child. That has been
somewhat narrowly defined in terms of achievement as a primary
factor; he offered that he did not dispute that prominence.
Number 0150
MR. JOHNSON indicated a school's job is to add that value,
regardless of the child's background, first language, or family
income. He suggested more time is needed to determine
[appropriate designations]. He concurred that a system built
only on status is inherently unfair. He said a system that
includes growth will give schools a "fighting chance" to move
beyond the two lower designations of "in crisis" or "deficient."
Two years from now, the state will have a much better system, he
concluded.
Number 0250
CHAIR BUNDE sought assurance from Mr. Johnson that this issue
would not be revisited in two years.
MR. JOHNSON offered his opinion that everything should be in
order over the next couple years; the assessment system should
be in place to chart growth. Challenges will still exist in the
realms of small schools and other matters. He said:
One of the issues on the handout ... provided by Mr.
Leal shows a confidence rating. How confident are we
that the rating that was given to school "X" -- let's
say that's a small school, K-12 with 50 students in
it. Early on, those confidence ratings are not going
to be very high. And I think they're going to be,
perhaps, broad categories of low confidence, medium,
or high - or something like that.
MR. JOHNSON noted that as more data is collected and studied,
the confidence rating will be a fair and appropriate
designation. He emphasized, "We need to get going with this."
He indicated this type of process is going on in other states.
The recommendation originated with the administration, he said,
acknowledging that the original timeline might have been overly
ambitious.
Number 0380
CHAIR BUNDE closed public testimony on HB 352.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that he thought he'd be
supportive of this bill, but it is disquieting to him. He said,
"The ... term that keeps ringing in my ears is, 'No pain, no
gain.'" He said attempts to minimize pain - in terms of
embarrassment to a school district or an individual student - is
how this [need for an extension] was originally created. He
remarked, "Many people need wake-up calls in many different
areas, but I would think that the ordinary results of the
testing that we have done is an indication that our education
system, in general and in specific areas, needs a wake-up call."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER acknowledged that some students have low
performance through no fault of their own. He offered his
perception that many students have low performance because of a
lack of sufficient motivation for them to perform higher than
they can get by with. These students are passed from grade to
grade and eventually out of the system.
Number 0536
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered that the "growth score" idea is
good, but he hopes it doesn't result in an excuse, "Well, you're
okay because you've come from zero to one," while the bar is at
ten. He remarked, "I'm all for saying something positive, but
not at the risk of leaving the impression that that's okay,
because it's not."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said Mr. Johnson is correct to some degree
that the education system should be designed to increase the
value of a child's life. He added, "To me, that means the value
that education is intended to place into it, in being able to
survive in the world because of their academic skills, not [to]
smooth their psyches so that they will never have to experience
any pain."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER concluded with an anecdote: His son was
doing poorly in math in the third grade. He discovered his son
wasn't doing the required homework, and that the homework took
two hours to complete redundant math problems each night. His
son was not the only student doing poorly. Upon questioning the
teacher, he was told the teacher was preparing his child for
life. He'd responded, however, that preparing his son for life
was his job as a father; he wanted the teacher to prepare his
son for the fourth grade.
Number 0688
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE moved to report HB 352 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 352 was moved out of the
House Special Committee on Education.
Number 0741
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON requested clarification on the school
[indicator] of high school persistence versus the dropout rate.
She queried whether the use of persistence might be masking a
problem.
MR. LEAL offered that the use of persistence is for consistency;
high test scores and low dropout scores are the goal. The
dropout rate will be calculated and then used to recalculate the
persistence rate. This will allow all the scores to be a
positive number. He explained his committee's belief that
scores are easier to read if all higher scores indicate higher
performance, rather than having one indicator be that the lower
the score is, the better the performance is.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON offered that she didn't want the emphasis
lost [by using the persistency rate].
Number 0852
CHAIR BUNDE said he'd appreciate assurance that this issue will
not require revisitation in two years' time.
DR. McLAIN pointed out that the federal legislation has its own
timelines that will [require the completion of the designations
by the administration-proposed timeline]. [HB 352 was moved out
of the House Special Committee on Education.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0900
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at 9:39
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|