02/14/2001 08:04 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
February 14, 2001
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chair
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Joe Green
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 43
"An Act relating to reimbursement of certain student loans; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 43(EDU) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to reimbursement of student loans; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 54(EDU) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 94
"An Act relating to initiatives for quality schools; relating to
pupil competency testing and the issuance of secondary school
diplomas; relating to certain reports regarding academic
performance of schools; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 43
SHORT TITLE:STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GREEN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/10/01 0049 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/10/01 0049 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
01/10/01 0049 (H) REFERRED TO EDU
01/12/01 0073 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA
02/07/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/07/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTES(EDU)
02/14/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 54
SHORT TITLE:STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)DAVIES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/10/01 0055 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/10/01 0055 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
01/10/01 0055 (H) REFERRED TO EDU
01/12/01 0074 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA
01/17/01 (H) EDU AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
01/17/01 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
01/31/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/31/01 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/01 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
02/07/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/07/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/14/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 94
SHORT TITLE:PUPIL COMPETENCY TEST;ANNUAL EDUC. REPORT
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/26/01 0171 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/26/01 0171 (H) EDU, HES
01/26/01 0172 (H) FN1: ZERO(EED)
01/26/01 0172 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
01/26/01 0172 (H) REFERRED TO EDU
02/14/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
KEVIN JARDELL, Staff
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 403
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented changes in HB 43 on behalf of
sponsor.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
Department of Education and Early Development
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 43 and HB 54.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 422
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of amendment HB 54; presented
amendment.
SHIRLEY HOLLOWAY, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West Tenth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 94.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education Early Development
801 West Tenth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 94.
TANYA TOTEMOFF, Student
Tatitlek School
Tatitlek, Alaska 99677
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 94.
JEFF WALTERS, President
Fairbanks Education Association
2118 South Cushman Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of delaying the
implementation date of HB 94.
LOUISE PARISH
P.O. Box 1182
, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of HB 94 in support of
students with learning disabilities.
MERI HOLDEN
311 West Street Avenue
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 94.
C. A. SHORT
46941 Kenai Spur Highway
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of HB 94 in support of
postponing the implementation date until 2006.
AMY HEADRICK
Disability Law Center of Alaska
615 East 82nd Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 94.
DEB LUNDY
P.O. BOX 771
Tok, Alaska 99780
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 94.
RICH KRONBERG, President
National Education Association - Alaska
114 Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 998
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 94.
PHILIP REEVES, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as counsel for the Department of
Education and Early Development on the validity of the high
school graduation exams relating to HB 94.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-6, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE called the House Special Committee on
Education meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Bunde, Porter, Wilson,
Stevens, and Guess. Representatives Green and Joule joined the
meeting as it was in progress.
HB 43 - STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS
CHAIR BUNDE announced the first order of business as HOUSE BILL
NO. 43, "An Act relating to reimbursement of certain student
loans; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0173
KEVIN JARDELL, Staff to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State
Legislature, came forward on behalf of Representative Green,
sponsor, to present changes in HB 43. He said the basic concept
has not changed; there have been some clarifications. He
referred to page 1, lines 8-9, which mentions an undergraduate
degree. He stated that many of the universities in the state
are encouraging people with other degrees to get a master's
degree. This makes it clear that the bill applies to all those
situations where the person is taking coursework in order to
obtain a teaching certificate and endorsement, and in order to
teach in a geographically underserved area or subject area where
there is a shortage.
MR. JARDELL referred to an additional change on page 2,
beginning at line 17. This clarifies when someone had to pay
and how it would be paid out. He said this wasn't spelled out
in the last version. It now is clear that when persons
graduate, they are obligated to begin payment on their loans
under the terms of their loan agreement with the Alaska Student
Loan Corporation (ASLC). Once students are eligible for the
program they are hired as a teacher in one of these areas and at
that point it would be the balance of their loan that would be
subject to the forgiveness. If they did in fact pay for three
or four years before they were hired or eligible for the
program, they would not be getting a check back in cash.
MR. JARDELL posed the question: If people default, are they
still eligible at the default rate? On page 1, line 12, the
borrower must comply with AS 14.43.120. If the borrower is in
default, he/she is not complying with that provision and so
would not be eligible for the loan forgiveness program.
Number 0373
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 43, version 22-LSO225\P, Ford,
2/13/01, as a work draft. There being no objection, proposed
CSHB 43 was before the committee.
CHAIR BUNDE stated he did not see an appropriation and asked Mr.
Jardell if the money would come from the student loan money or
the GF [general fund].
MR. JARDELL answered that the only way that this program would
be funded is through GF. This is made clear on page 2, lines
23-26, which states: "subject to appropriation by the
legislature".
CHAIR BUNDE stated for the record he wanted to see that that was
there. The committee had expressed some concern before about
spending the appropriations money.
Number 0476
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education (ACPE), Department of Education and
Early Development (EED), presented a draft fiscal note. The
range of annual cost in year one, which would be year 2003,
would be an estimated cost of $85 thousand. By the fifth year
of the program the estimated costs would be $424,000.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that somebody had brought to his attention
that, apparently, the IRS [Internal Revenue Service] considers
this forgiveness taxable income.
MS. BARRANS answered that canceled debt is considered taxable
income; however, there are some provisions provided in tax law.
One of those provisions, specific to student loans, is that if
the debt is canceled as a result of an agreement to a certain
service, then it is excludable.
Number 0579
CHAIR BUNDE noted that he has had a number of inquiries from
people who are already in the process of repayment of their debt
or have paid their debt and would like to fall under these
provisions. He asked if the loans are no longer funded out of
the general fund, whether that makes each year's loan a separate
contract.
MS. BARRANS stated that was correct.
CHAIR BUNDE stated, "I have used 'astronomical' to describe the
cost of this if we were to go back for as long as we have had
student loans. Retrospectively, would I be out of the ballpark
if using those terms?"
MS. BARRANS answered that the cost would be several million
dollars per year. The total that the state and the corporation
forgave during the years when there was a benefit is to date $74
million.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if that portion of the student loan program is
smaller than the current portion, the non-forgiveness.
MS. BARRANS answered very much so.
Number 0703
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if this bill would require that
fiscal note and whether it should it be assumed that it would
catch up with it.
CHAIR BUNDE replied that he is sure that there will be a great
interest in further committees of referral on making sure that
there is a fiscal note since it does go to the House Finance
[Committee].
Number 0736
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move proposed CSHB 43,
version 22-LSO225\P, Ford, 2/13/01, from the committee with
individual recommendations and fiscal note to be attached.
There being no objection, CSHB 43(EDU) moved from the House
Special Committee on Education.
HB 54 - STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS
CHAIR BUNDE announced the next order of business as HOUSE BILL
NO. 54, "An Act relating to reimbursement of student loans; and
providing for an effective date." [The committee previously
adopted the proposed CSHB 54, version 22-LS0174\C, Ford,
1/30/01, as the work draft.]
Number 0779
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES, sponsor of HB 54, came forward to explain
the changes in the bill. In response to Chair Bunde's concern
on the fiscal note, he understands that any fiscal impact
essentially would come out of the general fund or be subject to
appropriation by the legislature. He said he assumes that the
cost of this would be paid out of the dividend [from the Alaska
Student Loan Corporation]. He presented an amendment that would
add another line in existing subsection (t) that would make it
clear that the new interest reduction would be subject to
appropriation.
Number 0857
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, 22-
LS0174\C.1, Ford, 2/13/01, which read:
Page 1, following line 11:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 14.43.120(t) is amended to read:
(t) Payment of interest under (l) of
this section, [AND] forgiveness under (s) of this
section, and a reduction of interest under (w) of
this section are subject to appropriation by the
legislature. Money obtained from the sale of
bonds by the Student Loan Corporation under AS
14.42.220 may not be appropriated for the payment
of interest or the forgiveness of loans."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Davies to contrast HB 54 with
the other loan forgiveness bills.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained that HB 54 is trying to address
situations where students take a student loan and travel outside
of the state and to encourage them to return to the state. He
expressed that he thinks people are concerned about the effects
on their families when children attend school and then relocate
outside of the state. The contrast is that the other bills
being considered apply just to people engaged in teaching.
House Bill 54 would have a much smaller fiscal note but affect a
broader class of citizens that come back and actually gain
employment in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated that his intent under HB 54 is to
encourage people to think about relocating to Alaska. Even
though HB 54 applies to both those who stay and who leave, he
said his real focus is to get people who are taking classes
outside the state to return. One option to consider is whether
to restrict the student loan program to people who attend
schools in the state of Alaska. One reason he thinks that idea
might be rejected is that young people benefit from experiences
outside the state. He said students should try to capture that
experience and bring it back to Alaska. A second reason is that
the university system has a limited class offering. The
university has about half the offerings of the average Western
U.S. institution. The vast majority of students, when asked why
they either leave the University of Alaska to go Outside or go
straight from high school to an institution outside the state,
say it is because the university doesn't offer the courses that
they want. That needs to be recognized in the public policy.
He said he thinks that is done in the student loan arena, but HB
54 would try to then fix an unintended consequence of that
policy in a limited way and encourage people to think about
coming back.
Number 1074
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education (ACPE), Department of Education and
Early Development (EED), came forward on behalf of the Alaska
Student Loan Corporation (ASLC). She thanked the sponsor for
eliminating any ambiguity over the funding source for HB 54.
She stated that whether it's a reappropriation of the ASLC
return to the state or straight general funds, this clarifies
and removes the concerns.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if Ms. Barrans had a view as to the potential
fiscal note.
MS. BARRANS answered yes. Using the old forgiveness rate as a
basis, the ASLC has created a range of what the cost in year one
would be with a half percent reduction up to the full 1 percent
reduction. In year one, that would range between $90,000 and
$177,000. In year 15 of that repayment schedule it would be
between $1.4 [million] on the low end and $2.9 [million] on the
high end.
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether, if this were entered into a contract
for forgiveness, it would reduce the IRS (Internal Revenue
Service) potential.
MS. BARRANS replied it would. Because there is a required
service associated with this benefit, she understands - with the
disclaimer that she is not an attorney, much less a tax attorney
- it could be excludable.
Number 1188
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move proposed CSHB 54,
version 22-LS0174\C, Ford, 1/30/01, as amended, from the
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSHB 54(EDU) moved from the
House Special Committee on Education.
HB 94 - PUPIL COMPETENCY TEST;ANNUAL EDUC. REPORT
CHAIR BUNDE announced the next order of business as HOUSE BILL
NO. 94, "An Act relating to initiatives for quality schools;
relating to pupil competency testing and the issuance of
secondary school diplomas; relating to certain reports regarding
academic performance of schools; and providing for an effective
date."
Number 1275
SHIRLEY HOLLOWAY, Commissioner, Department of Education Early
Development (EED), came forth to address HB 94. Commissioner
Holloway stated that there are three important rules for the
request to establish a new date for the high school qualifying
exam. Those three reasons fall into three categories. The
first one is the opportunity to learn for all students. The
second is the improvement that needs to be made on the statewide
assessment itself, and the third is the need to develop fair and
appropriate assessment pathways for the diverse student
population.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY expressed that she would like to elaborate
on those three points. The first point, the opportunity to
learn, really has to do with ensuring that all young boys and
girls in the state of Alaska who are in jeopardy of being denied
a diploma have the opportunity to learn and to be taught the
standards for which they are being held accountable. It is
necessary that all school districts have aligned their
curriculum to the performance standards that are being measured
on the statewide assessments: reading, writing, and
mathematics. The reading, writing, and mathematic standards
need to be integrated into all the curricular areas such as
science, social studies, and vocational education, if this is
going to be successful. Some districts have the knowledge and
the technical expertise to get this job done and others do not.
Even districts that do have some expertise are struggling in
getting this all together and to the classroom level.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY stated that she hopes at some time the
committee will be able to hear from the Juneau School District,
which has put a great deal of time and effort into putting
together all of the test scores on youngsters so that teachers
can see them when students enter their classrooms. The Juneau
School District is doing this through technology, and is even
going as far as listing the interventions that students have
had. When she met with the Juneau School District and asked if
this is really at the classroom level yet, she was told no. The
Juneau School District has been building it, designing it, and
working with it, but still needs time to work with the teachers
in order to implement it.
Number 1402
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY stated that another aspect of the concept
of the opportunity to learn is the professional development that
teachers need in order to teach the standards, because it's a
different way of doing business. She remarked that whenever a
company changes how it wants to produce a project or determines
a better way of getting the job done, the company invests in the
people to make sure they have the new skills and the knowledge
to get the results expected. It is necessary to invest in
education professionals to help them teach the standards and
assess students in a performance-based system, which is very
different from what has been done in the past.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY addressed another aspect of the concept of
the opportunity to learn that relates to what has been done with
students who have not done well on the assessments. Based on
the student data for 2000, many a student are in jeopardy of not
passing all three required assessments in math, reading, and
writing in time to get his or her diploma. She said that the
EED believes it is necessary to develop appropriate and focused
student interventions to help the students meet these new
standards. The rationale for the year 2006 is imbedded in this
opportunity to learn issue. This year's seventh graders will be
the graduates of 2006. They took the sixth grade benchmark
assessment last year. It is known which seventh graders are not
progressing well in the reading, writing, and math, therefore,
it is essential to do the kinds of intervention now so they will
be better prepared when they take the eighth grade benchmark.
That provides another opportunity to do additional interventions
or remediation. Parents have the information now for the first
time in terms of how well students are doing specifically on the
reading, writing, and math standards. So, together, teachers
and parents need to be designing how they are going to support
their students to meet these new standards.
Number 1498
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY stated that another element of the
opportunity to learn relates to some of the legal requirements.
She said that the EED is being cautioned that sticking to the
2002 date may not be wise because the system, based on data, has
not had time to gear up to ensure the opportunity and the
interventions to make sure all students have experience. She
said that many states are going through the same process. She
has a draft, to date, of where all the states are in
relationship to this issue of high stakes testing.
Number 1535
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY stated that the second reason for asking
for a more responsible timeline in the implementation of the
high school qualifying exam has to do with the need to refine,
clarify, and improve the assessments. She said that she thinks
it's important to be reminded that the standards on which the
test are based were not established by the legislature or the
EED, but by hundreds of caring and committed Alaskans starting
in 1990. The standards that young people should know and be
able to do when they leave the twelfth grade were voluntary
until 1997 when the competency test law was passed. Designing a
comprehensive standards-based statewide assessment is a process
that needs to be continually scrutinized, refined, and improved.
Now that there is student data as well as feedback from
teachers, students, and parents, and the standards that have
been measured, the format of the assessments, and the cut scores
need to be carefully analyzed. The EED, with the State Board of
Education, has developed a process called the Continuous Renewal
Process for the Statewide Assessments. Teams of educators,
parents, school board members, and business people started last
week on the reexamining process.
Number 1609
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY stated that the third reason to consider
the time frame for withholding diplomas from the 2002 graduates
is that the competency-based law did not address how to
determine competency of students displaying disabilities,
students who come speaking a language other than English, or
transient students, such as the military dependents. It is
important to take time to work with parents and families,
communities, legislatures, educators, and other concerned groups
and to look at the possible alternatives. She said that she
wants to assure the committee and the chairman that the EED is
committed to maintaining high standards and accountability,
emphasizing that there have been significant gains because of
the new accountability requirements. She continued by saying it
is possible to maintain the accountability momentum by
continuing to assess students and record the results of the
assessments on the high school transcripts.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY stated that there is public accountability
now because student performance, both on the benchmarks and the
high school qualifying exam, are now reported school by school.
It is possible to pull that information up on the web site, look
at each school in the state to see how well the students are
doing on these assessments. She said the EED believes that this
really sustains the students' and the schools' accountability.
Also, in "the law SB 36" there's a requirement in the process
called designating schools. In 2003 each school will receive a
designation. The designation committee will be reporting to the
EED in March, and schools will have the opportunity to apply
this designation formula to their school during the 2002 school
year before the official designation occurs in the year 2003.
The EED is in the process of developing a detailed plan on what
would specifically be done with the time if the committee were
to grant a delay.
Number 1720
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether, if this were to move forward, there
would be a 20-30 percent possible denial of diplomas.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY answered she believes so.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that Alaskan high schools average about a 10
percent denial now. Denying diplomas is not a new thing with
the competency test. For many reasons, students don't get
diplomas now.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY said that she doesn't have the data in
terms of how many students are being denied diplomas under the
present system.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that it certainly varies with districts but
what he looked at was that students leave, get mad, go to jail,
or just don't do their credits. He said he thinks this is the
first time that denying students diplomas has been discussed.
Students still have to complete whatever requirements exist
today or they are denied a diploma. This is a new concept, and
it appears that about 10 percent of Alaska's senior class, for a
multitude of reasons, ends up with out a diploma. He pointed
out that these standards are not new; they were really adopted
in 1993 as voluntary standards.
Number 1786
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY stated that once the law passed there had
been very general content standards that had been voluntary.
Upon passage of the law, there was a move into the development
of performance standards in reading, writing, and math, and
those are really the standards that have to be tested.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that in 1997 the discussion was that the test
could not be administered before 2002 because a legally
defensible test that was fair and unique to Alaska needed to be
developed. He said he thinks that he is hearing the same
argument now.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY replied that she thinks that's only one
small piece of what has been learned as well as what other
states have learned and that is this alignment piece to the
curriculum and the professional development piece for teachers.
Also, making sure that every student gets that opportunity is
critical in making sure that the standard reform effort is
successful in the long run. She said she does not want to be
unfair to the students because the system wasn't ready.
Number 1876
CHAIR BUNDE stated that, as this testimony to date would
indicate, a majority of people are in favor of standards. Where
it falls apart is to whom it applies and how the standard would
be defined. He mentioned that he would like to highlight for
the committee the change that schools have made now from credit
to performance judgments. In the past if a student got the
credit, whether he or she was able to demonstrate the skill or
not, the student was granted a diploma. He asked if now the
student is required to demonstrate and perform the task as well
as having had "seat time".
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY replied that's a really important
distinction between the old model and the new model. What
standards bring is a focus on results, the notion that all
students meet the standards, and a demonstration of proficiency
on that standard.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that might answer a question that he receives
from parents saying, "my child filled the credit requirements,
now you're saying that he or she won't get a diploma." The
credit requirement may have encouraged, among many other things,
the social promotion because the child never really had an
opportunity to see what his or her performance would be. If
they were encouraged to move on and fill those credits, that
system may have been short-changing young people in letting them
think they had skills that they did not have.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY replied that she thinks he is right and
that has been a fallout of the old system. There are two school
districts that have gained waivers from the State Board of
Education to completely move away from a seat time to a
performance-based system. There are two other school districts
that are applying to move to that system.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that Chugach and Iditarod are the two school
districts. He said that he hopes the committee will have the
opportunity to hear from those people to get an idea of how that
system compares with the current system. He added that, from
his view, many students have been incredibly successful, and
they appreciate knowing that they basically get to help set
their own standards.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY added that these school districts have not
only invested in the reading, writing, and math performance
standards, but they have established standards in employability.
They have had the opportunity to invest in a totally standards-
based system, which is much different from most school
districts.
Number 2016
CHAIR BUNDE noted that Commissioner Holloway had mentioned that
business community members had begun to review standards. He
said that he had the opportunity to talk to one business
community member who was part of this standard. The business
community member shared with the EED and State School Board that
industries' requirements were much lower than what they were
looking for but many students still couldn't achieve even that
lower level. [University of Alaska's] President Hamilton just
last week gave his report saying almost 50 percent of high
school graduates that go on to the University of Alaska system
have to take remediation. That's costing the university some
$11 million a year. Chair Bunde remarked that the University
will always be doing remediation but perhaps it's an unfair
burden.
CHAIR BUNDE referred to Commissioner Holloway's mention of
transient students, in particular the military, and asked if she
knew the percentage of high school graduates that would fall
into that category.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY answered she didn't know.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development (EED), came forward and said that the
department is in the process of trying to break that out. It's
a little complicated.
Number 2096
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY stated there was a military summit a week
ago, and about 80 military families participated. There was a
lot of discussion not only about Alaska's high-stakes test, but
the other states that are involved. The military feels they
need to address high stakes reciprocity. If a student takes a
high-stakes test in Texas and passes it and then is transferred
to Alaska, he or she has to take the test again. The military
would like to work some type of agreement between states in
regard to that. The military is very concerned because the
difference in schools is quite astronomical in terms of the
quality as well as expectations across our country.
CHAIR BUNDE said 20 years ago if a fourth grader transferred in
he or she would be behind because Alaska schools were ahead.
That sadly isn't the case now. It's important to be reminded
that a number of districts have passed one or more of the
sections of the assessment at 100 percent. Many of these are
small schools and more remote schools. There are a number of
schools that are doing very well. In one particular district
the students from the village are actually doing better than the
home-schooled students; the reverse is often the case. While
this may be challenging for some, others are doing very well.
Number 2225
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what a given definition of "an
education to a child" would be.
DEPUTY JOHNSON answered that as schools are moving in this
direction of standards-based education. the definition is
changing. It is suggested that as the student leaves high
school, he or she should have the skills and knowledge necessary
to take that next step into the adult life, whether that means
the person is going to be a good father or mother, or whether
that means he or she is going to enter the workplace, a
technical school, the university, or take some other next step.
Students should have that choice available to them, and the only
way that they can have that choice is if they have demonstrated
essential skills prior to leaving high school. Without those
foundational skills, that next step will be more challenging;
they are more like to slip and never reach their potential.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if that was the idea before, in the
60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. He stated that he thought that was the
objective of the schools at that time. He said that he is
concerned about why this is being brought up now when it has
been known, way back, from industries, that a large percentage
of people that were graduating weren't capable of holding the
jobs. The legislature acted in '97 and now it is being said
that there needs to be an opportunity to have a plan to educate
our children. He expressed that he finds it difficult to
comprehend why it is such a unique and new concept when there
has always been that idea to provide an education and the
ability for children to get a job, or go to college or trade
school.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY answered that public education has been an
input system where everyone was not necessarily held accountable
for learning. Even the old accreditation models to determine
whether schools were effective were all based on inputs, not
what students knew or could do as results of the experience.
The EED is trying to change the whole notion of what schooling
is all about.
TAPE 01-6, SIDE B
Number 2368
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY continued, saying initially public school
was not a place for everyone. There were places for people to
go; young people could go to work. They didn't need a high
school diploma. The kids that stayed in school were the more
capable kids. People dropped out of high school and they did
fine because there were jobs, but society, today, is no longer
like that. There needs to be an educated population, an
educated citizenry. This ups the stakes, in terms of the
responsibility to move all children to a higher level so that
they can participate in democracy.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said this is a focus on all children today.
He expressed that it was different perhaps when he went to
school. A percentage worked on their fathers' farms. They left
school early and never had any intention of finishing high
school. They got a few vocational courses and some other basic
skills and then they left.
CHAIR BUNDE said he thinks it is important to point out that
even with a delay there would be a percentage of students who
are not successful; about 10 percent on average now are being
denied diplomas and that will probably remain about the same,
even if there is a delay.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY replied that the EED recognizes that but
wants to be successful with as many students as possible and be
defensible so that the standards and the accountability system
are maintained.
Number 2301
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that he thinks Commissioner
Holloway hit the essence of the problem that he has. In the
past, as indicated, there were a lot of people that didn't
finish; they dropped out. But the accountability to get a
diploma was still there. Students had to show certain
proficiency in order to get a diploma. That diploma meant that
the student had fulfilled the requirements. Representative
Green expressed that apparently what's happened is the necessary
requirements have been lowered to a point that now people are
graduating who haven't really met the requirements. He stated
that he is concerned that in order for the majority of the
children to meet a standard and get a diploma, they will have to
increase their proficiency. He asked if there is a way to have
differential diplomas. There could be a diploma-plus for those
who do well, or a diploma-minus for those who don't, for
example.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that in the past, students who
didn't pass muster they didn't get a diploma. So, they dropped
out and worked on their fathers' farms. He pointed out that
this is not a negative; it just says these students have a
different bent. These students may not like academia. He
continued saying if students have qualified for a high school
diploma, they should be able to meet a certain standard.
Number 2195
DEPUTY JOHNSON replied that he signed on to do the job because
he thought that Alaska was on the right track. Having worked in
rural Alaska and experienced some of the challenges in
attempting to motivate young people to higher standards than
they were accustomed to, he needed the standards from the state,
and the concept of a high school graduation qualifying exam, to
get that motivation in some of his students. He remarked the he
thinks it has grown customary, for a variety of reasons, to
award diplomas because it is so important to have a diploma.
Schools have succumbed to allowing young people not to
demonstrate skills, and to sit in the back row somewhat
disinterested, qualify with a D-minus and, therefore, they got
their 21 credits in the classes required in that local district.
There has been a lot of pressure to do this. He stated that the
worst day of a superintendent's or a high school principal's
life is the day before commencement because there are those
students that aren't going to make it. Parents, out of
compassion and concern for their own children, want an extra
credit opportunity that they can do in the next 12 hours so that
the students can participate in commencement and walk across the
stage.
DEPUTY JOHNSON continued, saying now there are the tools that
will allow, early on, for a young person to know the standards.
The standards are measured by the examination, which can be
achieved at a particular passing score. He commented that he
thinks if the envelope is pushed here, however, this may be
litigated with a potential injunction. He also noted that he
would like, at a future meeting, to have the attorney general's
office give their impressions on the potential problems if this
moves forward with the 2002 date. He concluded that he doesn't
think the EED is in any disagreement, but he thinks that a
little more time is needed if this is going to be successful and
potentially not lose the current effort in momentum.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS stated that some districts have the ability
and motivation and some do not to align curriculum, and that's
been one of the problems over the past few years. She asked how
confident the EED is, if this is postponed for four years, that
every classroom will be aligned, every teacher will be trained,
and school districts will get on board so students will get the
opportunity to learn. And what control is there to make sure
that districts do this? Obviously, some districts are and some
are not.
Number 2068
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY asserted that she's seen more action by
local boards and local districts than ever before in trying to
get this done. She said she recently spent some time in a very
small, mostly Native school district and worked with the board
in trying to deal with where they needed to go next and how they
could get the expertise. In that case, they're inviting a
school district in that is well on its way to having an aligned
curriculum and defined interventions. Unfortunately, the EED
has very limited resources, except through some federal funds
like Title One, to really assist school districts. The
department hopes to come back and talk about a funding package
that would provide the opportunity for EED to do the kinds of
alignment and interventions that need to happen in all school
districts.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY declared that what the law has done and
what the competency-based test has done is to finally get
people's attention. She said most districts, schools, and
educators want to do this and do it right. Right now the EED
doesn't have the capacity, as an agency, to respond to all of
those needs, but is trying with the limited funds that it has.
Number 2003
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS stated that she is specifically concerned
with the Anchorage School District and what it is or is not
doing. She thinks that some of the small school districts are
doing a great job, but the larger ones are having a more
difficult time.
DEPUTY JOHNSON remarked that he thinks Representative Guess is
correct that the larger districts need to move in a slightly
different direction. The bigger the challenge, the more
resources that it takes. There are small districts that are
able to establish a new system that's adopted by the board and
the administration. It is necessary to work through some of
that resistance to change in the larger districts in order to
accomplish what the EED wants to accomplish for young people.
Number 1965
CHAIR BUNDE cited that there has been some $36 million since
1997 put into the quality school program, so it isn't as if the
funding has been cut.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated by way of observation that two
things pop out. One thing is: How did we get into this mess,
and whose fault is it? He said that he could just as well make
a case that it is the responsibility of the legislature for not
starting this sooner because they're the ones that appropriate
the money and are supposed to be responsible for seeing that it
is spent in an effective manner. He stated that one concern he
had is that during development of the test it is important that
the essential skills for graduation are being tested. He
divulged that he is having a tough time figuring out what the
skills are essential for. He asked if the tests are being aimed
at college bound kids or at those needing a job. He stated that
he doesn't think college is an appropriate target, since
colleges have a way of reviewing transcripts, and SAT scores to
determine whether somebody is going to get in or not.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER related that some school districts have
found the skills necessary to revamp their curriculum, prepare
their teachers, and get their students up to speed. He then
asked if the methods and devices they have used are available
for sharing or if there is an inclination to share these skills
across the state so each school district doesn't have to
reinvent the wheel to come up to speed.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER concluded that he has some concerns about
the legality and the appropriateness of this effort in regard to
kids with learning disabilities.
Number 1817
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE declared, as he recalls, that the
department's position has not changed one bit in asking for
time. He stated that the EED wasn't against the intent in what
was being done, but had a difference with the starting point.
He said that he thinks this is just a continuation of the EED's
original position. It was the objective to monitor the students
that went through the benchmarks, and build a foundation using
those benchmarks. He pointed out that he didn't think that
there should not be a testing system, he believes that there
already is one.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if all that should be measured is
reading, writing, and math. And how should this test evolve and
what should it evolve to?
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS commented that a high school diploma is
not the end-all and be-all of public education. There are other
considerations that must be taken into account. If it is true
that 10 percent of students in Alaska historically have not
received a diploma, and if it is true that a possible 30 percent
are faced with not receiving a diploma, then that's a third of
the student body. He said that his concern is what is being
done to those students who are falling short of a diploma. They
are not being abandoned; they are still there. These students
may be failing in terms of a diploma but will still be going on
with their lives. He asked if the state is prepared to assist
them and take their needs into account, because it is a
significant part of the student population.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that she is concerned about what
the diploma means, and what is being done to make sure that the
diploma means something. For instance, she asked if the test
scores are going to be put on the diplomas. She acknowledged
that there are 30 percent that are headed for the possibility of
not getting a diploma. She asked if only the other 70 percent
is being looked at or if that 30 percent is being looked at as
well. Are they being prepared for something so they also can
have a good life? That 30 percent may have a special education
element in it, but not all, and it is necessary to acknowledge
that some of the students out there are very qualified and very
intelligent but they might need some help. She referred to the
calculator that students can take with them anywhere they go in
life. She asked: Why can't they have that with them when they
take the test? She stated that there need to be various tools
that students can definitely have with them wherever they go in
life.
Number 1533
TANYA TOTEMOFF, Student, Tatitlek School, testified via
teleconference. She explained that she thinks that having the
high school graduation test is better than the old way of not
having anything at all because students actually learn something
in high school. She said that she took the test when she was in
tenth grade, last year, which was the first time it was ever
given out to students, and she thought it was really easy. She
stated that she is in the Chugach School District, which has
been on a standards-based system for about six years. She said
that the students are learning everything through the standards
and that the test was easy for most students because it
contained information that they should know. She felt that the
test was not above anybody's level.
MS. TOTEMOFF stated that her school standards are harder than
the state standards. Right now she is not struggling through
them, but they are more challenging than what she had to take on
the test. She remarked that by delaying the tests, it's as if
saying the students graduating right now don't need to know this
information.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if her school district gives her the
opportunity to gain experience through job mentorships in
Anchorage, and if she does any of her coursework outside of her
village.
MS. TOTEMOFF replied that the students do have a chance to go
into Anchorage, starting at about seventh or eighth grade,
depending whether or not they are ready. She stated that the
students go to a place called Anchorage House. There is a
series of phases, the first being "new beginnings" for the
seventh and eighth graders. These students start thinking about
their careers and learning what they can do. As they get older
the students get more involved and start going on "job shadows",
doing surveys and seeing what they are really interested in.
Students also go on trips. For example, she went to Europe last
year. She declared that everything the students do is tied into
their standards and what is actually needed to graduate.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if she is aware of her grade point
average (GPA) or her standing in her class.
MS. TOTEMOFF replied that it takes a lot to convert from
standards to a GPA, and that is not usually done until they are
graduating. She also informed members that she is in a
graduating class of two.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if she mentored with Chugach
Corporation or any other Native corporations while doing the
Anchorage experience.
MS. TOTEMOFF answered that the students toured the corporation
and learned what went on there. She pointed out it wasn't an
actual job shadow. She added that she never really had an
interest business, so she personally didn't go there.
Number 1225
JEFF WALTERS, President, Fairbanks Education Association (FEA),
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He stated that the
FEA board is in favor of delaying the implementation date. He
asserted that there are unresolved issues such as special-needs
students, English-as-a-second-language students, and transient
students. Another concern the FEA has is that this process has
been implemented by the State of Alaska and yet the first
results of the testing that were given out last year have just
come in. School districts have invested a lot of time and
energy already to use the benchmark results and participate in a
process to make improvements in the schools. He expressed that
he doesn't believe this process, the test, or the high-stakes
consequences are going to go away, but more time is needed to
implement the results of the benchmark and corrections in the
program in order to continue to improve.
Number 1160
MR. WALTERS described another concern the FEA has, with the test
itself. The FEA's understanding is that it is supposed to be a
competency-based test, but FEA questions of competency is being
looked for. He remarked that there are other bugs that need to
be worked out, such as examining the cut scores, validating the
test, and making the test defensible. He stated that if the
system has flaws in it, it should be fixed. Penalizing the
students regarding the ability to give out high school diplomas
and how to get a diploma through the system or not is a real
high-stakes consequence.
MR. WALTERS offered, on a personal level, that he is a graduate
of a high school in New York State in the 1970s, where they had
the Regents program. There were two different types of
diplomas, the Regents diploma and the non-Regents diploma. One
was held to a higher standard than the other. He expressed that
during the interim the FEA is asking that the test continue to
be given and when kids do pass the test, that it should be
acknowledged on the transcripts and diplomas.
Number 1107
MR. WALTERS concluded that as a teacher he'd like his students
to think of him as tough but fair. He stated that the FEA does
want tough standards, high standards, and a competency-based
exam but wants it to be administered fairly. The time that the
FEA is asking for is to make sure that that's done.
Number 1085
LOUISE PARISH testified via teleconference from Valdez. She
referred to HB 94 page 2, line 14, subsection (c) which states,
"Not withstanding (a) of this section, the board shall determine
the requirements for a pupil with disabilities who is receiving
educational services through an individualized educational plan
under AS 14.30.278 to qualify for the issuance of a secondary
school diploma." She stated that she is concerned about this
area and asked if it could possibly be deleted. She said that
she is wondering if the state board is really qualified to
determine how a child with learning disabilities should be
issued a diploma. She offered that maybe the test designers
should [determine how a child with learning disabilities should
be issued a diploma].
MS. PARISH referred to a letter she has that reads, "I would
like to offer you some new information regarding students with
learning disabilities and high-stakes assessments." She also
referred to a paper called "Juneau Harm: High-Stake Testing and
Students With Learning Disabilities," a February 2001 report
issued by Disabilities Rights Advocates (DRA), a nonprofit
organization in Oakland, California. On February 1, 2001
lawyers for the DRA announced the developments of a class action
suit brought by 200 parents of Oregon students with learning
disabilities against the Oregon State Board of Education, Ms.
Parish noted. The students alleged that the Oregon assessments
were discriminating against learning-disabled students. As part
of the process, a panel of experts was agreed upon. The panel
studied the problem and a two-page report resulted. The report
helped form the basis for the settlement. Ms. Parish remarked
that this may be the first time in legislative history that
learning-disabled students' high-stakes assessments have been
this seriously examined. She stated that she believes the
report will have national implications, and expressed that
Alaska be proactive and address the same issue.
Number 0979
MS. PARISH remarked that one page of the report lists the team
core principles to ensure fair treatment of all students
including those with learning disabilities. She read one, which
stated:
The needs and rights of students of learning
disabilities must be vigorously protected to ensure
that these students, a, have an equal opportunity to
participate in and to obtain all of the benefits of
high stakes assessment programs and, b, to ensure that
they are not disadvantaged or discriminated against on
the basis of disability with regard to such
assessment.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that there will be an opportunity to speak
with the attorney general's office and ask that they discuss the
Oregon case.
Number 0931
MERI HOLDEN testified via teleconference. She stated that she
has lived in Kodiak for 25 years. For the first 20 years, she
worked with the Kodiak School District as a high school
counselor and alternative education teacher working with kids at
risk. She noted that she has had experience working with kids
who would fail the test if they were to take it today. For the
last six years, she has worked part-time as a parent facilitator
at her daughter's elementary school and has served on a number
of (indisc.) review committees as well. She emphasized that she
understands how this process has worked and evolved.
MS. HOLDEN declared that she believes it is fair and reasonable
to extend the date because kids need the opportunity to work on
areas they may not be proficient in. She remarked that while
working in her daughter's school, she has seen that children at
the elementary level are very willing to work and that it is
still "cool" to learn skills. She added, "Once those kids get
into the high school level and there's an attempt to do
interventions, for example, teaching them fractions, if the
students didn't get it when they were elementary students it is
very difficult to motivate a high school student to learn to do
fractions." She stated it's fair and reasonable for teachers to
have more time to meet the needs and the standards and receive
training if that is necessary. She remarked that teachers need
time to identify students who may need additional intervention.
This is happening with the benchmark testing, she said, and
teachers are being assisted that way. She reiterated that time
is needed for teachers to create programs and plans to assist
with this.
MS. HOLDEN remarked that it is also fair and reasonable to
extend the time for families and communities. She said families
need to feel that the process is meeting their kids' needs. She
commented that she doesn't know any family or parent who would
say, "I don't want my kid to succeed." She stated that she
feels there is a need for time to set the process in motion in
which to guarantee as much success as possible. Responding to
the question posed earlier about "why wait", she said it is
necessary to wait because people want kids to be successful, and
if there isn't enough time to put all the necessary parts into
play, then the kids will be punished. She added that building a
good educational program starts with a foundation, which is the
elementary students. She stressed that they are the ones that
need the opportunity to build skills so that when they get to
high school they are ready to take the qualifying exam.
Number 0716
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Ms. Holden to comment on the
professional training and development of teachers under this new
system. He asked if, with these new skills, there would be a
major change in going to a performance-based kind of program.
MS. HOLDEN answered that she could only answer from what she has
observed. She said she believes that when she was going through
college and graduate school in the 1970s there was a lot of
caution placed on testing in general. She stated that she feels
that she still carries that caution with her when looking at new
teachers. She works closely now with teachers who are just
coming out of college, and, she said, she is not sure that kind
of caution is still involved in their training. She commented
that, in terms of performance-based [standards], she thinks new
teachers are coming in with a more understanding and awareness
that there are many ways to show skill, growth, and development.
She asserted that "new teachers and young children have a lot of
similarity in that they are a lot like sponges and they are
saying, 'OK, maybe I didn't get training in this area, but help
me know how I can do it better.' Older teachers and older
children, sometimes their sponges are full."
Number 0601
C. A. SHORT testified via teleconference in favor of HB 94 being
postponed until 2006. He stated that he thinks it's very
important to have special education teachers on staff that have
those students with problems in certain subjects. He said he
believes when student goes to graduate, in the event that he or
she doesn't pass all of the subjects, that his or her transcript
should be on the back of the diploma in case the student wanted
to go to community college or night school to bring the subject
up to par.
MR. SHORT said this bill has certainly gotten the attention of
the parents. He remarked that if students are having problems
passing this test, parents are going to be willing to go to the
schoolhouse with the teachers and work things out so that their
students, sons or daughters, can pass these tests. He stated:
I think it is one of the best things in the world that
you could have done for these students of Alaska to
raise these standards up and bring it to the parents'
attention so maybe they will get off their duff and
help that student get through school and get a
diploma, whether it's a graduating diploma or a
diploma with the transcript on the back, so they can
go ahead and bring it up to snuff.
Number 0474
CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that the existing law, which wouldn't be
changed by this bill, allows students for three years after they
leave high school to take the test and get a diploma, giving
them 11 opportunities to take this test.
Number 0436
AMY HEADRICK, Disability Law Center of Alaska, testified via
teleconference in support of HB 94. She stated that the
Disability Law Center's main concern is the fact that schools
right now are not properly educating the students. She
addressed Representative Porter's question concerning the
legality with students with learning disabilities. She said she
has a copy of the settlement agreement itself from the Oregon
Department of Education case as well as a copy of the report.
She stated that the biggest concern is that students with
disabilities may not and - in many cases that she is aware of -
are not being adequately prepared by the school district for
this exam. She expressed that perhaps this is the most
compelling reason to delay this. Ms. Holden continued, saying
that many students in special education have been receiving less
than adequate instruction for the majority of their school
lives; therefore, preparation for the exam cannot be blamed.
MS. HEADRICK stressed that students and their parents must fight
hard, going through long processes with the threat of
retaliation, in attempts to receive the education in which they
are entitled. She noted that one of the major areas of concern
is reading, which is a good example of how our schools failed
these children. She stated that many children with IEPs
(Individual Education Programs) are far behind their classmates
in reading levels, and yet the schools continue to use
traditional methods with these students despite the
ineffectiveness. The result, she said, is causing them to fall
far behind their class [level], which then has a snowball effect
on their ability to learn the remainder of the curriculum. Ms.
Holden remarked, "It is well known that if children can learn to
read, they can read to learn." She stressed they must be taught
early on because once they are in high school, it's really too
late for the remediation to take effect.
MS. HOLDEN declared that what is so unfortunate is that there
are programs that can help teach children. She referred to when
Representative Bunde, on [Alaska Public Radio Network (APRN)],
addressed the new teaching methods that are being developed to
help students with learning disabilities. She responded that
these methods are available within the state of Alaska; however,
they are not currently provided to children as part of special
education. She continued, saying that the school district put
the budget problem to the parents requesting programs to be part
of their children's IEP. The result, she said, is that it will
be those children whose parents have the resources to pay for
these programs upfront who will ever gain the benefit of the new
teaching method. She added that those who have been able to
receive the benefit as of yet make up a very small percent.
MS. HOLDEN remarked that before children begin to be held
accountable and are denied diplomas, the school district must be
accountable for launching the failing (indisc.). She expressed
that the proposed standards give these children and their
parents a new weapon in their battle for appropriate education.
More time is needed for remedial education to give any truth.
Although they have the same time as other students who wish to
prepare for the onset of the "exit exam", students with
disabilities have not been given the same opportunity (indisc.)
that time. Four more years may very well make a significant
difference in the chances in testing the ability of these
children. The Disability Law Center urges the committee to
recommend that this law be passed.
CHAIR BUNDE responded that he has heard some educational folks
who have students with disabilities ask to keep the pressure on
for the standards and to keep them sooner rather than later in
hopes that the ends will be achieved by the districts that have
been mentioned.
Number 0140
DEB LUNDY testified via teleconference in support of HB 94. Ms.
Lundy's family just moved to Alaska this summer from Ohio where
she taught for 10 years, she said the first year, she taught in
a rural area, which was the first year that Ohio was doing high-
stakes testing. She said she was involved with this kind of
testing program for 10 years and worked on various committees to
bring the standards and the district up to par. She expressed
that she sees the wisdom in delaying the effect. She said there
are many things the district has to deal with that sometimes put
a real financial burden to upgrade the standards, change the
curriculum, and sometimes change staff. The kids should not be
penalized because the schools didn't have their act together
right from the beginning.
TAPE 01-7, SIDE A
Number 0038
RICH KRONBERG, President, NEA-Alaska (National Education
Association-Alaska), came forth to speak about delaying the
effective date of the high school graduation qualifying exam.
He responded to the question that's been raised, which is what
would a delay provide students that's not currently available.
This is a question NEA-Alaska members have been examining since
last fall. The leadership and staff have engaged in extensive
conversations to articulate those elements that can make a
difference for students, and, if they require additional time to
implement, to take a position in support of a delay. The end
result of this internal process was a decision taken at the NEA-
Alaska's delegate assembly, held in January, to support a delay
of four years in the effective date of the exit exam.
MR. KRONBERG cited a few items from an NEA-Alaska list of things
that will make a difference. He cited among the items thought
to be essential:
Districts must align their curriculum with the
standards. The content and the passing level for each
test must accurately reflect what we really want all
of our graduates (not just the college bound) to know
and be able to do. Benchmark test results have to be
provided to teachers in a way that will inform their
instruction. Districts must institute coherent
systems of professional development, including
mentoring, that focus on instruction in a standards-
based system. All students should be provided access
to summer school. And all students should be provided
quality tutoring in after-school settings.
Alternative methods must be developed and implemented
for special education and Limited English Proficient
students to demonstrate mastery of performance
standards. And these alternative methods have to be
rigorous, yet fair. And districts must provide all
students access to quality, qualified teachers.
The NEA-Alaska followed up their delegate assembly action with a
quick survey of their online committee Mr. Kronberg said, the
executive summary states that about 7 percent of all folks who
responded want to do away with the test altogether. Another 20
percent want to go ahead with the current timeline for the
effective date. The rest, a bit over 70 percent, argue for a
delay in order to make sure everything's done to help students
meet or exceed standards.
MR. KRONBERG referred to the Oregon case and stated that the NEA
knows that special education parents have filed suit because
their children were denied diplomas because that state's exit
exam didn't allow them to demonstrate their mastery of
standards. In Arizona, the effective date of the high-stakes
test has been delayed and the math portion has been replaced
twice. In Virginia, the effective date has been delayed and
there's a movement among parents and educators to simply
eliminate the test. It is necessary to learn from the
experience of others, and be aware of mistakes made and try to
avoid them.
MR. KRONBERG concluded that the move to high standards and
enhanced student performance is one that NEA-Alaska fully
supports. The best way to accomplish this is by doing
everything possible to make sure that Alaskan students have the
tools they need to meet and exceed standards. Passing the exit
exam is certainly one indicator of success. Some of those tools
require a delay in the effective date of the test, which should
be granted specifically so districts and the state department
can make the changes. NEA-Alaska is not asking for a delay to
provide more time for more of the same. A delay is the right
thing to do only if it is used to do the right thing for Alaskan
students.
Number 0393
CHAIR BUNDE noted that Mr. Kronberg has a Regents diploma from
New York, often held up as an example. He asked if the non-
Regents diploma also indicated some basic mastery or literacy.
MR. KRONBERG replied that a Regents diploma was granted if the
student acquired a certain number of Regents credits, by passing
an end of course exam. He said he believes that the general
diploma - if that's even what it's called - was pretty much a
function of seat time.
Number 0463
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked if the legal defensibility would be
discussed.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that he encourages people to read the
response dialogue (of the delegate assemble) that this
generated.
MR. KRONBERG responded that there are fairly eloquent arguments
made in both directions in those conversations.
Number 0545
PHILIP REEVES, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came forth
on behalf of the EED. He stated that there are two federal
court decisions found regarding the Texas and the Florida
graduating exams that provide a broad overview and a statement
of the criteria applied in those cases that might be helpful
when looking at the Alaska situation. Both of those cases were
brought first under Title Six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Their challenge is based on a disproportionate failure rate by a
group of minority students. He said that this could be a good
avenue for a challenge to be brought in Alaska, because, under
the Civil Rights Act, if one can show the percentage difference,
then the burden shifts to the state to defend its program.
Number 0607
MR. REEVES stated that though the civil rights challenge brought
the matter to court, the focus of the courts evidentiary view in
those cases was on the question of whether there was violation
of due process protections under the 14th amendment of the U.S.
constitution. The question was basically whether the state
provided a reasonable educational opportunity to the students to
pass the exam. What can be learned from both of the cases is
the courts appear unlikely to attempt to modify the basic policy
decision of what the exam standard should be. The courts give
broad deference to the state to determine appropriate standard
for graduation for a diploma, and they will allow the state to
set a high standard without a great focus on that. The courts
instead will focus on how reasonably implemented the educational
program is to provide the opportunity to the students to meet
this standard. The Florida and Texas courts identified two
basic categories of test validity as their focus: content
validity and instructional validity.
Number 0694
MR. REEVES explained that in the content validity area the basic
question is, whether the test accurately measures the test
taker's knowledge in the content area being tested. He said
that he is fairly confident he could defend a challenge in this
area. He stated that perhaps, in the future, the EED might have
an opportunity to expand on the process in which the test was
developed and the questions that were reviewed. The largest
national test development corporation developed the test in a
process that used input from Alaskans around the state. It
focused on ridding the test of questions that suffered from a
cultural bias. The corporation was based on the state board's
adopted performance standards, and the EED is instituting a
Continuous Renewal Process by which there will be an annual
review, evaluation, and hopeful improvement of the examination.
Number 0755
MR. REEVES noted that the other major area is in instructional
validity, also referred to as either curricular validity or
opportunity to learn. The basic question is whether the
curriculum and the total educational program will offer each
student a reasonable opportunity to gain the knowledge and
skills that are tested. He said that he thinks both the Florida
and the Texas case proved a useful outline of the legal criteria
and the factual evidence that those courts relied upon in
upholding those states' graduation exams, despite a showing of
this disproportionate failure rate by certain minority groups.
When referring to the Florida case, there was a series of three
cases; they're all the Turlington case.
MR. REEVES stated that initially the exam was challenged. The
first year they made it a requirement that students pass the
exam to receive a diploma was 1979. This was challenged as well
and took the court four years to require passing the exam before
a diploma was given. At the end of those four years, there was
another challenge, claiming that they had disproportionate
failure rate. That final case upheld the test. This gives a
good example of the type of evidence that would likely be
considered in a case in the federal courts in a contest of the
Alaska exam.
MR. REEVES stated that the Florida Department of Education
commissioned a private consulting firm to design a study to
determine whether Florida school districts teach the skills
tested by the competency examination. The first part of the
study consisted of a teacher survey distributed to all of
Florida's 65,000 teachers, of which 47,000 responded. The
survey asked whether the teacher had provided instruction
relating to the skills tested and whether the instruction had
been sufficient for a student to master the skills.
MR. REEVES continued stating that the second part of the study
was a district survey completed by all 67 school districts
requesting the districts to, first, estimate in which grades, 2
through12, students were taught the test skills and in which
grade a majority of students would have mastered the skills;
second, describe any major variations in instruction among
schools in the district; third, provide any remedial programs
specifically related to mastery of test skills; fourth, describe
staff development activities related to teaching test skills;
fifth, list instructional material specifically used to teach
test skills; and sixth, identify any program designed
specifically to help students pass the test. The third part of
the study was a series of site visits to verify the accuracy of
the district reports. All three experts for the state who
testified regarding their conclusions within instructional
validity were bolstered by the state's extensive remedial
efforts to help students who initially failed the test to pass
the test prior to graduation.
MR. REEVES referred to the Texas case. He said that this case
focused specifically on state-mandated remediation and the
state's evidence that there was a track record from this
remediation that had dramatically improved the passage rates of
the plaintiff groups. There were still disproportionate failure
rates.
Number 1016
MR. REEVES stated that when looking at the instructional
validity criteria from the Florida and Texas cases and applying
it to Alaska, one would find that Alaska is relying greatly on
an educational program based on benchmark exams, which identify
students falling below the curve at early grades. This allows
for focus on instruction throughout their remediation program on
the district level. And this allows teachers that information
to align their curricula with the state standards and allow the
department to assist the districts in those endeavors.
MR. REEVES concluded, by discussing the timeline. The benchmark
exams were first given in the spring of 2000, and the first data
from both the benchmark exams and the graduation exams came to
the districts in the fall of 2000, as a result, an argument can
certainly be made that the schools didn't get the benefit of the
program yet for that class that's graduating in 2002. To defend
a case from those students, it is necessary to go back and look
at what the educational program was prior to the attempt at
alignment and the attempt to use the benchmarks in order to
focus on deficiencies based on the standard.
Number 1089
CHAIR BUNDE stated that next week there will be a presentation
from Galena school district and then two weeks from today this
discussion would be continued. Updated version of the test is
online at www.eed.state.ak.us\tls\assessment. [HB 94 was held
over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1203
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education was adjourned at 9:59 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|