03/28/2001 08:10 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
March 28, 2001
8:10 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. 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
HOUSE BILL NO. 166
"An Act relating to the year in which public school student
competency testing begins."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 105
"An Act relating to the base student allocation used in the
formula for state funding of public education; and providing for
an effective date."
- BILL POSTPONED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 94
SHORT TITLE:PUPIL COMPETENCY TEST;ANNUAL
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/26/01 0171 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/26/01 0171 (H) EDU, HES
01/26/01 0172 (H) FN1: ZERO(EED)
01/26/01 0172 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
01/26/01 0172 (H) REFERRED TO EDU
02/14/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/14/01 (H) Heard & Held
02/14/01 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
02/28/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/28/01 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/01 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
03/07/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/07/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(EDU)
03/14/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/14/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/21/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/21/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(EDU)
03/28/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
WITNESS REGISTER
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to HB 94.
KAREN McCARTHY, Staff to Representative Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to conceptual
amendments to HB 94.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-18, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR CON BUNDE called the House Special Committee on Education
meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. Representatives Bunde, Porter,
Green, Wilson, Stevens, Joule, and Guess were present at the
call to order.
HB 94-PUPIL COMPETENCY TEST;ANNUAL EDUC. REPORT
Number 0069
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the meeting would be a work session
on HOUSE BILL NO. 94, "An Act relating to initiatives for
quality schools; relating to pupil competency testing and the
issuance of secondary school diplomas; relating to certain
reports regarding academic performance of schools; and providing
for an effective date." He noted that the committee had before
it a work draft of HB 94 and that there were proposed amendments
for the committee's consideration.
Number 177
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt CSHB 94(EDU) Version F as
the working document before the committee. There was no
objection.
CHAIR BUNDE directed committee members' attention to a sheet in
their packets, a side-by-side analysis comparing the governor's
proposed HB 94 and the proposed CS. There is no change proposed
in Section 1, the intent language.
Number 0279
CHAIR BUNDE noted that Section 4 of the CS requires reporting of
seven indicators that would show the progress of schools toward
high academic performance. He said Section 3 in both versions
addresses the special education Individual Education Program
(IEP) diploma. Someone who is on an IEP with accommodations can
achieve a high school diploma using those accommodations.
Section 3 also allows for reciprocity between school districts.
Number 0383
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what would happen if a student were
to transfer from a state where there are no competency
requirements.
CHAIR BUNDE said that would be addressed in one of the
amendments.
CHAIR BUNDE then turned attention to Section 3 of the CS, which
allows a special education student to earn a diploma in one of
three ways: pass all three sections of the competency test
without accommodations, pass with accommodations called for in
the student's IEP, or demonstrate mastery through a portfolio.
If the student does not pass in any of those ways, the CS calls
for awarding a certificate of achievement (instead of a diploma
or a certificate of attendance) which shows the portions of the
test that the student has passed, his or her attendance record,
and any employment-related skills.
CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that Sections 5 of the CS changes the
beginning date from January 1, 2006, to February 1, 2004.
Section 5 of the governor's bill has been deleted.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that Section 6 in both versions deals with
interim measures for testing. The CS calls for the test scores
to be shown on a student's diploma as well as on his or her
transcript. In addition, the test will be given once a year (to
a student who has not yet passed it) unless the student's IEP
team recommends against doing so.
Number 0735
CHAIR BUNDE then noted that Section 2 of the CS differs from the
original HB 94, reflecting a change made in the Senate deleting
the number of years limiting when a student can take the test.
The change allows a person who left school without a diploma to
come back and take the test and get a high school diploma
instead of a General Equivalency Diploma.
Number 0812
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked about the portfolio.
CHAIR BUNDE said the portfolio is an option that he would like
to make available to school districts to allow one more way in
which students can demonstrate mastery. The portfolio would be
applicable to students who are unable to take tests for whatever
reason.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voiced concern about a student coming from
another school district and bringing a portfolio that shows he
has proficiency when in reality he does not.
CHAIR BUNDE explained that the portfolio would be one prepared
in Alaska and showing mastery of this state's educational
requirements.
Number 0906
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said students in her district's schools
now have portfolios that travel with them through the grades.
She asked if that was the sort of thing being discussed.
CHAIR BUNDE said that was a classic portfolio, and that
"portfolio" connotes work created over a lengthy time, not just
in the final two months of a senior year.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS clarified that the portfolio being
discussed was not for the majority of students, but for those on
an IEP.
CHAIR BUNDE saw it as a possible tool, and could not anticipate
how it might be used in every situation.
Number 1000
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS expressed concern about equity for
students in the middle range if students at the extremes are
being given special dispensation.
CHAIR BUNDY said he thought the committee wants to make the
testing as fair and equitable as possible, but "there is always
someone somewhere who's going to find a loophole, and we want to
close as many obvious ones as possible."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS wanted to know who gets an IEP, and
wondered if there would be a wholesale movement of students into
that type of program. He also wondered whether the process
involved was controlled by the school district.
CHAIR BUNDE said he would ask the Department of Education and
Early Development (DOE) for the answers. It is his
understanding that for an IEP to be established, it takes both
the district personnel -- teacher, principal, guidance counselor
-- and the parent's approval. He shared Representative Stevens'
concern that some districts might try to push hard-to-educate
kids into an IEP "to take the pressure off." "With the
requirement for parental approval and the reporting that we're
going to get back, if all of a sudden there is a huge bump in
IEP ..., then it's incumbent on us to have a serious talk with
that district," he said. He thinks that parents of children who
are not "classic special ed students" are unlikely to sign off
on an IEP.
Number 1158
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said there are many people involved,
testing and "tons of paperwork" that accumulate to support an
IEP. If the IEP system were being used inappropriately, a bulge
would show up in the system long before graduation time.
CHAIR BUNDE said it would also be apparent if students were
being put into IEPs in the middle of their senior year.
Number 1209
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER observed that as HB 94 is constructed now
as relates to portfolios, are we asking DOE ... [indisc.]
CHAIR BUNDE said he wants more input from DOE about the
portfolio. It is an option that some schools use very
effectively, he said, and he did not want to preclude its use
although he didn't think many people would opt for it because it
requires a great deal of work.
Number 1251
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN sought clarification, saying:
I think I got a different answer from you than what
you gave to Representative Stevens when I asked about
portfolio from [a district outside the state], you
said it was our portfolio. But what I heard you say
to him was, they'll come in with some sort of a
portfolio because you can't establish one overnight,
and we have a very big transient population which
means we'll probably have a lot of people coming in
mid-four-year-period in the high school, and a lot of
those will be coming in from places that may not hold
the same standards we do. How do we establish that
with a portfolio that may be flawed by our standards?
CHAIR BUNDE noted that was a concern he had heard from military
families who come to Alaska with children who are in their
junior or senior years. "That is part of the waiver option we
have to talk about because ... we're granting them a diploma
that says they are functionally literate, ... and if they have
come from an area or background where they are not functionally
literate, we're telling the world they're something they're not;
and, even worse, we're telling the students they have abilities
that they may not have." Others have expressed very strong
concern about average students coming in who have not been asked
to demonstrate their knowledge the way our students will be.
That's what the waiver is talking about, he said.
CHAIR BUNDE said a question to which he does not yet have an
answer is who does the evaluation of the portfolio and what is
the mechanism for doing so. The State School Board wants to
weigh in on this, but is unable to do so at this time. Chair
Bunde said he has drafted an amendment that would give the board
until next January to give DOE strong recommendations. "Then
DOE gives us its recommendation, and then we pick and choose in
our wisdom which is the right way to go," he said
Number 1414
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if thought had been given "to the
fact that here comes Johnson from Hickory Ridge, Arkansas, and
he is a first- or second-semester senior. Would it be possible
that we continue his education and let those records be known in
Hickory Ridge so that he can graduate from there rather than
graduating from here and having to ... waive or do other things
...[to give him] an Alaska diploma?"
CHAIR BUNDE said he had not thought about that. "It would be
highly dependent upon the cooperation of Hickory Ridge."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN thought there is some point in the high
school career at which more of the high school work has been
done in a different high school.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the typical military youngster has been
in three schools. "Who's going to accept responsibility?" he
asked. "And think of the paperwork involved ...."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said his concern is that if Alaska is
trying to raise the standards so that it really means something
to graduate from high school in Alaska, "and here comes Johnson
who has got one of those [Alaska diplomas] and he can't even
read."
Number 1488
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked if a student can take the exam either
with accommodations or modifications.
CHAIR BUNDE said the student can take it with accommodations
only.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS concluded that only those accommodations
listed in the booklet, "Participation Guidelines for Alaska
Students in State Assessments" are allowable.
CHAIR BUNDE explained that accommodations allow a student to
take the test but do not affect the outcome of the test. An
accommodation might be someone reading a math question to the
student, but a modification would be using a calculator to do
the math test if it is skill in basic calculation that is being
tested.
Number 1560
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS observed that the language does not provide
any allowance for modifications.
CHAIR BUNDE said that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said she thought the provision for a
portfolio "is great language because it's giving an alternative
to non-special ed kids and I think we need to do that; we need
to give two roads."
CHAIR BUNDE noted that a classic portfolio requires school
participation, not just a student's individual effort.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked for clarification about the
certificate of achievement, specifically, is the school district
going to decide what information is printed on it?
CHAIR BUNDE said there are two things the school district must
include, the portions of the test passed and the attendance
record. Then, if there is additional information that the
district wants to add, such as to make the student more
employable, that option would be available.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS suggested that the CS not just refer to the
number of students in each school who have passed the competency
test, but also to each benchmark as well.
CHAIR BUNDE said the Quality Schools Initiative already requires
that.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS suggested that in addition to reporting
"each school district's progress," also reporting the progress
of each school within the district.
Number 1709
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE concurred, "because you want [reporting]
individually as well as collectively."
Number 1715
CHAIR BUNDE suggested making a conceptual amendment [Amendment
1] so that Page 4, line 10 requires reporting of each school
district's and school's progress. He clarified that what is
wanted is a total report for the district and then a report by
school. In summary, Amendment 1 was:
On page 4, line 10, add "and each school's" after
"each school district's" so it will read, "each school
district's and each school's progress in aligning
curriculum ..."
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1749
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS suggested making a similar change on page
4, line 14 regarding intervention efforts, saying that those who
come from large districts especially want to know what each
school is doing. She moved that as a conceptual amendment
[Amendment 2]. In summary, Amendment 2 was:
On page 4, line 14, add "each school" before "each
school district" so it will read, "a description of
intervention efforts by each school and school
district ..."
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 1788
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked, "Is it the intent that we are going
to require a new student to take the exam in tenth grade?"
CHAIR BUNDE said every student who is on a diploma track is
expected to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS expressed concern about possibly "setting
our kids up for failure" if they are not ready for the exam.
She wanted to make sure that taking the test would be a valuable
experience for a student and not a setback.
Number 1858
CHAIR BUNDE reminded the committee that taking the test in the
tenth grade is intended to be diagnostic, telling students,
"This is what you ought to be able to do as a senior."
Number 1877
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS wanted to clarify that page 4, line 25
meant that the examination scores are going to be shown on
student transcripts.
CHAIR BUNDE said that was the intent.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS suggested adding language that says if you
pass, you can't go back and take the test again. She envisioned
high-achieving kids who would want to take the test again to
raise their scores, thereby increasing some costs for the school
districts.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that it says students are to take the test if
they have not successfully passed it.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS concluded, "So once you've passed it, you
can't go back."
CHAIR BUNDE stressed that the purpose of the test is to document
minimum competencies.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked, "If that is the goal, why are we
putting the score on the transcript?"
CHAIR BUNDE said the intent of that is to reward those who have
worked hard at achieving the minimum. He clarified that the
score goes on the transcript, not on the diploma.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS noted that it said, "and diploma."
CHAIR BUNDE said that was right; when he replied before, he had
been thinking about the reading and writing endorsements on the
diploma.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thought language was needed to
clarify.
CHAIR BUNDE summarized that the committee wanted an amendment
[Amendment 3] clarifying that the scores to go on the transcript
and the endorsements to go on the diploma. In summary,
Amendment 3 was:
On page 4, line 26, add "as endorsements" before "on
the pupil's diploma" and add "to show which sections
were passed" after "diploma" so it will read, "The
results of the examination of a pupil under this
section shall be reflected in that pupil's transcript
and, as endorsements on the pupil's diploma, to show
which sections were passed, as directed by..."
There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 1960
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS observed that the CS changes the
effective date of HB 94 from 2002 to 2004. He wanted to know
when the tests would be redone by DOE.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the high school competency test is not
intended to be static, but a dynamic thing. Currently, DOE is
in the process of rewriting the math section of the test, making
it more arithmetic than higher math. Apparently, that will be
done by 2004. But all three sections will be under constant
review and new questions will be added and taken out. Alaska
will be something like Texas, which is not only rewriting its
test, but making it more difficult as students become more
proficient.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development, confirmed that what Chair Bunde had said was
"right on target."
Number 2046
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said he had heard throughout the testimony
about the high rate of teacher turnover in many districts. He
wondered if it might be of benefit to address the issue of
turnover by having it reported. "I see that directly correlated
to the outcome of how students do," he said.
CHAIR BUNDE agreed that would be useful information.
Number 2100
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE moved conceptual Amendment 4, "that we ...
include in the reporting the rate of turnover in certificated
personnel and superintendents" (who do not have to be
certificated). In summary, Amendment 4 was:
On page 4 after line 15, add "(7) number and
percentage of turnover in certificated personnel and
superintendents", which would add a report
requirement.
There being no objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
Number 2141
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE also noted that when teachers had
testified, one of the things that came through loud and clear
was the emphasis that they thought needed to be ...[placed on]
teacher training. He suggested that the committee also should
keep track of how the districts are working on in-service
teacher training related to the standards.
Number 2178
KAREN McCARTHY, Staff to Representative Bunde, Alaska State
Legislature, noted that on page 4, line 9 of the work draft,
where it calls for a description of the resources provided, the
committee could clarify that it wants to know not just what's
going in to the districts, but what they're doing with it.
CHAIR BUNDE said that should provide the information to which
Representative Joule had referred.
Number 2203
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the committee was going to be
hearing testimony from DOE.
CHAIR BUNDE said DOE personnel were present to answer specific
questions and that their testimony would be taken at the next
meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the committee was requiring that
anything be reported back from those places where teachers are
teaching classes that they have not been certificated to teach.
CHAIR BUNDE said he thinks that is covered under "aligning
curriculum and performance standards" on page 4, items 3,4, and
5.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted, "It doesn't say in either of those
[items] that you're going to make sure that a math major is
teaching math rather than somebody else."
CHAIR BUNDE said he didn't think the state could require the
local district to do that. "They have an option to let us know
that if ... they feel that's a problem for them," he said. He
then referred the question to Mr. Johnson.
MR. JOHNSON said that information would be reported by all
schools pursuing accreditation, but that it is not mandatory
that schools pursue accreditation.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that it is going to be
difficult to achieve competence in key subjects if the state
does not make sure those teaching the subject have that
competence. He asked how the state is going to know that.
MR. JOHNSON said that at present, the state does not require
school districts to provide that information.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the committee wanted to know that.
CHAIR BUNDE asked the will of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS expressed concern about making compliance
too onerous on the districts, noting that there are some schools
in which one teacher is teaching across several disciplines and
there wasn't much the district could do to change that.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that he was not asking the district to
do anything about it, just to report that it has only one
teacher. "If we find out that students in four schools are
doing poorly and that those schools don't have the teaching
staff, that would be good to know," he said.
CHAIR BUNDE agreed.
TAPE 01-18, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that the state has a problem [with
education] that it is trying to solve, and he thinks part of
that problem may be that teachers are teaching the wrong
subjects. "That's not the fault of the school; the school can't
hire those kinds of people. But we ought to know that," he
emphasized.
CHAIR BUNDE summarized the proposed conceptual amendment
[Amendment 5] as, "We would add under the reporting requirements
a report on the number of teachers teaching out of their area of
endorsement."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested adding specific reference to the
subject matter areas covered by the high school competency test:
reading, writing, and math.
MS. McCARTHY asked if the committee wanted the information
reported by school or by district.
CHAIR BUNDE suggested drawing up the Amendment 5 to mirror
Amendment 4, requiring reporting both by school and by district.
Number 0175
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked what the state would do with the
information. He noted that the state couldn't send the district
a teacher or require that they hire one, and said he thought
"we're just getting really too involved in the district job, and
we need to stay out of that and let the district do [it] ...."
CHAIR BUNDE warned, "This will be further ammunition to increase
[the] foundation formula or do something to add more teachers."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN took issue, saying:
Math is one of our glaring deficiencies ... [and] if
we find that there is a direct correlation [between
student proficiency and teacher training], then maybe
it's incumbent upon the legislature to say, "OK, we've
got a problem, [and this is what it is]. Do we want
to solve it or not?" ... We're trying to get to the
bottom of the problem and solve it. So let's get the
information ...
Number 0313
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that there might be no
correlation, but it could be that schools that have only one
teacher should have two.
CHAIR BUNDE acknowledged that there is always the danger of
asking questions and finding that the come in large numbers of
dollars, but in that case, at least the state would have the
information. Again, he stated Representative Green's conceptual
amendment that would require an additional report of the number
of teachers in each district and school teaching core courses
out of the area of their endorsement.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN offered that conceptual amendment
[Amendment 5].
MS. McCARTHY asked if the committee wanted to say, "in core
courses," or to specify "reading, writing, and mathematics".
CHAIR BUNDE suggested that it be linked to the fields covered by
the competency test, and that those could change, so it might be
good to say, "in areas tested by the high school competency
exam".
Number 0466
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON thought it might be hard to define the
areas in which a person is teaching because so much teaching
today integrates subject matter from two or more fields of
study.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the committee was asking not just about
high school teachers, but also in grades K-12.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS referred to the nationwide teacher
shortage and wondered "if we're not really shooting ourselves in
the foot here by requiring that only certain teachers be hired
and others not be hired." He thought what the committee was
effectively saying is that schools were to hire only people who
had certain qualifications, and "that we're micro-managing what
is the district's responsibility, and I don't think we should go
there."
Number 0613
CHAIR BUNDE suggested agreeing to disagree, and called for a
vote on Amendment 5. In summary, Amendment 5 was:
On page 4, after Amendment 4, add: "(8) number of
teachers in districts and schools who are teaching
outside of their area of endorsement in areas tested
by the High School Competency Test." which would add a
report requirement.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Joule, Guess,
Green, Wilson, Porter, and Bunde voted for Amendment 5.
Representative Stevens voted against Amendment 5. Therefore,
Amendment 5 passed.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wished to state for the record that
certification or an endorsement in math doesn't mean a person
can teach it.
CHAIR BUNDE recalled college professors who were very
knowledgeable in their fields and "more of an impediment to
learning than they were an asset." Just having the knowledge is
not enough; one needs the pedagogical skills, too, he observed.
He said from what he has seen, the best predictor of [student]
success is a caring, talented teacher.
Number 0678
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked to return to Representative Joule's
amendment [Amendment 4] concerning the turnover of certificated
personnel and superintendents. She suggested asking for not
only the number, but also for the percentage.
CHAIR BUNDE viewed that as a technical amendment. There being
no objection, the change was adopted.
Number 0762
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS mentioned that there was not language on
whether or not the committee wants the results of the
examination on the transcripts or diplomas after 2004.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said the legislation does not call for
showing scores after that date, but only for showing the
endorsement. He added that districts wishing to do so could
include scores on transcripts. The fact that a student has a
diploma shows that he or she had demonstrated competence in all
three areas.
Number 0918
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS observed that it doesn't actually prohibit
a student who has passed the test from taking it again. She did
not want to burden school districts with extra costs.
Number 0939
CHAIR BUNDE stated for the record that once a student has passed
the test, that student is not allowed to take the test again.
Number 0956
MS. McCARTHY said she thought she had found the answers to
Representative Guess's questions on page 2, lines 16 and 17,
where it says, "a pupil who fails the examination required under
this section shall be re-tested at least once." "What we're
getting at there is that you can't re-test just because you want
a higher score," she said.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said that language doesn't say to her that
a person who has passed the test can't take it again.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested adding "and may not re-take the
test" at the end of the sentence on page 23.
CHAIR BUNDE said with the committee's permission, that amendment
[Amendment 6] would be made. In summary, Amendment 6 was:
On page 2, line 18, add: "A student who passes any
portion of the test may not re-take that portion of
the test," after "portions of the examination that the
pupil has not passed." so it will read, "A pupil who
fails the examination required under this section
shall be retested at least once during a school year
on those portions of the examination the pupil has not
passed. A student who passes any portion of the test
may not re-take that portion of the test."
There was no objection. Therefore, Amendment 6 was adopted.
CHAIR BUNDE re-emphasized that what was being tested was minimum
competency, basic literacy.
Number 1061
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE observed, "Times change, things change ....
Are we ... going to come back and re-assess what minimum
competency would be?"
CHAIR BUNDE replied, "No, but the board will." He clarified
that he meant the state school board and DOE. He noted that it
was already on the record that these tests are a living creature
and are revamped. He again mentioned that Texas has moved up
its minimum requirement, and pointed out that the education his
teachers thought prepared him for life would not prepare today's
student.
Number 1135
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he was having trouble with the
concept of minimum competencies and at the same time, reporting
test scores. "If they achieve a minimum competency, that's
good, they're done," he said. "On the other hand, why are we
bothering with what the scores are and placing them on the
transcript?"
CHAIR BUNDE reminded him that would be done only for the
intervening two years, from 2002 to 2004, and said it was being
done only to reward those students who are currently working
hard to pass the tests.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that the endorsement would do that,
and the score was not needed.
Number 1201
CHAIR BUNDE expressed concern about students who worked hard to
pass the test, which was then postponed as a requirement for
graduation.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she thought that putting down that
they have passed the competency test is sufficient reward.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER concurred. Putting the scores on
transcripts might be appropriate because that document also
shows grades for the various courses.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that if a person applies for a
driver's license, the applicant is graded but the grade never
shows after he or she has passed.
CHAIR BUNDE reiterated that his goal was to give some kind of
temporary reward for students who have prepared for the test;
but, he acknowledged, "Maybe that is just expressing my
frustration about the districts that have chosen not to take it
seriously up to this point." He asked the will of the
committee.
Number 1332
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS summarized, "So the choice is whether or
not we put scores on the transcripts or whether it [the
transcript] just indicates that the student has passed or not
passed.
CHAIR BUNDE said it could be the same basic endorsement that
goes on the diploma, which will list the sections of the exam
the student passed.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER observed that this only pertains to the
two years before the test goes into effect, and he thinks "pass"
or "not pass" is enough. He offered the conceptual amendment
[Amendment 7] that during this interim period, the transcript
and the diploma only indicate that the student passed or did not
pass each individual competency test.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE sought clarification about what was going
to be done after that two-year period. He then exclaimed, "They
have to pass all three [as opposed to the scores]! That's fine;
that's good!"
Number 1404
CHAIR BUNDE added that for those who do not pass the competency
test, the certificate of achievement would indicate the
attendance record and portions of the test that had been passed.
There would be no scores shown there.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was any objection to Amendment 7. In
summary, Amendment 7 was:
On page 4, line 25-27, add: "to show which portions of
the examination were passed and which were not passed"
after "pupil's transcript" so that it will read, "The
results of the examination of a pupil under this
section shall be reflected in that pupil's transcript,
to show which portions of the examination were passed
and which were not passed, and as endorsements on the
pupil's diploma, to show which sections were passed,
as directed by the state Board of Education and Early
Development".
There being no objection, Amendment 7 was adopted.
Number 1449
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wished to say for the record that there is
a lot that has to happen before the standard is raised for
passing the test.
CHAIR BUNDE added that the State Board of education has to
endorse any changes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wanted to make sure that dropout rates
would be reported.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said yes, they are required.
Number 1497
CHAIR BUNDE offered Amendment 8 [22-LSO36\J.1], copies of which
were distributed. Amendment 8 was:
Page 5, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
REQUIRED REPORT. The Department of Education and
Early Development shall, by January 14, 2002, report
back to the Alaska State Legislature with
recommendations for
(1) establishing a process that allows
issuance of a high school diploma to a child with a
disability based on a portfolio of work, as described
under AS 14.03.075(c)(1)(C), enacted in sec. 3 of this
Act; and
(2) evaluating the process described under
(1) of this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, line 8:
Delete "sec. 7"
Insert "sec. 8"
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved Amendment 8.
CHAIR BUNDE explained that Amendment 8 addresses something in
the Senate version that is causing concern in the educational
community. He said he is offering two options. One is a waiver
that under "extraordinary and exceptional circumstances" allows
a diploma to be awarded to a student who has not passed the
competency test. The other option is to provide an appeals
process that would be available to a student who did not get a
diploma. He noted that the state school board wants to weigh in
on the matter, and because there are two years available, all
the amendment says is that the state school board and DOE could
give the committee their wisdom on this by next January [2001]
and the committee would re-address it then.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON thought there already are processes in
place that allow appeals of decisions made by the schools.
CHAIR BUNDE said that was certainly the case for students with
IEPs. He referred the question to Mr. Johnson.
MR. JOHNSON replied that generally speaking, a local school
board would have an appeals process for any member of the public
or any student.
CHAIR BUNDE raised the question of what the state would do if a
local school board were to decide that every student should be
granted a diploma.
Number 1647
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said there is a process now in every
district for students who do not get diplomas to appeal. She
wondered if the legislature wanted to "put some teeth in it."
CHAIR BUNDE said he thinks there needs to be some kind of
outside review either for a waiver or for an appeal "because if
it's just the local school board in a small town, can you
imagine the pressure on the local school board if it's the
boss's kid who is involved?"
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thinks that is where the criteria
for the waiver would come in. If the criteria would not allow
an exception for the boss's kid, then the local school board is
off the hook.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the amendment suggests that the state
school board or DOE come back to the committee with suggestions
in these two arenas for students for whom there should be some
exceptions.
Number 1747
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON observed that there are likely to be many
appeals.
CHAIR BUNDE said that is why he wants it to come back to the
committee because, for the record, he envisions that this would
be only for very extraordinary circumstances. He called for
"very high sideboards" around the process and for review outside
the district.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON cautioned that lawsuits from students
denied diplomas could place high expenses on local school
districts.
Number 1776
CHAIR BUNDE said the courts could require that a person go
through all the procedures provided before coming before the
court. He said the state should plan on lawsuits, saying, "I
know they're going to sue the state because we've got the
deepest pockets."
Number 1792
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS expressed concern about the vagueness of
such terms as "late" and "rare and unusual." He said he wanted
to assure equity and due process for all students.
CHAIR BUNDE suggested language such as, "for pupils with rare
and unusual circumstances".
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS wanted to address diplomas for students
who enter school late.
CHAIR BUNDE reiterated the concern about students from districts
with low standards coming into Alaska schools late in their
school careers. He wanted recommendations from the state school
board and DOE, but said, "We will be the final arbiters of what
is appropriate."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS requested tighter definitions of "late"
and "rare and unusual."
Number 1878
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS expressed strong support for the amendment,
saying there needs to be the kind of public process it
establishes.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER agreed.
CHAIR BUNDE suggested dropping words so the language would be
"competency examination waiver process for pupils with rare and
unusual circumstances that merit waiver."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS wondered if "rare and unusual"
encompassed the student entering late.
CHAIR BUNDE thought it would.
Number 1796
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON thought the military made most transfers
in summer so that children do not have to enter school mid-year.
CHAIR BUNDE expressed concern about children of non-military
families.
Number 1997
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said Coast Guard families have a choice
about when they are re-assigned, but he didn't want to create
barriers to their coming to Alaska. He thought there should be
reference to late arrivals that would speak to the military
transfers.
CHAIR BUNDE reminded him that current tests put reading at about
the seventh grade level. He added that some parents might want
to put their students in a district where the diploma really
meant something beyond attendance.
Number 2032
CHAIR BUNDE directed attention back to the conceptual amendment
before the committee that would delete reference to "late,"
noting that Representative Stevens had spoken against it. For
the record, he said, in his mind, "rare" or "unusual" includes
people who enter high school after the start of their tenth
grade year. He then mentioned that the tape recordings of
committee discussions are used by those seeking a clear
understanding of legislative intent.
Number 2087
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON suggested leaving the amendment as it is
and letting the state school board and DOE make their
recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he had no objection so long as it is
clear that "rare and unusual' includes "late," and the appeals
process is the key thing.
CHAIR BUNDE again noted that the state school board has
indicated very strongly that it wants to weigh in on this.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if it is the school district and
not DOE that awards the diploma.
CHAIR BUNDE said it is the state school board that sets the
standards for the diploma. The district must seek any exemption
from DOE.
MR. JOHNSON confirmed that DOE sets the minimum standards for a
high school diploma and that local school districts may go
beyond that.
Number 2158
CHAIR BUNDE announced that Amendment 8 was before the committee.
There being no objection, Amendment 8 was adopted with no
changes.
CHAIR BUNDE then directed attention to Amendment 9 [22-
LSO362\J.2], concerning the portfolio, before the committee.
Amendment 9 was:
Page 5, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
REQUIRED REPORT. The Department of Education and
Early Development shall, by January 14, 2002, report
back to the Alaska State Legislature with
recommendations for
(1) a competency examination waiver process
for pupils who enter the school system late and for
other pupils with rare or unusual circumstances that
merit a waiver; and
(2) an appeals process for a pupil who is
denied a high school diploma."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, line 8:
Delete "sec. 7"
Insert "sec. 8"
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved Amendment 9.
CHAIR BUNDE explained that Amendment 9 would allow issuance of a
high school diploma to a child with a disability based on a
portfolio of work. What the portfolio would look like would
depend upon information forthcoming from the state school board
and DOE.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked if this provision was not already in
the bill.
CHAIR BUNDE explained that Amendment 9 relates specifically to
disabled students. It requires DOE to give the committee
recommendations about whether the provision for a portfolio
should be included and, if so, what the portfolio might look
like.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked if there was a reason for Amendment 9
specifying "child with disability" when in the bill, any child
can receive a diploma through a portfolio.
CHAIR BUNDE said this would be an expansion to include those
kids with learning disabilities to whom the portfolio might be
an appropriate way of demonstrating competency.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said she was seeing an inconsistency
between the bill and Amendment 9.
CHAIR BUNDE acknowledged that she had a good point and said he
would rather delete the specific provision for a child with a
disability and just establish a process for issuance of a high
school diploma based on a portfolio of work.
CHAIR BUNDE said the portfolio is provided under an IEP.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS observed that a student who doesn't have an
IEP only can take the exam.
CHAIR BUNDE clarified that Amendment 9 would simply require a
report back from the school board and DOE regarding the
portfolio.
Number 2350
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS thought it would be interesting in the
future to see whether virtually all students with IEPs will be
receiving high school diplomas while one-third of all students
in the mainstream program are not.
CHAIR BUNDE didn't think that would be the case, as ten percent
of high school students are not receiving diplomas now for
various reasons, and some districts are reporting that children
are rising to the challenge.
TAPE 01-19, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BUNDE said he wanted to keep the doors open as wide as
possible while still maintaining a standard.
Number 0036
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that several committee members
thought it was going to be possible for regular students to opt
out of the test through a portfolio.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wanted to know if it would be possible for
a person to use a portfolio to demonstrate a higher level of
achievement than through the high school qualifying exit exam.
CHAIR BUNDE said again that he is asking for feedback from DOE
on this by January of next year [2002]. He said he could not
answer Representative Joule's question now.
Number 0134
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said there is a category to which he keeps
alluding and that is the group of regular, normal students who
do not get any special consideration and who do not pass the
test. He noted that there are some people who just can't take
tests, and he wondered if that is an identifiable category.
CHAIR BUNDE said reading he has done indicates that there are
actual but very rare cases of test phobia. There also are
people under IEPs who have to take the test in another room
because they are auditory people who need to read questions
aloud. He thought this was one more area in which the committee
could consider recommendations in January.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said if test phobia type is a rare and
identifiable condition, then it would fit under the "rare and
unusual circumstances." He said he fears setting up so many
accommodations that a bright student who doesn't want to work
very hard can find a loophole.
CHAIR BUNDE said he was beginning to think Amendment 9 was
redundant. Under the "rare and unusual circumstances," a waiver
might consist of a portfolio. That might be one waiver process.
He said he would like to withdraw the amendment and listen to a
wide number of ideas about the mechanism of a waiver, which
might include a portfolio.
Number 0374
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS respectfully disagreed.
CHAIR BUNDE indicated willingness to call for a vote on
Amendment 9.
Number 0418
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if a student truly had a phobia,
wouldn't that be well known in advance?
CHAIR BUNDE said he would guess that the person with a test
phobia would be under an IEP.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he needed to have a better
understanding of the IEP. The parents have tremendous power over
what that IEP says, and that IEP will determine what is required
in this portfolio for this child to get a high school diploma.
He expressed concern about two tracks, the IEP process
controlled by the parent and the other process that may involve
an appeal to DOE, thereby setting up two extremely different
levels of requirements for a high school diploma, one with a
tremendous amount of influence by the parents.
CHAIR BUNDE said his view of an IEP "is more equal." It doesn't
go into effect unless the parent signs off, but it involves the
teacher, the school nurse/psychologist, the principal, and
whoever on the other side, and there are those who feel it's
weighted toward the district because the parent is having to
stand up to "people in suits."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS thinks it is legally weighted toward the
parents, and would appreciate hearing more about it.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS reminded the committee that the standards
are the same; it is the methodology of assessment that is
different. It is not a matter of lowering the standards for the
IEP students, but we're having the same standards but allowing a
different method of assessment, and that a portfolio is just an
alternative way of demonstrating that the students has reached
the standards.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted, "Nowhere does it say what that
portfolio is."
CHAIR BUNDE emphasized that Amendment 9 asks DOE to come back
and tell the committee what that portfolio will look like, and
then the committee can say yes, no, maybe, or whatever.
Number 0647
CHAIR BUNDE announced that Amendment 9 was before the committee.
There being no objection, Amendment 9 was adopted.
CHAIR BUNDE then announced that CSHB 94 as amended was before
the committee, and that he wished to take public testimony on it
before considering sending the bill to the next committee of
referral.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at 9:52
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|