Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/04/2001 08:08 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 4, 2001
8:08 a.m.
EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chair
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Gretchen Guess
EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Green
HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Reggie Joule
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 133(HES)
"An Act relating to a two-year transition for implementation of
the public high school competency examination and to
establishing a secondary student competency examination as a
high school graduation requirement; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 133(EDU) OUT OF EDU 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."
- NOT HEARD [Part OF HB 94 WAS INCORPORATED INTO HCS CSSB
133(EDU)]
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 133
SHORT TITLE:PUBLIC SCHOOL COMPETENCY EXAM
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/09/01 0598 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/09/01 0598 (S) HES, FIN
03/09/01 0600 (S) HES WAIVED PUB HEARING
NOTICE, RULE 23
03/10/01 (S) HES AT 10:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/10/01 (S) Heard & Held
03/10/01 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/12/01 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/12/01 (S) Heard & Held
03/12/01 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/14/01 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/14/01 (S) Heard & Held
MINUTE(HES)
03/16/01 (S) HES AT 0:00 PM BELTZ 211
03/16/01 (S) Moved CS(HES) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(HES)
03/20/01 0732 (S) HES RPT CS 5DP NEW TITLE
03/20/01 0732 (S) DP: GREEN, LEMAN, WILKEN,
WARD, DAVIS
03/20/01 0732 (S) FN1: (EED)
03/26/01 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/26/01 (S) Moved CS(HES) Out of
Committee
03/27/01 0819 (S) FIN RPT CS(HES) 6DP 1NR
03/27/01 0819 (S) DP: DONLEY, KELLY, HOFFMAN,
LEMAN
03/27/01 0819 (S) GREEN, OLSON; NR: WILKEN
03/27/01 0819 (S) FN1: (EED)
03/28/01 0838 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/28/01
03/28/01 0840 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/28/01 0840 (S) HES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/28/01 0840 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/28/01 0841 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/28/01 0841 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
133(HES) AM
03/28/01 0841 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
03/28/01 0841 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
03/28/01 0844 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/28/01 0844 (S) VERSION: CSSB 133(HES) AM
03/28/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
03/29/01 0767 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/29/01 0767 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
04/02/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/02/01 (H) Heard & Held
04/02/01 (H) HES AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/02/01 (H) Joint with EDU
MINUTE (EDU)
MINUTE (HES)
04/04/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/04/01 (H) HES AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
WITNESS REGISTER
GREG MALONEY, Director
Special Education
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West 10th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question on SB 133.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of Education
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West 10th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 133.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-22, SIDE A [House EDU tape]
Number 0001
CHAIR CON BUNDE reconvened the joint meeting between the House
Special Committee on Education and the House Health, Education
and Social Services Standing Committee at 8:08 a.m. [This is a
continuation of the April 2, 2001, joint meeting.] Members
present at the call to order from the House Special Committee on
Education were Representatives Bunde, Porter, Wilson, Stevens,
Joule, and Guess. Members present from the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee were
Representatives Dyson, Kohring, Coghill, Wilson, Stevens, and
Joule. Representative Cissna joined the meeting as it was in
progress. [The minutes for HB 204 and HB 203 are found in the
9:38 p.m. House Special Committee on Education minutes for the
same date.]
SB 133-PUBLIC SCHOOL COMPETENCY EXAM
[Please note that the tape for this meeting is a House EDU
tape.]
[Part of proposed CSHB 94, Version J, had been incorporated into
the proposed HCS for CSSB 133, Version B]
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the committees would address CS FOR
SENATE BILL NO. 133(HES), "An Act relating to a two-year
transition for implementation of the public high school
competency examination and to establishing a secondary student
competency examination as a high school graduation requirement;
and providing for an effective date." [SB 133 was officially
before only the House Special Committee on Education.]
Number 0200
CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that the House Special Committee on
Education had adopted [at the previous meeting] HCS for CSSB
133, Version B, 22-LS0607\B, Ford, 3/30/01, and was in the
process of addressing amendments. [One amendment had been
offered at the previous meeting, but had failed to be adopted.]
He made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, as follows:
Page 2, line 10:
Change "Secondary pupil competency testing" to
Secondary student competency testing
CHAIR BUNDE explained that this would refer more specifically to
the competency examination. There being no objection, Amendment
1 was adopted.
Number 0417
[The following amendments are numbered as they were in the
packets, not in the order they were offered.]
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS made a motion to adopt Amendment 5, which
read [original punctuation and capitalization provided]:
Insert new intent section
INTENT. It is the intent of the legislature that the
Department of Education and Early Development, through
its existing federally-required monitoring program of
district special education programs, will review the
potential for an IEP team's inappropriate lowering of
IEP goals and objectives for the purpose of providing
a diploma to a student who has not achieved the State
performance standards to the maximum extent
practicable; and will order such corrective action as
determined appropriate.
Section 3
(c)(1) delete and replace with
(1) A student shall receive an endorsement on the
student's diploma and transcript identifying the areas
of the examination successfully passed.
(2) a student who is a child with a disability and who
does not achieve a passing score on the examination
required under (a) of this section is eligible to
receive a diploma if the student successfully
completes an alternative assessment program required
by the student's individualized education program or
required in the education plan developed for the
student under 29 USC 794 that conforms to the maximum
extent practicable with the state performance
standards on the competency exam established by the
board.
(3) The criteria for the alternative assessment
program shall not change for a child with a disability
after February 1 of the student's junior year.
(4) The department shall by regulation establish
"alternative assessment program" and uniform standards
and processes in creating an alternative assessment
program.
CHAIR BUNDE objected. He stated that he views [the amendment]
as substantially similar to an amendment that did not pass [at
the previous meeting].
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS responded that she would respectfully
disagree with him. She stated that there is intent language to
ensure, when the Department of Education and Early Development
monitors school districts' special-education programs, that
districts are not lowering goals to guarantee that IEP
(Individual Education Plan) students will get diplomas. One
substantial change, she said, is paragraph (3) [of the
amendment], which sets forth a date when an alternative
assessment program has to be established. She added that this
addresses Representative Wilson's concern that the alternative
assessment program would constantly be moving, and ensures that
all students with disabilities would get a diploma if they did
not reach their goals. Goals would need to be set by the
semester following the student's taking the examination and are
not to be changed after that. Therefore, if the child reaches
the goals in the program, he or she will receive a diploma. If
the child does not [reach the goals], he or she will not receive
a diploma.
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that a cynic could say, "You just set the
goals low enough in the sophomore year and then you don't have
any concern." The rest of the amendment, he said, is
substantially similar and would be flagging, which would be
illegal. He remarked that Representative Guess could remove
Section 3 and address it separately; otherwise, he said he is
ruling the amendment out of order as "substantially similar."
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS responded that she had talked with the
Office of the Attorney General, which does not agree with the
Disability Law Office on this issue. The Senate's disabilities
law presented the same argument to the Senate, and the Senate
passed similar language, 19 to 0. She stated that she thinks
under the House version there are three ways this amendment
would allow a student to get a diploma without the endorsements:
an alternative assessment program, a waiver, or an appeal. She
announced that she would withdraw her amendment.
Number 0701
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS made a motion to adopt Amendment 6, which
read [original punctuation and capitalization provided]:
Sec 2, line 12
Examination in the areas of reading, English, and
mathematics or receives a waiver from the governing
body. A governing body may not grant a waiver to a
pupil before the student's final semester of
attendance.
Add new section
The board shall by regulation implement the secondary
school pupil competency examination provisions of AS
14.03.0175, including the criteria and procedure under
which a governing body uses a waiver to grant a
diploma to a pupil; criteria regarding granting a
waiver must include provisions requiring that a
student satisfy the performance standards developed
under 14.07.020(b) to the maximum extent possible.
A waiver shall only be granted for pupils who enter
the system late or have rare or unusual circumstances
meriting a waiver.
Add new section
Report. The Department of Education and Early
Development shall, by February 15 2002, deliver a
report to the Alaska State Legislature describing the
proposed criteria and procedures under which a school
district could use a waiver to grant a diploma to a
students [sic] and recommending statutory changes to
the competency examination wavier requirements that
the department determines are necessary to maintain
the school accountability provisions of AS 14.03.123.
CHAIR BUNDE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS explained that this amendment would bring
the House and the Senate versions closer together. It puts the
waiver in statute, to be determined by the State Board of
Education, but dictates that the [EED] has to [report to the
legislature] next year on how the waiver will be determined.
Therefore, if [the legislature] has any problems with [the
waiver], if can change the statute at that time. She stated
that she added to the Senate language: "A waiver shall only be
granted for pupils who enter the system late or have rare or
unusual circumstances meriting a waiver." She said she believes
that this body needs to make a conscious decision that the
waiver is not to be put in the language in the House version as
it stands. All that is being asked for is a report on the
waiver language. She added that she thinks this is especially
important for the military community as to whether or not there
is going to be a waiver process for students who come into the
system late.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if it would be fair to say that this puts the
waiver mechanism squarely in the [EED's] ballpark, and if they
can then introduce any waiver that falls under the "rare and
unusual circumstance" criteria.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS responded that she believes, similar to
everything else in regulation, that the State Board of
Education, and not [the EED], is going to have control over
defining the waiver. However, as it is with all regulations in
every department, the legislature can always go back and change
the statute in order to put barriers around the regulations.
She added that she thinks this is a good checks-and-balances
system for the waiver process.
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that changing regulations is virtually
impossible and that changing statutes, sometimes, is quite a
challenge.
Number 0970
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Porter, Wilson,
Stevens, Joule, and Guess voted in favor of the amendment.
Representative Bunde voted against it. [Representative Green was
absent.] Therefore, Amendment 6 was adopted by a vote of 5-1.
Number 1008
CHAIR BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, the corrected
version of which read:
Page 2, line 2:
Add to the intent language:
(5) that the secondary student competency test
focus on the minimum competencies in the areas of
reading, English, and mathematics that a student
should have to know in order to function in our
society.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that he was confused [by the
amendment].
CHAIR BUNDE explained that this is in the intent language and
would provide parameters.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS suggested removing the "and" before
paragraph (4) [on page 1, line 14, Version B] and putting it
before paragraph (5).
CHAIR BUNDE agreed. He announced that there being no objection,
Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 1268
CHAIR BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which read
[original punctuation and capitalization provided]:
Section 3:
Page 3, Line 21: After "A pupil who fails to
qualify for the issuance of a diploma under (a) of
this section or a retest under (b) of this section"
Add: by the Spring of the senior year,
but who has met all other requirements of the
governing body,"
CHAIR BUNDE explained that this discusses the certificate of
achievement. He said he was concerned that someone who did not
meet the other requirements of the local school district could
ask for a certificate of achievement, simply because he or she
didn't qualify for a diploma.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked when "by the Spring" would refer
to.
CHAIR BUNDE replied that it would be after January 1 of the
senior year. He announced that there being no objection,
Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 1461
CHAIR BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment 4, which read
[original punctuation and capitalization provided]:
Section 3
Page 3, Line 10 Add ", but not the modifications,"
after "the accommodations" so that Lines 9-11 would
read, "passing all portions of the examination
described under (a) of this section with the
accommodations, but not the modifications, approved by
the pupil's individualized education program team; or
Page 3, Line 12 Add "without modifications," after
"through a portfolio of work" so that Lines 12-13
would read, "demonstrating, through a portfolio of
work without modifications, mastery of state
performance standards established by the board; and"
CHAIR BUNDE explained that this would allow for accommodations
but not modifications.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS objected.
CHAIR BUNDE reminded the committee that an accommodation is
something that allows a person to demonstrate his or her mastery
and does not change the test. A modification, he said, would
change the test.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS asked if this refers to the portfolio and
not the examination.
CHAIR BUNDE responded that she was correct. However, he said,
he would have an equally strong objection to modifying the
examination. He pointed out that line 10 discusses the
accommodations under the exam and that line 12 discusses the
portfolio.
Number 1597
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked [in reference to the exam and the
portfolio] if "one is for someone that is using an IEP and the
other one is for somebody in the other category."
CHAIR BUNDE responded that this is for allowing accommodations
for children with disabilities.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated:
I'm just really struggling through this whole thing.
... I've been really kind of agonizing over it since
we had this discussion. What we're really talking
about is ... a right of passage as they leave high
school ... I just wish we could do something that
everyone is left with their dignity. ... I think when
we get all done with this, there's going to be a group
of people somewhere that no matter what we do and no
matter what they do, we're going to be kind of
cramping their spirit.
CHAIR BUNDE reminded Representative Wilson that this is for
people who are under IEPs. He stated that if modifications are
allowed for people under IEPs then the regular student, who is
also struggling but has to achieve some level of competency,
will be treated unfairly.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that that's the group about
which she is the most worried. She added that she doesn't feel
good about the portfolios, either.
CHAIR BUNDE explained that the portfolio is included in the
reports [the legislature] gets back from the [EED] as to whether
this is a workable solution or not.
Number 1695
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that this truly is
[frustrating]. He stated that if there is a continuum of
special-education students, from those who are going to do the
best to those who are going to do the worst, he thinks the line
is drawn much to close, whereby very few will actually have any
possibility of getting a diploma. He asked Chair Bunde why he
wants to put "without modifications" again [on page 3, line 12].
CHAIR BUNDE responded that a modification would change the test
so that there is no proof that the student has mastered the
minimum competency that has been established. He clarified that
a modification, for example, would be if someone passed the
reading test by having the information read to him or her,
whereas an accommodation would be providing large print.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked, if a child was dyslexic or had
trouble reading, whether a modification, in the written section,
would be for that section to be read to the student.
CHAIR BUNDE responded that if the instructions for the written
part were read [by someone other than the student], that would
be an accommodation because writing is being tested. He stated
that an accommodation doesn't provide the answers to what is
being tested, and a modification reduces the level of
difficulty.
Number 1827
GREG MALONEY, Director, Special Education, Department of
Education and Early Development, came forth and stated that
eyeglasses would be an accommodation because they allow a person
to compensate for the disability without significantly altering
the test. He said the two most frequently cited modifications
are using a calculator on the math test and having the reading
test read to the person. He explained that the idea behind the
modification is that it changes what's being tested, because
what's being tested is being provided.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE remarked that without allowing for some
type of modification or alternative assessment, "we're"
basically saying, "one shoe fits all." We try to get as close
to accommodating everybody as possible. He stated that it seems
to him that if there is a population of students that need to be
able to take an exam that is different from what currently
exists, then that should be denoted on the transcript. This
would allow that population of students to move forward. He
shared that he knows of one person who, throughout his entire
elementary career, put 100 percent out and got a 60 percent
return; however, when questions were read to him he could
provide the answers. Representative Joule also stated, for
example, that some people can only read words that are on
colored paper.
CHAIR BUNDE responded that he thinks putting the modification on
the transcript is flagging and would be illegal. He stated that
much of what he hears from parents is, "Don't go where you seem
to be going because that lowers the test to the student. Let's
instead bring the student up to the test."
Number 2057
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if giving a dyslexic student more
time to complete the reading portion would be an accommodation
or a modification.
MR. MALONEY answered that it would be an accommodation.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if allowing a student who has ADD
(Attention Deficit Disorder) to take a break while he or she is
taking a test would be an accommodation or a modification.
MR. MALONEY replied that, generally, it would be an
accommodation.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked for what kind of disability it would
be appropriate for a student to use a calculator.
MR. MALONEY answered that there is a learning disability called
discalcula, which is an identified processing deficit with how a
person does math. If a student is identified as having a
disability in terms of doing basic calculation, then the IEP
team could determine that an appropriate modification would be
to use a calculator. He added that if a student is identified
as having a learning disability in the area of reading or
decoding, then a modification would be to allow the person to
listen to the test.
Number 2143
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON remarked that he is amazed at the person
who needs the calculator. He asked if that person is unable to
write the numbers down in the proper sequence.
MR. MALONEY replied that it would be more of a processing
deficit in the cognitive sense. Once the person has the
information, he or she is disabled in using that information to
come up with an appropriate response.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if this student would still know the
order and which signs to punch into the calculator.
MR. MALONEY responded that [this debate] is talking very
generally about very individual people. He said the case for
one student is not the case for another student. The problem,
he stated, is that there seems to be a blanket approach to an
individualized process.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that Chair Bunde has noted his
concern that there will be as many accommodations or
modifications as there are IEP students. He asked if that could
be limited down to the number of diagnosable disabilities
provided in DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) IV.
MR. MALONEY answered that under the current federal law and the
state law, there are 14 disability categories that are used in
identifying students as having a disability.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON remarked that he assumes it would be unduly
rigid to say to the education community that there could only be
14 different kinds of accommodations or modifications, because
some kids will have multiple diagnoses and different degrees of
dysfunction with those.
Number 2232
CHAIR BUNDE remarked that his concern lies with modifications,
which actually change the test.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that if a child cannot read, he or
she will never pass the reading portion of the test.
MR. MALONEY responded that this is where the individualized
decision-making comes in. There are some students who struggle
with decoding, but that doesn't mean they have a comprehension
problem. [If that portion of the test was read to the student]
that would be a modification because it would be testing a
different skill such as oral comprehension.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that since he understands [the legislature]
is in the process of compromise, he will withdraw Amendment 4.
Number 2330
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON [in reference to the previous example
Representative Joule brought up] asked if it would be possible
for a test to be copied onto blue paper.
MR. MALONEY answered yes. He said there is a list of
appropriate accommodations in the [EED's] participation
guidelines booklet. However, he stated, it is not an exhaustive
list. As technology changes and other accommodations come
aboard, he said, IEP teams have a legitimate role of identifying
them and allowing students to have those for the test as well as
for the instructional program.
TAPE 01-22, SIDE B
Number 0020
CHAIR BUNDE stated that to some degree accommodations may be
unique, allowing for the potential for an infinite number of
accommodations.
MR. MALONEY remarked that there may be some IEPs with similar
accommodations because students have similar profiles. He
stated that he does not think there will be infinite
[accommodations] but that there will be a variety, which he
thinks is a good thing because that recognizes the individuality
of the students with disabilities.
Number 0164
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS made a motion to adopt Amendment 7, which
read:
AS 14.03.120(d) is amended to read:
(5) a description of the school's attendance,
retention, dropout, and graduation, including the
number and percentage of students who received a
diploma under a waiver from the competency examination
required under AS 14.03.075(a), as specified by the
state board.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS explained that this would include the
waiver in the school report card. She added that she is not
sure where this would be put in the bill.
Number 0314
CHAIR BUNDE said the House Special Committee on Education
members had suggested that, in reference to Section 8, a number
of teachers in the district and the school would be teaching
outside the area of endorsement. He stated that school
superintendents he has spoken with have said that this is
meaningless because the endorsement is K through 6 (kindergarten
through sixth grade) or 6 through 12 (sixth grade through
twelfth grade). Therefore, they are all teaching in their area
of endorsement.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of Education, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development,
clarified that he thinks the superintendents were talking about
certification. [Teachers] are certified "K-6" or "6-12," but
there are specific endorsements that would suggest that they
have unique training in mathematics, language arts, or English.
He stated that he thinks this is focused on trying to identify
those teachers who have the endorsement.
CHAIR BUNDE remarked to Representative Guess that if she were to
number her proposed section [in Amendment 7] as Section 9, he
believes it would fit.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS responded that it had been suggested to her
that it would be a new Section 5, page 4, line 30.
Number 0501
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that this appears to be a report
back to the legislature about the attendance and not on the
actual report card.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS explained that this would be adding to
current law that the number of waivers would also have to be
reported on the report card. [This is in reference to the
school report card and not the student report card.]
CHAIR BUNDE announced that there being no objection, Amendment 7
was adopted.
Number 0751
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS made a motion to adopt Amendment 8, which
read [original punctuation and capitalization provided]:
Sec 4, line 7
January 15 of each year an annual report regarding the
progress of each school and school district towards
Sec 4, line 9
Include the information from 14.03.120(d) and
Sec 4, line 10
The number and percentage of pupils in each school who
pass the examination
Sec 4, line 17 and 18
(3) a description of the resources provided to each
school and school district[s] for coordinated school
improvement activities and staff training in each
school and school district;
Sec 4, line 24
School for students who are not meeting the state
performance [minimum competency] standards;
There being no objection, Amendment 8 was adopted.
Number 0795
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS made a motion to adopt Amendment 9, which
read [original punctuation and capitalization provided]:
Sec 6, Line 10
Delete "and which were failed"
CHAIR BUNDE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS stated that this is a difference between
the House and the Senate [versions]. She said she wasn't sure
whether or not in this interim period the [portions of the test]
that the students passed and failed would be put on their
transcripts.
CHAIR BUNDE announced that there being no objection, Amendment 9
was adopted. He stated that it is not necessary to accentuate
the negative.
Number 0900
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS made a motion to adopt Amendment 10, which
read [original punctuation and capitalization provided]:
Section 7 delete and replace
The board shall by regulation develop
(1) An appeals process for a pupil who is denied
a high school diploma.
(2) A process that allows issuance of a high
school diploma to a child with a disability
based on a portfolio of work.
CHAIR BUNDE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS stated that the purpose of this amendment
would put in regulation, instead of a required report back to
the legislature, an appeals process and the portfolio. She
stated that she thinks the State Board of Education should be
able to start working on what these are going to mean in order
for schools to get ready for the 2004 [implementation] date.
Number 0968
CHAIR BUNDE stated this may be an opportunity for the
legislature, but that they would have to take an overt action.
If this [amendment] passes, the legislature does not have to
take any action.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS stated that he is correct. The legislature
would have to take action if [the legislature] wanted to change
it.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if Section 7 was previously amended.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS responded that it is still intact.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if paragraph (1) on page 5, line 26,
had been amended.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS answered no, but the committee should
consider doing that.
Number 1057
CHAIR BUNDE stated that this amendment would remove Section 7 in
its entirety and replace it with the amendment. Therefore,
there is no reason to amend paragraph (1).
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS answered that he was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the waiver process [is mentioned]
anywhere else in the bill.
CHAIR BUNDE responded that Amendment 6 addresses the waiver.
Number 1185
[A roll call vote was taken; however, due to confusion with the
amendment the roll was interrupted and taken again after a brief
at-ease.]
CHAIR BUNDE called for an at-ease at 9:14 a.m. The meeting was
called back to order at 9:15 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS explained that, in paragraph (1) of her
amendment, the State Board of Education would start creating the
regulations to tell school districts what the appeals process
and the portfolios are going to look like. The [legislature]
could then, next year, choose to override what the State Board
of Education did. She stated that the intention with this
section is that when the recommendations from [the EED] come
back to the legislature next year, the [legislature] could
create statutes for an appeals process or to clarify the
portfolio process.
CHAIR BUNDE stated that if [the committee] does not adopt the
amendment, they will be having this same discussion next year.
If the [committee] adopts the amendment and the [EED] brings a
waiver and a portfolio to the legislature [next year, the
legislature] could change it by law.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether [the legislature] would do
something, either way, if they don't like the process.
CHAIR BUNDE explained that it is easier to do something if [the
committee] does not adopt the amendment. But the [legislature]
still has the option to make the change.
Number 1383
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested investigating how many times
the regulations have been changed by legislative action.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS clarified that the portfolio is already in
the statute in this bill and will need definition by regulation
whether or not this amendment goes through.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that he thinks there is some
concern to move ahead with the portfolio and begin the
definition process. He said there is always the option of
changing it, but that he would like to see the professionals
define the portfolio and begin the process because there needs
to be time for the students to prepare the portfolio.
CHAIR BUNDE asked: "Are you comfortable [that] the state board
is going to do a good job with this? If the state board had
been doing a little better job, we wouldn't be addressing this
bill at all."
Number 1502
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that it is certainly a policy
call. He said:
What we're saying is, "You go ahead and make the
policy, and if we don't agree with them, then we'll
chase it as we can." [Whereas] if we leave the bill
as it is, they bring the policy call to us and say,
"This is what we think is best." Then we can make the
policy call based on the recommendation. But once it
is already in place, then it's a very adversarial
situation.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the bill is left as it is whether
[the State Board of Education] will go ahead but will come back
to the [legislature] for approval.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS responded that it first has to be decided
whether it is to go into statute or not. She added that it is
necessary to be careful with how much is dictated in statute;
however, she thinks it is a situation that has worked.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that the policy created a couple of
years ago stated that there is going to be competency testing to
establish what those standards are. Those who don't pass, fail,
which is what the basic state policy is. He said everything
that is being discussed is exceptions to that basic policy.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Guess, Stevens, and
Joule voted in favor of the amendment. Representatives Bunde,
Porter, and Wilson voted against it. [Representative Green was
absent.] Therefore, Amendment 10 failed by a 3-3 vote.
Number 1739
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS remarked that she thinks [the committee]
has had one of the best discussions that has taken place in the
building on this issue. She added that she still will "agree to
disagree" with Chair Bunde. She said:
If a student does everything we've ever asked them to
do - reaches every goal - are we still going to deny
that student a diploma? And this committee has said
yes - that student hasn't reached the standards. ... I
would still argue that I don't believe that providing
that small number of children diplomas is really going
to wreck the train. I think its the appropriate thing
to do; I think it's the right thing do. And I
appreciate you entertaining the discussion because I
think it was a really good discussion.
CHAIR BUNDE responded that it is not his intention, for people
who have challenges, to make their life more challenging. It
is, however, he said, current policy for the school districts
throughout Alaska to have people who are not on a diploma track.
He stated that he has hopes that through portfolios and
certificate of achievements [those students] may get some
recognition that they don't get now. He stated that he hears
often from special-needs parents that this encourages school
districts and schools to be more creative and helpful in
bringing students, who typically have been passed over, up to
the standards. He added that he does share Representative
Guess's concern on not wanting to cause any harm, but he does
think, on the whole, that the bill helps many students work
toward their goals and doesn't put many roadblocks in the way of
other students.
Number 1880
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that she still is concerned
about another group of people, besides the special-education
students, who are in the middle. She expressed that their
spirits may be trampled. She stated that she does not think the
exit exam, as a whole, is the right thing to do.
CHAIR BUNDE responded that he shares her concern. He stated
that the choice is between "damning" people with low
expectations and putting insurmountable obstacles in front of
them. He added that he thinks the status quo has damned far
more children in mediocre education through low expectations.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that if this test is not going to
be counted until 2004 there will be two years to look at the
records and see what happens. He remarked that if [the
legislature] finds the process untenable, changes can be made
at that time.
CHAIR BUNDE stated:
We're in an interesting position. Certainly, some of
you here were here when the initial bill passed; some
of you inherited it. But we all now have the option
of going forward with current law. And my
constituents - 70 percent of them - would much rather
go forward with current law than make this change. [I
am] acknowledging that I have to suggest to them that
I will make this compromise, even though they have
suggested that I not.
Number 2035
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move HCS CSSB 133,
version 22-LS0607\B, Ford, 3/30/01, as amended, out of committee
with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected.
Number 2077
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Joule, Guess,
Porter, Stevens, and Bunde voted to move the bill.
Representative Wilson voted against it. [Representative Green
was absent.] Therefore, HCS CSSB 133(EDU) moved from the House
Special Committee on Education by a vote of 5-1.
ADJOURNMENT
The joint meeting on the House Special Committee on Education
and the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee was adjourned at 9:37 a.m. [The minutes for HB 204
and HB 203 are found in the 9:38 p.m. House Special Committee on
Education minutes for the same date.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|