Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/27/2002 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
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
February 27, 2002
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chair
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Joe Green
Representative Gary Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Gretchen Guess
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Mike Chenault
Senator Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 416
"An Act relating to reemployment of and benefits for retired
teachers and principals who participated in retirement incentive
programs; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 416(EDU) OUT OF COMMITTEE
BRIEFING BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT ON THE "NO CHILD
LEFT BEHIND ACT"
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 416
SHORT TITLE:REEMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED TEACHERS
SPONSOR(S): EDUCATION
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/13/02 2242 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/02 2242 (H) EDU, HES
02/20/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
02/20/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(EDU)
02/27/02 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
WITNESS REGISTER
SUSAN SCLAFANI, Ph.D., Counselor
to the U.S. Secretary of Education
U.S. Department of Education
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Briefed members on the "No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001" and its impact on Alaska.
ED McLAIN, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner of Education
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West 10th Street, Suite 320
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Briefed members on the "No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001" and its impact on Alaska.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-9, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR CON BUNDE called the House Special Committee on Education
meeting to order at 8:08 a.m. Present at the call to order were
Representatives Bunde, Porter, Green, and Stevens.
HB 416-REEMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED TEACHERS
Number 0107
CHAIR BUNDE announced the first order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 416, "An Act relating to reemployment of and benefits for
retired teachers and principals who participated in retirement
incentive programs; and providing for an effective date." Chair
Bunde further announced that there would be no testimony that
day, although Kodiak was online as a listen-only site.
[HB 416, sponsored by the House Special Committee on Education,
had been heard on February 20, at which time Amendment 1 was
adopted; however, there was considerable related committee
discussion on January 30 and February 6 prior to the bill's
introduction.]
CHAIR BUNDE requested a motion to adopt Amendment 2, 22-
LS1472\C.1, Craver, 2/22/02, which read:
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 2. AS 14.25.043 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) A retired teacher who participated in a
retirement incentive program under ch. 26, SLA 1986;
ch. 89, SLA 1989; ch. 65, SLA 1996; ch. 4, FSSLA 1996;
or ch. 92, SLA 1997, and who is subsequently
reemployed under this section shall be paid at the
rate new teachers are paid according to the negotiated
salary schedule of the school district or regional
education attendance area that hires the teacher."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 8, following "Act":
Insert "; AS 14.25.043(d)"
Number 0216
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt the foregoing as Amendment
2.
CHAIR BUNDE explained that the intent, which he believed to
reflect the committee's intent, is that teachers who have
retired under the RIP [retirement incentive program] option can
be reemployed by a school district at whatever salary level that
district has negotiated for teachers new to the district. He
asked whether any committee member had a different view of it.
Number 0249
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that if a school district has
the ability to negotiate a higher level for a specific need,
this wouldn't preclude that from happening. He said the intent
of "the whole operation" is to save the district some money.
CHAIR BUNDE concurred regarding whatever negotiated agreement
exists for that particular district. He then stated, "What
we're leaving unsaid is, we want to prevent the very unlikely
possibility that someone would use this as some 'good old boy'
network to perhaps unfairly reward someone by letting them
retire and then go back to work the next day at their higher
salary."
Number 0351
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that this might not lead to a
lot of new hires, but he knows several teachers who have taken
the RIP option and are now teaching Outside; this would allow
them the opportunity to return to Alaska [to teach], which they
hadn't had before. He added that there will always be a
substantial savings just because districts won't have to pay
retirement or insurance benefits.
CHAIR BUNDE emphasized that it doesn't solve all the teacher
recruitment problems but is another tool that districts may
choose to use.
Number 0428
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that although members have been
hearing about the importance of mentoring, that won't be needed
for these experienced teachers. In fact, they would add to the
mentoring pool.
CHAIR BUNDE agreed they might, indeed, be hired as mentors.
Number 0451
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether there was any objection to Amendment
2. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0500
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to report HB 416, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 416(EDU) was moved
out of the House Special Committee on Education.
BRIEFING BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT ON THE "NO CHILD
LEFT BEHIND ACT"
CHAIR BUNDE announced the next order of business, a briefing by
the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and the Alaska Department
of Education and Early Development (EED) on the "No Child Left
Behind Act [of 2001"]. [The official title of this federal Act,
passed as House Resolution 1 (H.R. 1), is the "2001
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA)."
Number 0616
SUSAN SCLAFANI, Ph.D., Counselor to the U.S. Secretary of
Education, U.S. Department of Education, told listeners she was
delighted to visit Alaska and speak with committee members. She
offered to begin with a brief overview of the rationale for the
[federal Act]. She suggested members would find the [Act] to be
a coherent one, based on four major principles set forth by the
U.S. President.
DR. SCLAFANI said the first principle is accountability for
results, which Alaska has been addressing in its school-reform
efforts. This [Act] is different in that it calls for each
state to have - in addition to rigorous content and performance
standards - annual assessment for children in grades three
through eight in mathematics, reading, and language arts.
DR. SCLAFANI noted that the [Act] also adds science to the
assessment in 2007, although this assessment is only
administered once each in elementary school, middle school, and
high school. This is founded on the concern of Congress for
national security issues that arise when looking at a lack of
young people prepared for and interested in careers in the
sciences. She said the U.S. is dependent on people coming into
the country on "H-1B" visas to the existing job corps. There
are areas of national government in which the U.S. cannot hire
non-citizens, however, because of security and defense issues.
She remarked, "We believe that, frankly, in states that have not
had a focus on science already in their own programs, that this
will help put science back on the agenda."
DR. SCLAFANI explained that H.R. 1 also calls for the results of
student achievement to be made public; this allows parents,
community members, and legislators to be aware of the progress
of each school and to take appropriate action. The reports will
look at the aggregated results of schools as well as
disaggregated results by subpopulation.
DR. SCLAFANI acknowledged this as an area in which legislators
will want to have more discussion; Alaska has some unique
challenges in that arena. The decision by Congress was that the
goal, within 12 years, is that all children who are tested will
reach the proficiency standard set by the state. She added that
she'd mentioned 100 percent of the students tested because the
[Act] requires testing of 95 percent of every subpopulation,
understanding that some children with cognitive disabilities
might not be able to take the same assessment as others and
demonstrate proficiency at the state level. She continued, "We
want to be sure that the progress of all children is being
monitored and that we have high standards for all of our
children."
Number 1004
DR. SCLAFANI turned attention to the second principle, local
control and flexibility. She offered that the clear evidence to
[the U.S. Department of Education (DOE)] is that naming a
specific program to implement across the nation does not
recognize the diversity of our country. Alaska's challenges are
very different from those of New Jersey; likewise, Maine's
challenges are very different from California's. It has not
been effective in the past to [mandate a program's
implementation from Washington, D.C.] she noted. Class-size
reduction is an example, she said; it has been included in a
block grant for teacher quality.
DR. SCLAFANI explained that class-size reduction does little to
help states without a teacher supply to reduce class size; she
also mentioned the lack of facilities in which to house
additional classrooms. However, the [earlier] mandate from
Washington, D.C., was that funds were only given to states that
implemented class-size reduction as mandated by the federal
government. Congress has agreed that these funds, plus
Eisenhower [Professional Development State Grants] funds, as
well as additional funding will be rolled into a Teacher Quality
grant that gives states flexibility regarding the improvement of
quality in the teaching force and principals. In addition is a
$10-million competitive grant program for the identification,
training, and retention of principals.
DR. SCLAFANI mentioned that the quality of the principal is key
to the quality of the school. She added, "But we want to be
sure that you have the flexibility to do that." She noted that
states also have the flexibility in H.R. 1 to use up to 50
percent of funds from any title, except Title I funds, for any
appropriate [Elementary and Secondary Education Act] (ESEA)
purpose. This gives states the flexibility to move money
around. For example, if Safe and Drug-Free Schools (SDFS) is
not a large concern, up to 50 percent of SDFS money can be used
in higher priority areas.
DR. SCLAFANI explained that also part of H.R. 1 is the
consolidation of some smaller, more specific programs into the
larger block grant. She noted that this consolidation did not
go as far as she had hoped. The overall number of programs in
ESEA was reduced from 55 to 45; she indicated this reduction
effort would continue. She explained that one of the challenges
through the legislative process is that there are set-asides in
the bill; about $275 million is specified for particular school
districts or universities. She noted that attempts to curtail
these set-asides have been somewhat successful.
Number 1239
DR. SCLAFANI moved to the third principle in the ESEA
legislation, to ensure that schools, school districts, and
states are making use of existing research on effective
practice. She explained that good research exists is reading,
where 15 years of research indicate the appropriate way to teach
children to read in English. This is a challenge for Alaska,
she added; the research does not exist for how to develop
language proficiency in other languages. Enough is now known
about teaching reading in English that teachers should be using
those proven strategies.
Number 1330
DR. SCLAFANI stated that in addition to Title I and Teacher
Quality funds available, a separate grant of approximately $900
billion exists; Alaska will clearly get a portion of these
funds, specifically for training teachers in reading
[instruction] in grades K-3. These grades are the foundation
program and critical to children's success. She offered the
belief that many children in special education simply didn't
learn to read in the early grades. A discrepancy analysis for
the learning disabled means that schools wait until children are
in the third or fourth grade, identify their achievement to be
below their potential, and place them in special education. The
goal is to ensure that [instruction] is done correctly the first
time, by having teachers well trained in strategies that work.
DR. SCLAFANI reported that states are free to use Teacher
Quality or Title I funds to work with teachers in grades four
through twelve who are dealing with children who did not learn
to read well the first time. It's a challenge to do it right
the first time, while recognizing that children have gone beyond
that point who [still have not learned to read]. Concomitant
with that, she noted, is the question of what should be done
with early childhood education.
DR. SCLAFANI said she was delighted to hear that Alaska has
joined its early-development program with the education program
to allow a clear articulation of what happens to children prior
to the pre-K-12 environment, as well as what happens to them
later. The amount of $75 million competitive dollars is in the
bill to seek to set up centers of excellence around the nation
that deal with how to create effective programming - whether in
daycare, Headstart, or pre-kindergarten centers in the public
school system - that includes the early language development
that is so critical to later student success. She suggested
Alaska might want to apply for those funds as it looks at its
programs. While many urban and suburban districts - along with
a few rural ones - will apply for these funds, she said there is
a need to talk about what to do in a state like Alaska, where
geography and distance are issues.
Number 1585
DR. SCLAFANI explained that the final piece on proven
educational methods is that "scientifically research-based
programming" appears 111 times in this bill; this is the first
time this has ever happened. She said:
Congress has gotten the message that we've got to move
away from religion on some of these issues into
science. We had to have the reading wars, and now in
some places we have math wars. And we have people who
believe strongly in one extreme or the other. And
what we're saying is, let's use the science to tell us
which one helps children learn. It's not what you
believe that matters - it's whether children are
learning that matters.
DR. SCLAFANI explained that throughout the Act, the focus is on
children and what is happening to them. Besides teacher
training, it looks at recruitment and retention of teachers.
She acknowledged that this is a major challenge in Alaska. If
Alaska wishes to try different compensation systems, retention
stipends, or other ways of drafting contracts to encourage
teachers to stay beyond a single year, Alaska will have the
freedom to do so, she said; money is available for this.
"Again, it's trying to give you as much flexibility as possible
to meet the specific needs," she added.
DR. SCLAFANI turned attention to the fourth principle of the
bill, expanded choices for parents. This will be easy to
implement in Anchorage or Fairbanks, she acknowledged, and very
difficult in more remote areas. She explained that if a school
isn't improving after the first year of "school improvement,"
parents [whose children] stay at that school have the option of
funding for supplemental services.
DR. SCLAFANI reported that Bill Sanders (ph) at the University
of Tennessee has conducted a strong study over a long period of
time of the results of achievement testing, through criteria-
referenced tests, in the Tennessee schools. Mr. Sanders took a
matched set of third-grade students who had the same achievement
and demographic profiles. He then looked to see what happened
to the child who had three years of excellent teachers - as
measured by his or her ability to improve student achievement -
and what happened to the child who had mediocre teachers. Mr.
Sanders found that by sixth grade, the group with excellent
teachers were 50 to 70 percentile points ahead of the children
with mediocre to poor teachers.
DR. SCLAFANI summarized that teacher quality is the critical
issue. It is known that if a child is in an instructional
program that is not meeting his/her needs, help must be provided
to that child as soon as possible. "We don't want to allow
those deficiencies to pile up to the point where the child is
crippled," she said. As children are being prepared for today's
complex society, they will need problem-solving and literacy
skills in order to be successful.
Number 2033
DR. SCLAFANI noted that supplemental services are available
through ESEA funds; they need not come solely out of Title I
funds, although some money [from Title I] must be reserved for
this purpose. In places where there are not community-based
organizations or a private-sector organization, the school
district can provide supplemental services. It is a challenge
in a one-teacher school to ask that teacher to provide
supplemental services to a child once he/she has failed to
provide the good service the first time, she explained. A way
will need to be identified to perhaps do so-called distance
learning for these children - something to help them get back on
track despite inadequacies at the school level. This is
occurring while the state and the district are working with the
school to improve its quality. The opportunity for
[supplemental services] is included because it is vital to
provide options to children to get the academic skills they will
need to be successful.
Number 2131
DR. SCLAFANI noted that this is the principle behind the Act.
She offered that it was exciting to see how bipartisan the
support for this bill was; some compromises were made along the
way, but not compromises to the principles. The compromises
came in how far the choice for parents would go, whether the
option was beyond public schools and charter schools to private
schools; Congress decided not to do that. The basic principles
were intact throughout, she offered. The leaderships of the
[U.S.] Senate and the [U.S.] House have said this experience
showed them what could be accomplished by working together;
their next target is going to be early childhood education, she
reported. Early investment [in education] is far more critical
than remediation later. If first-graders truly are ready for
first grade when they arrive, an enormous contribution to the
learning of young people will have been made.
DR. SCLAFANI noted that her conversations with education
personnel in Washington, D.C., indicate good dialogue has
occurred with the Department of Education and Early Development
(EED) in Alaska. Alaska's reform programs are moving in the
right direction; there are going to be some areas where, because
of the way the law is written, there will need to be adjustment,
she stated. One of these areas is the issue of yearly
assessment using a combination of norm-referenced and criteria-
referenced tests; it is going to be difficult to demonstrate
that the children are being held to the same standard every year
on the assessment of Alaska's state standards.
DR. SCLAFANI observed that it is difficult for any norm-
referenced test to be aligned to a state standard; by their very
nature they are consensus documents representing standards from
many states. It won't give Alaska the rigor it needs to measure
what a child has learned from one year to the next, and to
predict how to help a child succeed the following year. She
said, "That's something that we're working with the department
on." She mentioned working with [CTB/McGraw-Hill] to conduct
alignment studies to determine whether Alaska can demonstrate
that. She offered that the psychometricians are saying it will
be a major challenge to do so.
Number 2457
DR. SCLAFANI said the materials submitted by the state for
compliance with the 1994 agreement were being reviewed; she was
unable to give members an answer regarding the alignment already
demonstrated by Alaska. That review will be juried by experts
in the field, she noted.
DR. SCLAFANI told members native-language assessments will be a
major challenge for Alaska. She indicated DOE would work with
the state to see what can be done; however, some things cannot
be done. One of the critical pieces is ensuring that English-
language proficiency is developing so that children can start
taking assessments in English and have them be a meaningful
measure of what they have learned. This will be a challenge in
more remote areas, she acknowledged; creating an assessment tool
in each of the [Alaska Native] languages might be more costly
than cost-effective. This is a continuing dialogue; Alaska is
studying the feasibility of this, and she offered that [DOE]
would review that.
Number 2750
DR. SCLAFANI pointed out that waivers for students with limited
English proficiency (LEP) are for two or three years in many
states. The reauthorization of ESEA [by H.R. 1] reduces that to
a single year. This does not mean a waiver for an individual
child could not be for more than one year, but as a policy, the
federal government is saying the waiver is a single-year waiver.
This means states will be allowed to not test an LEP child the
first year he/she would be eligible for assessment if the
committee at the school determines that the child doesn't have
sufficient English proficiency to be able to demonstrate
accurately his/her progress on that assessment.
DR. SCLAFANI observed that Alaska might have less of an issue
with immigrant children coming into the state than it has with
children who are already here. However, there might be
immigrant children entering the state who have had very little
or no prior education; she noted that this is a major issue in
many border states. She said, "Clearly, if a child comes to you
with no prior schooling and he's ten years old, within a single
year you're hardly going to get him to the age-appropriate test
in English. And we recognize that."
DR. SCLAFANI stated that there is some flexibility, but the
intent of the law needs to be met by assessing every child's
performance so that each child can make progress in English in
ways that will enable him/her to continue an education. She
observed that Alaska has been working on the participation of
all children in the assessment system; this is one of the
requirements, that LEP students and students with disabilities
are included. She added, "What the bill looks at is how do we
compare the numbers of students who are being educated with the
number of students who are being assessed." She noted that the
new law that will apply in the 2005-2006 assessment calls for 95
percent of the children in any subpopulation to be part of the
assessment system.
Number 2844
DR. SCLAFANI turned members' attention to Alaska's rigorous work
on the high school exit exam; like Texas, Alaska will use these
as a criterion for graduation. She acknowledged that challenges
with this include the question of holding students accountable
for what schools might not have provided for them. However,
allowing children to graduate without the requisite skills gives
them the message that they have accomplished something that they
actually haven't, whereas the "real world" will tell them
differently. She said, "We feel strongly that we must assess,
but it's up to each and every state to determine whether that
assessment will be a criterion for high school graduation."
DR. SCLAFANI reported that this was tested in Texas courts and
found neither discriminatory against minority students nor
unconstitutional. She remarked:
It's a heartbreaking challenge, frankly, when you have
students who have gone through our high schools who
believe they've done everything that they should have
done, who have received passing grades to get to
senior year, and then discover that they're unable to
graduate because they're unable to pass the assessment
of skills.
DR. SCLAFANI said this is left for Alaska to make a final
determination on. Multiple opportunities to take the assessment
are important.
Number 3040
DR. SCLAFANI offered her final point, that Alaska's small
[population] size will be a challenge both for reporting and
using for accountability the adequate yearly progress
requirements in the new law. Alaska has been asked to come up
with suggestions for how to hold small schools accountable.
Clearly, if asterisks are all that the report furnishes, that
does not tell anyone anything about the quality of the school.
Yet there must be ways to evaluate that school to know where
children are being underserved. She noted that [DOE] will work
with Alaska on that. In schools with enough children to be
statistically significant without identifying children by the
percentages that are on the reports, Alaska should report that
information. Where this is impossible, other means of holding
schools accountable will need to be identified. She offered to
answer questions.
Number 3150
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS thanked Dr. Sclafani for the overview of
the Act. He noted his interest in knowing the schedule for a
state to apply for these grants.
DR. SCLAFANI replied that the formula grants will come out on
July 1; Alaska will be making decisions as a state as to how to
distribute those funds to local districts. She offered that
"Reading First" is a good example; reading academies are being
offered for states to attend so that states understand exactly
what will be required in that bill. She noted that Alaska's
Reading First grant will be $2.15 million - accessible to be
used partly from the state level, but primarily distributed to
school districts. Alaska will need to use a competitive process
with school districts to make sure that the state has reviewed
the plans.
DR. SCLAFANI said this is akin to what the state must do with
the [U.S. DOE]; the money is the state's, but DOE must approve
the plan to ensure that it is a researched-based program that
will reach the correct ends. Other grant opportunities will
come online, but the majority of the funding goes directly to
the state and isn't competitive. She mentioned "technology
dollars" that were competitively granted from Washington [D.C.];
this was deemed to be unfair. Consequently, money was added to
that, and a technology grant is now available at each state
level. Each state must now determine how to disseminate those
monies. In many cases, the funds must be used to target the
districts most in need. Moreover, district plans must be
approved to ensure that the state knows the money will be well
spent.
DR. SCLAFANI said the same has been done with what was Title
VII, the funds for language-minority children. Those funds are
now distributed to states based on the percentage of language-
minority children in each state; states then determine how to
get these funds to individual districts, and the districts most
in need are again a priority. She said:
What you'll find in this bill is the dollars are
targeted as never before. We've removed some of the
hold-harmless provisions that had been in previous
bills that had kept Title I, particularly, focused on
the states with fewer children than they had in the
past, because we didn't want them to have to deal with
lower funding.
DR. SCLAFANI explained that this Congress has said the dollars
must follow the children. Money is now given out
proportionally, distributed based on the populations of
children.
Number 3550
DR. SCLAFANI explained that Teacher Quality grants will come to
Alaska as a lump sum; this is $13.6 million. Part of this money
remains at the state level to create statewide training
programs, and the rest will go to schools. Math-science
partnership dollars are available in the bill. The U.S. DOE
received $12.5 million, and the National Science Foundation
received $160 million; they are working together and talking
about co-funding. She stated that the priorities include
improving the quality of teacher preparation in math and
science; it requires that states create partnerships with state
departments of education and with colleges of arts, sciences,
engineering, and education to ensure that people have the
critical background in mathematics and science.
DR. SCLAFANI relayed that a small grant is also being funded to
help states look at the fact that a single salary schedule will
not attract math, science, and technology people into teaching.
Young people are able to go to work for large corporations at
$50,000 a year, while a school district is offering $32,000;
these are Lower 48 figures. It is hard for a person to not go
where the money is. She said, "We need to start thinking about
12-month contracts; we need to start thinking about higher
salaries; we need to start being more creative in recognizing
that the law of supply and demand works in education the same
way it does everywhere else."
Number 3749
DR. SCLAFANI pointed out that initial meetings [regarding math-
science partnership funds] will take place in March. Frequently
asked questions and the answers will be posted on the [Internet]
so people who cannot attend are not disadvantaged. She
expressed her belief that those proposals are due at the end of
April; they will be funded by August and available for the
following school year.
Number 3800
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS expressed his hope that EED would bring
the House Special Committee on Education "into the loop" so that
members are aware of the plans and how these funds will be used.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN thanked Dr. Sclafani for her candor. He
turned attention to the issue of an extended school year that
would enable the state to justify increasing salaries. He
concurred that teacher quality is one of the biggest issues in
education, yet noted that Alaska has a difficult time getting
any kind of qualified teachers, let alone high-quality,
qualified teachers. He asked: If Alaska finds more teachers
but they leave after several years, or if these teachers are not
producing the expected student outcomes, what effect will these
factors have on the [accountability] component of H.R. 1?
DR. SCLAFANI responded that Alaska has already been a leader in
distance learning, but will likely need to create more online
opportunities for young people so they aren't held back. This
will enable less-qualified teachers to be facilitators of
learning that is provided by people with greater expertise.
DR. SCLAFANI acknowledged Alaska's challenges of weather and
terrain, but said this is an area in which Alaska might want to
spend some technology dollars or perhaps move some other dollars
in. Other states experience similar problems in isolated
communities. She remarked, "None of us want a large
bureaucracy, but we've got to have sufficient capacity in our
state departments of education to go out and assist the schools
and the school districts that need our assistance." Distance
education is one opportunity to address this, such as
television-delivered instruction or use of a CD-ROM rather than
a telecommunications link.
DR. SCLAFANI acknowledged that while she supports strategies to
attract more math and science people to education, she doubts
there will ever be as many certified, qualified math and science
teachers in remote areas of the country to meet the need. Other
strategies need to be sought such as "master teachers" to
augment the education, using teachers present as facilitators
for instruction. She said, "And that's, again, why we're saying
we'll work with you on how to hold accountable your small
schools, because those are the schools in which you have the
greatest challenge of highly qualified teachers."
Number 4229
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN brought attention to the important factor
of motivation. He recounted that some of his teachers were so
motivating that he can still picture them and some of the things
they taught. He asked how motivation is being addressed in the
Lower 48. "Do you have any kind of a magic bullet that would
help us get teachers motivated as well as qualified?" he asked.
DR. SCLAFANI replied that there are some programs, but noted
that this is a challenge of selection as well as training.
Teachers must be selected for some of these motivational
characteristics; she expressed uncertainty that everyone can be
turned into a motivator who might not possess those personal
strengths to begin with. Training programs do talk about the
impact of teachers' responses to students and how critical these
responses are to student success. There is a program called
Teacher Expectation/Student Achievement that talks to teachers
about how critical their actions are regarding positive versus
negative responses. She reiterated that motivation is partially
a selection issue. This selection is difficult when few
candidates are available.
Number 4420
CHAIR BUNDE noted that Dr. Sclafani had mentioned distance
education several times. He asked her about statewide
[correspondence] schools offering home-school programs and
whether these might offer the choice option she'd mentioned.
DR. SCLAFANI answered, "As long as they're public school
charters, they can."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON remarked that he was delighted Dr. Sclafani
was here and thanked her for her work. He observed that Alaska
has done the first rounds of assessment and that the legislature
has before it legislation that will delay for two years the
[school designations] implementation. He expressed his
understanding that Title I funds for failing schools would be
made available to parents to seek supplemental help. He
wondered if delaying the school [designations] would preclude
parents' access to those Title I funds.
DR. SCLAFANI replied that this would be a dilemma for Alaska.
She offered that Alaska is working on a timeline under a waiver
that delineates when things need to be done. However, she said
she believes the identification of schools is not specifically
mentioned in this.
Number 4550
ED McLAIN, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner of Education, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development
(EED), expressed his understanding that EED is not anticipating
delaying the Title I designations. That process will continue.
Some schools are already in that [school improvement] process.
He noted that EED has been very clear with these schools that
whatever kind of delay might happen with the state designations
will not affect the Title I process.
TAPE 02-9, SIDE B
DR. McLAIN offered that the [challenge] is to mesh the larger
accountability system with [the Title I] system to avoid having
two separate systems.
DR. SCLAFANI added that the 2005 deadline for a single
accountability system for the entire state means that if the
system is brought online in three years, the state will meet
that timeline. In response to a request for clarification, he
added, "If a school is in ... [the] first year of school
improvement this year, then next fall those parents have the
option of requesting supplemental services if they remain at
that school."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Dr. McLain if the request to delay
the [designations] does not run contrary to the [Title I
provision for supplemental services].
DR. McLAIN replied, "Absolutely not. That will continue."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "Respectfully, it sounds like double-
talk to me. You're saying, 'Don't put the labels on,' and then
you say you are. And I don't get it."
Number 4510
DR. SCLAFANI explained that in 1994 the ESEA reauthorization
said that for Title I schools, these categories must be
established. The new legislation [H.R. 1] calls for these
categories to be extended to all schools. The difference in
timelines, she noted, is that Alaska already has criteria for
Title I schools and these schools already have designated as
needing school improvement or not. That process is ongoing.
The greater process of identifying or labeling schools across
the state, whether Title I or not, is required by 2005.
Alaska's putting the [designations] in place in three years'
time will meet that timeline.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked whether there really are two sets of
[designations].
DR. SCLAFANI answered, "At this time you have two sets. And
what we want is, by 2005, you'll have one set."
Number 4433
DR. SCLAFANI, in response to a question from Senator Davis
regarding what Alaska's waivers from the 1994 reauthorization of
ESEA do, explained that the first thing is that Alaska has not
demonstrated that its system is aligned. This is the submission
currently being reviewed. Alaska must demonstrate that it not
only has rigorous academic standards, but also has identified
performance levels for each child on that set of standards that
shows what is basic, proficient, or advanced.
DR. SCLAFANI, in response to a request from Senator Davis,
clarified that the 1994 reauthorization includes [designations]
for strictly Title I schools. She added that another question
is whether Alaska's assessment is aligned to those standards;
this submission was just sent in. This submission included the
technical manuals for the assessments, the studies that
demonstrate whether it is in alignment, and the corrective
measures taken for those pieces not found in alignment.
Number 4310
SENATOR DAVIS noted that Dr. Sclafani had mentioned that the
funds would go directly to the states, and that a portion can
be kept by [EED]. She asked if there is a cap on the amount
allowed to be kept by [EED] for administrative services and
programs.
DR. SCLAFANI explained that administrative fees are separate
from the funds that can be kept by the state to run statewide
programs. She noted that these percentages differ, but the
administrative percentage is 2 to 5 percent, depending upon the
title. In addition, some funds allow the state to keep up to 5
percent, for example, on Teacher Quality grants to run statewide
programs; the rest would be distributed to schools. In other
cases, the state can keep 15 percent to run statewide programs
or award grants on a competitive basis. The administrative
dollars are separate from the state's flexibility to keep some
of the money at the state level to do statewide programming.
SENATOR DAVIS offered that if Alaska does not have statewide
programs in place, then the money received can be distributed to
school districts.
Number 4137
DR. SCLAFANI said that is if Alaska determines it doesn't need a
statewide program. For example, in Reading First, the state
might decide it doesn't make sense to ask each school district
to develop its own training program for teachers, but instead
might use some of these funds to create a statewide model
program and then say to local districts that this is what
teachers need to be trained with; then teachers can implement
this training in a district. The rest of the money is the
[district's] to be used for additional training, to train all of
its teachers or [develop] other ways to target the children in
early grades, through intervention.
DR. SCLAFANI, in response to a question from Senator Davis
regarding principal training, reported that Alaska's Title
II/Teacher Quality funds are for teacher and principal quality.
Additionally, there is a $10 million principal-training grant
that Alaska can apply for to look at how Alaska might create a
recruitment program, a training program, or a preparation
program for principals. She noted that there is a great deal of
flexibility in this bill.
Number 3956
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked about a mechanism for parents to
determine that their child is attending a school that,
unfortunately, qualifies for them to seek supplemental service.
DR. SCLAFANI acknowledged that this is a challenge. It means
Alaska will have to have its assessment results back before the
start of the next school year so that time is available to
notify parents of this option at any low-performing school.
Both the public-school-choice option and the supplemental-
services option would be available to these parents. The
public-school-choice option includes the challenge of providing
transportation.
DR. SCLAFANI recounted that having worked in a large school
district, she understands that creating bus schedules takes
time, for example. If a school district discovers three days
before school starts that students will have be transported, the
district will have great difficulty doing so. The earlier that
assessment results can be received - to make the determination
that a school is in "school improvement" and to inform parents
that they have the option and must respond by a deadline - the
more efficiently the transportation services can be arranged.
That might mean working with the assessment vendor to get
results back more quickly.
SENATOR DAVIS clarified that Dr. Sclafani was speaking only of
Title I schools.
DR. SCLAFANI agreed.
Number 3755
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered that the committee would be
interested in finding out the plan for parental notification.
DR. McLAIN explained that EED has been discussing the
[assessment-return] date with the test vendors. The vendors are
aware of this bill; they would like to spread the tests out
throughout the school year so that not all 50 states say they
need these results by the beginning of the school year. Alaska
has been discussing with the vendors the possibility of moving
some of the testing to an earlier date so the turnaround would
be earlier. He noted that the confusion brought up earlier
regarding Title I versus other schools is an issue that needs to
be communicated. He observed that those sorts of details are
behind the request for the delay.
Number 3644
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the turnaround time is already
frustrating because the sooner the feedback, the better the
learning opportunity. He suggested this might help in other
ways.
DR. SCLAFANI brought up another critical issue, the quality of
data-management systems in the states. Only six to eight states
have a robust student information management system, she
reported. Part of having this rich data is getting it back to
the people who can use it - the teachers and principals - to
revise programming and look at teacher strengths and weaknesses.
Those teachers who are strong in teaching certain objectives can
work with those who aren't. This will also help to identify the
professional-development needs of a school. For example, if a
school is in school improvement, it must spend 10 percent of its
dollars on professional development. But if schools don't know
what they need, the money spent on professional development
won't be well spent.
DR. SCLAFANI explained that [DOE] is trying to assist states in
identifying what components are critical to their data-
management systems. The other part of this issue is how to
train people at the schools to be able to interface with that
data-management system so that the data entered at the school
level is accurate and gets to the state level, in order for the
state to make decisions about what is working. She reported
that state departments, in general, have few people who can help
do this training and development. So while [DOE] can help
Alaska to identify the appropriate components, Alaska will need
personnel in EED who can teach people at the sites to interact
with the system.
Number 3403
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to Dr. Sclafani's comments about
the asterisks. He noted that Alaska has a transient population
and children who suffer from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) or
physical abuse. Those factors would skew the ability of that
school system to improve, he offered. He mentioned schools in
his district with a very high turnover rate. He asked how a
federal system would be able to determine whether an Alaskan
school or school district is not performing adequately when
Alaska has, perhaps, unusual problems.
Number 3229
DR. SCLAFANI explained that the mobility problem is common in
larger cities as well. The law has said that students who have
been in the school for a year shall be measured. She said,
"Now, part of me as an educator is concerned about that because
I don't want people to say, 'Oh, well, these transient children
won't be measured; therefore, we won't worry about them.'" The
law does recognize that schools cannot be held accountable for
children they have not had an opportunity to educate. This may
exacerbate the small school issue, she said. If one looks only
at the stable students in a small school, the numbers will
become even smaller. As this information is disaggregated,
asterisks will result.
DR. SCLAFANI clarified, "What I was saying is not that we don't
want asterisks; we recognize that statistical significance and
the privacy requirements will mean that there will be
asterisks." She noted that what [DOE] wants from EED is how it
will measure the quality of those schools when the objective
data cannot be used. Can the state department go in and look at
the individual children in that school without the data's being
publicized, but discussing what has happened to individual
children to see what the school has been able to do with the
children it serves? She said:
We recognize that challenge, and ... I hope that as
we're working that we don't see as I've seen in some
large, urban districts people say, as they once did
with students with disabilities, "Oh, they're not part
of the accountability system; don't worry about them.
Focus on the ones who are."
CHAIR BUNDE offered that Alaska is a bit unique in that the law
requires a school to be built for as few as ten students; that
has been increased from eight students. Alaska has 20 or 30
schools with twenty or fewer students, he explained. The
privacy issue is going to require that [all the published
reports] will contain asterisks. He expressed his understanding
that it will take a waiver from the federal requirement or that
[EED] will have to be very creative in finding a way to identify
those students without [revealing their identities].
DR. SCLAFANI confirmed that Chair Bunde was correct about the
asterisks. She explained that the waiver will be needed because
the data cannot be published. She noted that [DOE] wants the
state to create a plan, given that this option does not work, to
determine the quality of those small schools. How will the
state determine which schools need school-improvement
assistance? Which schools need an improvement plan? She
explained that restructuring is called for in the final option
if schools do not improve. However, Alaska's problem is that
[many schools] restaff every year. She noted that the
restructuring is not a good option for Alaska because it is
exactly the problem. That is the job for [EED] - to determine
which schools are doing a good job and which schools need help.
Number 2905
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if he'd understood Dr. Sclafani to
say that within the requirement to test 95 percent of 100
percent of the students, students who have transferred into a
district within that year wouldn't be counted as part of that
100 percent.
DR SCLAFANI indicated these [recently transferred] students will
be counted for that provision, but their results will not
determine the accountability status of that school. They will
be assessed.
Number 2835
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Dr. Sclafani to elaborate on the
centers for excellence - what they will do, whether they are a
teacher in-service program or connected to the universities, and
whether there will be credit available for teachers.
DR. SCLAFANI reported that "Early Reading First" is attempting
to set up models for the nation to show what works in early
childhood education and in different environments. Between 100
and 125 programs will likely be funded; an urban model will be
important that perhaps works collaboratively with daycare
centers prior to when children enter the public school system.
Rural models will also be funded to answer what a good program
does in an isolated community, to work with the existing
resources to ensure that children are well served.
DR. SCLAFANI offered that these models will seek to answer how
staff is trained and funds are used to commingle health and
[social] services funds and education funds, to ensure that a
program addresses children's medical challenges that will -
unless there is early intervention - lead to later educational
problems. These models will be established so that when people
raise a specific problem, DOE can point them to a [model]
program that has similar issues. It will be a matter of looking
at good programs that with an infusion of additional dollars can
be excellent programs, and that can be exemplars for the rest of
the country.
Number 2635
CHAIR BUNDE turned attention to written questions he had
received. One question notes that some districts are currently
in contract negotiations and in the process of offering
contracts for the following school year. When can districts
anticipate federal funds reaching the districts?
DR. SCLAFANI explained that the monies will come to the state
for Teacher Quality and Title I dollars - for programs where
there is categorical funding - by July 1. The state will then
determine how and when those dollars will go to districts. The
state can start planning now for how to allocate those funds so
that school districts will know.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Dr. McLain: If the federal monies arrive by
July 1, when can local districts begin to anticipate receipt of
these funds?
DR. McLAIN indicated passing these funds on to districts is a
major focus of the department. He offered that his experience
as a district person gives him an understanding of [the district
perspective]. He noted that he has been having daily contact
with superintendents on their need for expediency.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Dr. Sclafani to expound on the options for
parents of children in schools found deficient two or more
consecutive years.
Number 2344
DR. SCLAFANI replied that the law requires that schools make
adequate yearly progress. This is a system that the state is
going to put into place. It requires that the state set an
initial bar for performance and say that anyone below that bar
is in need of improvement. The bar is raised two years later,
and then every three years after that, moving toward the 100-
percent proficiency rate. The law also says that schools can
be held harmless in a sense - they won't be put into school
improvement - if they can demonstrate adequate yearly progress
in moving their population of students and each subpopulation
forward by the required amount.
DR. SCLAFANI explained that the state will set this required
amount. It is basically looking at where a school is at. For
example, if a school has 20 percent of its students passing the
exam, and this school must reach 100-percent proficiency in 12
years, then the [percentage of students passing the exam] should
go up at least 8 percent. On the other hand, schools do not
improve by stair steps. A school with good improvement
activities could improve by 20 percent one year; the required
adequate yearly progress will change. The state determines what
that adequate yearly progress requirement is. Once the state
has done this, consequences are required for Title I schools.
DR. SCLAFANI told the committee that the state is free to
include all schools in the consequences, but federal monies only
apply to Title I schools tied to school-choice and supplemental
services. A Title I school that has not made adequate yearly
progress two years in a row moves into "school improvement."
The first year a Title I school is in school improvement, it
must offer "public school choice" to parents. The school
district must set aside 20 percent of its Title I funding,
though it can be taken from other titles; 5 percent is slated
for public school choice transportation, and 5 percent is slated
for supplemental services in the second year of school
improvement. These two amounts, based on 5 percent of the Title
I funds, can be supplemented by the remaining 10 percent if the
requests are greater than can be funded with the initial 5
percent.
DR. SCLAFANI explained that once that money is gone, the state
is not required to continue to provide those options. The state
will need to develop a plan that says those most at need will be
served first. A school in school improvement might offer the
option to the lowest-achieving students, for example, as money
is available. A school not making adequate yearly progress
after two years in school improvement will then move into
"corrective action" in year five. School-improvement plans must
be developed collaboratively with the community, the school, the
school district, and any chosen outside experts.
DR. SCLAFANI reported that if the planning has not made a
difference, a list of possible corrective actions includes:
changing the curriculum, because it is clearly not working with
the students; changing some of the instructional staff if it can
be demonstrated that students in a particular class with a
particular teacher are consistently failing; changing the
leadership; or restructuring the program by spending time
differently or putting more funds into professional development.
DR. SCLAFANI explained that there is a list the school district
chooses from. If a school is still not successful after
corrective actions are taken in two years, the school moves into
restructuring. A school at this point has spent two years of
inadequate progress, two years in school improvement, and two
years in corrective action; this is the entire elementary career
of a child. This is why the supplemental services and the
public school choice are so critical.
Number 1927
CHAIR BUNDE explained that Alaska has a unique situation when it
comes to transportation issues: transportation [to another
school] isn't an option in Alaska. Alaska does have statewide
charter schools, however, that in many cases offer a home-
schooling option. He noted that he understood Dr. Sclafani to
say this would be acceptable as a choice.
DR. SCLAFANI agreed, saying, "If they can do a better job, the
bottom line is what's going to help that child learn."
Number 1826
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "I worry about my cynicism. I think
... what you're talking about is genius. I worry about the
educational establishment, or portions of it, not wanting to
have any schools in that Title I improvement group ... in order
to preclude parents having those choices." He noted that
allowing parents to make choices will put a huge pressure on the
system because people "vote with their feet." He said he is
worried about the system's being tilted against giving those
Title I parents an option. He asked Dr. Sclafani to address
this.
DR. SCLAFANI replied that the only way the option doesn't come
into play is if the school is making adequate yearly progress,
which is exactly the goal. The only way educators can keep it
from happening is by making the kind of progress with students
that [DOE] wants them to make.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON countered, "But ... they can 'paper whip'
that thing."
DR. SCLAFANI replied, "I assume you have monitoring systems in
place for your assessments ... and consequences for teachers
losing certificates if they, in fact, cheat on those tests."
She offered her opinion that people understanding those
consequences will not go to that extreme, but a monitoring
system must be in place. Some states have a mechanism for
looking at each test for excessive erasures and changes - from
wrong answers to right answers - that trigger a visit from the
state department to that school.
Number 1619
CHAIR BUNDE returned to the written questions and noted that
someone wanted more information on what qualifies a school as
Title I and how many Title I schools are in Alaska.
DR. McLAIN relayed that the actual number was not readily
available, but offered to get that figure. Districts will make
a determination by looking at poverty rating and
underachievement in schools. He estimated that in the last
district he worked in, about half of the schools were
[designated Title I] schools. There are 506 schools in the
state, so if the Kenai district is representative of the state,
then approximately [250 would be Title I schools].
CHAIR BUNDE observed that Kenai might have [a lower number] of
Title I schools than other parts of the state.
SENATOR DAVIS pointed out that Anchorage has no more than about
14 schools designated as Title I.
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether this [U.S.] administration is open to
discussion of merit pay.
DR. SCLAFANI replied, "Absolutely. In fact, it's in the bill."
Under Title II, Teacher Quality, states can develop
differentiated compensation systems, merit pay systems, and
whatever will help districts keep the good people it has and
encourage other good people to come in. She offered that it is
debilitating to good teachers to know they are paid the same as
people who don't work as hard or who aren't as effective. That
is one reason teachers leave. Studies have shown that more
teachers leave because of issues in the working environment than
due to the money, she reported.
Number 1308
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether the federal government would be asking
the state to match funds to provide appropriate services.
DR. SCLAFANI responded:
There is still the maintenance of effort and
comparability requirements in this bill. So, you
can't do less than you've done before; you can't cut
funding for education because we've raised funding.
And, in fact, when you look at it in Title I, for
example, you're going to move from $32 million to $41
million this year.
DR. SCLAFANI explained that states could not subsequently cut
back funding by the amount the federal funding is increased.
There are no other specific matching grants required, although
the state must maintain what it has been doing and make these
supplemental funds [available] to focus on the needs of the most
at-risk children.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Dr. Sclafani to speak to the accountability
requirement for an individual school district.
Number 1150
DR. SCLAFANI responded that a school district will be required
to adhere to the state accountability system. School districts
with schools that are in school improvement [status] can be
labeled - if the state chooses - as districts in need of
improvement, if they have a specific number or percentage of
schools that are low-performing.
DR. SCLAFANI noted it is up to the state to establish what that
looks like. School districts are responsible for the first line
of assistance to the schools. When a school goes into
restructuring, if the school district has been unable to help a
school after all this time, then the state needs to step in and
take greater control of how federal dollars are spent to improve
the quality of education for students. It leaves the options to
the local district and providing assistance as needed, until it
becomes clear that the local district cannot provide sufficient
assistance; then the state is required to step in.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Dr. Sclafani whether, after her brief exposure
to Alaska's challenges, she envisions statutory or funding
changes that the [legislature] might want to consider.
DR. SCLAFANI replied, "Access to your data is going to be one
area that you are going to have to work on." She offered that
most other states need this work as well. It would be a shame
to conduct all this good assessment and then not get the results
back to the schools so they can use it to assist individual
children as well as improve their school programs.
DR. SCLAFANI added that the other area is Alaska's challenge in
improving teacher quality when recruitment and retention is such
an issue. She noted that the committee had a good start on that
with its dealing with [HB 416] at the beginning of the meeting
by seeking to keep the good people who might have been
interested in retiring but who have an opportunity with
additional funding to come back. This would provide an
opportunity to mentor new teachers coming in. She observed that
the challenge is to bring back only effective teachers and not
continue to reward people who were ineffective.
Number 0913
DR. SCLAFANI noted that her third suggestion would be to use the
additional special education grant funding of nearly $4 million
a year for early intervention. This might be something Alaska
might want to consider, particularly because [education and
early development] have been brought together [in one
department]. She explained that it might be appropriate to
address emotional and cognitive problems by early intervention
so that major problems are avoided later. The issue for Alaska,
she said, is determining how to apply the funds most
strategically. Finally, she said, Alaska has put good money
into its reform program; funding will need to continue for this;
turning systems around is expensive.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether [H.R. 1] has any criteria for
when the state intervenes in a school district.
DR. SCLAFANI replied that [intervention] occurs when the state
sees a long history of low performance; it is the state's
option.
CHAIR BUNDE reported that EED personnel have offered that Alaska
has 278 Title I schools. He noted that the High School
Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE) was developed specifically
for Alaska. He offered his assumption that this type of test
would meet federal qualifications for an assessment tool. He
asked if this was the type of thing to look for in Alaska's
benchmark tests.
Number 0621
DR. SCLAFANI replied yes. She explained that Alaska needs to
first identify the things it wants children to learn and be able
to do. These skills can be broken down into ranges, but she
suggested that her experience as a teacher has shown her that it
is more effective to be very clear, grade by grade, regarding
what is expected of children to know and be able to do. The
assessment is then built accordingly. She asked: How do we
ensure that we know, if a child does well on this test, that he
or she indeed has met the requirements of the established
standards? That is one challenge of working with a commercial
norm-referenced test; a large test-bank is used, but whether
those questions require that the student must know the standard
to answer the question [is uncertain].
DR. SCLAFANI said in many cases, a good reader can figure out
the answer without knowing the standard. On the other hand, is
it sufficient to know the standard to be able to answer the
question? Both of these sides must be looked at. Building the
assessment according to the standards and then conducting
reliability and validity studies which assure that the test
measures whether or not children have learned the standards is
what Alaska will need to do in every grade.
CHAIR BUNDE offered that Alaska's HSGQE took several years and a
good deal of money to develop. He asked if monies in the bill
are available for developing these tests.
DR. SCLAFANI answered yes. There is money for each of the five
years of the Act. She noted that she thinks there is $371
million for the nation; there is an amount below which the
grants will not go to assist in the development of [tests].
This funding will be through 2005 for regular assessments; it
will continue for the science assessments.
Number 0430
CHAIR BUNDE explained that some Alaskan districts have asked for
a waiver from the "Carnegie units." He noted that Dr. Sclafani
had referenced assessment by grades. These districts, however,
have a very effective assessment program and are, in many cases,
very successful in educating their students. He asked Dr.
Sclafani whether she foresees a problem with districts that
don't use the Carnegie unit.
DR. SCLAFANI offered that this legislation gives states the
flexibility to organize or reorganize schools so they most
effectively educate children. The Carnegie unit is not a
requirement. She said:
You can say, "These are the things that children need
to know." And if they can demonstrate that they know
them and they can move onto the next grade and it's
February, that's great. That's what we need to do so
that we can help children go as far and as fast as
they can. We don't want to limit potential because we
say, "Oh, no, this is third grade, and you have to
spend so many hours in third grade in order to meet
our requirement."
DR. SCLAFANI relayed that some states have already removed the
Carnegie unit as a requirement.
Number 0320
DR. McLAIN returned to Chair Bunde's remark about the exit exam.
He said this issue is being addressed with the U.S. DOE. One
issue has been that Alaska intentionally focused the HSGQE as a
"single-cut" test: a student needs to pass it in order to be
successful. He explained that EED's reading of the Leave No
Child Behind Act is that there seems to be a requirement that
Alaska needs to be able to designate whether a student is at an
advanced, proficient, or basic [level].
DR. McLAIN explained that EED will be working with DOE to
determine the degree of flexibility is available to use an exit
exam with a single point [of passing] in a system that seems to
imply that there is a way to say a percentage of students are
advanced, proficient, or basic. He noted that while all agree
the goal is the same, this kind of detail - using one tool for a
slightly different purpose - is a challenge that EED's
assessment personnel have been working on with DOE.
Number 0204
DR. McLAIN turned attention to the Carnegie unit, noting that he
would be addressing this with Dr. Sclafani during her visit.
The department was supportive of requests for waivers from
graduation requirements, he reported. The question now is
whether a student at the elementary level who has not progressed
from, for example, level seven to level eight will continue to
take the same assessment for multiple years. If so, and if this
is best for the child, what does this do for the data on
comparability that one would expect to see? He explained that
this type of detail becomes an issue. The department doesn't
want to be misleading in presenting to the public that a
particular district has 80 or 90 percent of its students
proficient when students have tested at the same level for a
period of time.
CHAIR BUNDE observed that the reverse is what is seen now with
so-called social promotion.
Number 0033
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN returned to the first principle [of H.R. 1]
outlined by Dr. Sclafani, accountability including annual
assessment for math, reading, and language arts. He asked
whether this list includes basic English comprehension.
DR. SCLAFANI replied, "It is a requirement of reading/language
arts in English."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "I'm appalled at the ... lack of
knowledge of our own language from people who don't have a
second [language]."
TAPE 02-10, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN offered that some people don't understand
English and misuse it. For example, people in his field of
engineering might hide behind the fact that they are science-
oriented or engineers and the belief that they don't need
[comprehensive use] of English. He observed that certain
misuses irk him.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if funding in the Act is available for
transportation from a deficient school to a school of parent
choice in an area where transportation is available.
DR. SCLAFANI replied, "Yes. In fact, you must provide the
transportation to a parent that requests it within the school
district." She explained that a district must set aside up to
20 percent of its Title I funds for that purpose.
Number 0137
CHAIR BUNDE stated that Alaskans appreciate the apparent
flexibility in the Act, because some of Alaska's problems are
unique. He added that Alaska would like a seat, should one
become available, on the [negotiated] rulemaking committee. He
observed that Florida has two seats on the committee. He
extended the committee's thanks to Dr. Sclafani and asked her to
thank the [U.S.] Secretary [of Education] and President Bush for
leadership in such a critical area for the nation. He thanked
Dr. Sclafani for traveling to Alaska and for her discussion of
these issues and the direct feedback given to the committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0340
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at
9:47 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|