Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/10/2001 03:08 PM House HES
| 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 HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 2001
3:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Vic Kohring
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 142
"An Act relating to the Alaska temporary assistance program; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 142(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Suspending Rules 24(c), 35, 41(b), and 42(e), Uniform Rules of
the Alaska State Legislature, concerning Senate Bill No. 133,
relating to high school competency testing.
- MOVED HCR 14 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 133(HES) am
"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(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 180
"An Act requiring child services providers to obtain criminal
background checks for child services workers."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 4/19
HOUSE BILL NO. 197
"An Act relating to directives for personal health care services
and for medical treatment."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 4/17
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 142
SHORT TITLE:AK TEMP. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/23/01 0414 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/23/01 0414 (H) HES, FIN
02/23/01 0414 (H) FN1: ZERO(HSS)
02/23/01 0414 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/22/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/22/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(HES)
03/27/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/27/01 (H) Moved CSHB 142(HES) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(HES)
03/29/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/29/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/10/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL HCR 14
SHORT TITLE:HCR 14-SUSPEND UNIFORM RULES FOR SB 133
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)BUNDE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/05/01 0860 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/05/01 0860 (H) HES, FIN
04/10/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
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
MINUTE(FIN)
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) Moved HCS CSSB 133(EDU) Out
of Committee
04/04/01 (H) HES AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/04/01 (H) Joint with EDU --
Meeting continued from 4/2/01
MINUTE(EDU)
MINUTE(HES)
04/05/01 0858 (H) EDU RPT HCS(EDU) NT 2DP 1DNP
1NR 2AM
04/05/01 0858 (H) TITLE CHANGE PENDING HCR 14
04/05/01 0859 (H) DP: PORTER, BUNDE; DNP:
WILSON;
04/05/01 0859 (H) NR: STEVENS; AM: GUESS, JOULE
04/05/01 0859 (H) FN1: (EED)
04/05/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/05/01 (H) Heard & Held
04/05/01 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/10/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JIM NORDLAND, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 142.
NICOLE NELSON
1016 West 6th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 142 that Version J takes
care of her concerns.
KAREN McCARTHY, Staff
to Representative Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of sponsor of HCR 14.
DEBBIE OSSIANDER, Member
Anchorage School Board
PO Box 670772
Chugiak, Alaska 99567
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 133.
LOUISE PARISH
PO Box 1182
Valdez, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 133.
THOMAS GARRETT
1604 Marika Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 133.
ED McLAIN, Assistant Superintendent
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
148 North Binkley
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 133.
ROBERT SAM, Parent
PO Box 6113
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 133.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified 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 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question on SB 133.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-43, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR FRED DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:08 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives Dyson,
Coghill, Stevens, and Cissna. Representative Joule joined the
meeting as it was in progress.
HB 142-AK TEMP. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS
CHAIR DYSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 142, "An Act relating to the Alaska temporary
assistance program; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0121
CHAIR DYSON stated that in working with [the Department of
Health & Social Services, the legislature] has come up with an
interim solution that changes the law slightly. It does not
deal the problem concerning the minimum number of people who
would be eligible [for Alaska temporary assistance] after five
years, which was in the initial legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 142, version 22-GH1023\J,
Lauterbach, 4/2/01, as a work draft. There being no objection,
Version J was before the committee.
Number 0209
JIM NORDLAND, Director, Division of Public Assistance,
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), came forth and
stated that [the Division of Public Assistance] has "learned to
live with this version of the bill" and is willing to move
forward with it. He stated that the primary reason for
introducing the governor's original legislation was to deal with
the issue of people who would be exempt from the five-year
limit. That is an issue, he said, that still needs to be dealt
with - probably in a separate piece of legislation next year.
He added that it is important to move forward with the rest of
the bill, particularly with regard to the issue around the two-
parent family benefit cut in the summer months.
CHAIR DYSON added that at [the committee's] request resulting
from testimony from a family that had a profoundly disabled
child and one [parent] who had to stay home, [DHSS] has come up
with language that fixes similar problems.
NICOLE NELSON testified via teleconference that she did not have
Version J; therefore, she was unable to make certain that what
she testified about previously had been [addressed].
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE explained to Ms. Nelson that the language
now reads:
(c) The department shall, for the months of July,
August, and September, reduce by 50 percent the
maximum assistance for which the family [is] otherwise
eligible if the family's eligibility for assistance is
based on [AS 47.27.010(4)], unless the second needy
parent is determined, under regulations of the
department, to be physically or mentally unable to
perform gainful activity or to be providing care for a
child who is experiencing a disability
MS. NELSON responded that that takes care of her concerns.
Number 0447
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to move the CS for HB 142,
version 22-GH1023\J, Lauterbach, 4/2/01, from committee with
individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note.
There being no objection, CSHB 142(HES) moved from the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
HCR 14-SUSPEND UNIFORM RULES FOR SB 133
CHAIR DYSON announced that the committee would hear HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 14, Suspending Rules 24(c), 35, 41(b),
and 42(e), Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature,
concerning Senate Bill No. 133, relating to high school
competency testing.
Number 0500
KAREN McCARTHY, Staff to Representative Con Bunde, Alaska State
Legislature, came forth on behalf of the sponsor of HCR 14. She
stated that the reason for HCR 14 is that there was a title
change from the Senate version [of SB 133] and the version
passed out of the House Special Committee on Education. This
change was necessary because [the House Special Committee on
Education] included in the bill the report that requires the
various quality school indicators. She explained that the
Uniform Rules say that there cannot be a title change when a
bill moves from one house to another without suspending the
Uniform Rules.
Number 0612
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to move HCR 14 from committee
with individual recommendations. There being no objection, HCR
14 moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services
Standing Committee.
SB 133-PUBLIC SCHOOL COMPETENCY EXAM
CHAIR DYSON announced that the committee would hear CS FOR
SENATE BILL NO. 133(HES) am, "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." Before the committee was
HCS CSSB 133(EDU); several amendments had been adopted, and
others had been discussed during the hearing on 4/5/01.
Number 0415
DEBBIE OSSIANDER, Member, Anchorage School Board (ASB),
testified via teleconference. She stated that [the ASB]
supports and appreciates the waiver in Section 2 by the
governing body. This recognizes that there will be specific
regulations from the Department of Education and Early
Development (EED) and that there will be interest in the
legislature to see how that develops. She said [the ASB]
particularly appreciates the recognition of kids who move into
the district late in their high school careers. Regarding
Section 3, she stated that [the Anchorage School District's]
special education department has some significant concerns with
portfolio assessments demonstrating mastery of state performance
standards. [The ASB] would prefer this to be an alternative for
IEP (individual education program) teams to consider, if it were
determined that taking the exit exam with accommodations would
not be appropriate.
MS. OSSIANDER stated that at this time the state is utilizing as
a pilot program an alternative assessment, which involves
portfolios of demonstrated work for students with significant
disabilities. She said [the ASB] is finding this process very
difficult and extremely time-consuming, and believes that
expansion of the portfolio will be cumbersome and extremely
difficult to develop at school sites and to evaluate
appropriately. The [Anchorage School District's] special
education department believes that this will be an incredible
burden for special-education teams to manage and that there will
be questionable benefit for the students.
Number 0852
MS. OSSIANDER said [the ASB] agrees that many students with
disabilities will eventually be able to pass the qualifying exam
but that some students will not be able achieve at this level.
Both the original SB 133 and [Representative Steven's] proposed
amendment [Amendment 6, labeled Amendment 8 in packets, offered
4/4/01] would call for empowering the IEP teams to determine
appropriate assessment under [EED] guidelines, which [the ASB]
supports. However, [the ASB] is concerned that IEP teams may
experience pressure and be swayed to modify the assessments to
help ensure success or to identify increasing numbers of
students who are said to need alternative assessments. She
stated that [the ASB] would propose an additional safeguard for
a district review team to be included in order to ensure high
standards for all students.
CHAIR DYSON asked if [the ASB] wants students with IEPs to
demonstrate by whatever means competency of the unmodified test.
MS. OSSIANDER replied that [the ASB] would like students to
demonstrate mastery; however, [the ASB's] understanding is that
there might be some legal risk if IEP teams are not allowed the
ability to determine whether alternative assessments could lead
to a diploma. [The ASB] would be happy with allowing the IEP
teams to do this, but has some concern that there will be
increasing pressure from families to have their children qualify
for special-education and IEP-team services. She added that
[the ASB] also feel that there is going to be pressure on the
IEP teams to relax standards in order to make sure that kids can
get a diploma.
Number 1015
CHAIR DYSON asked if [the ASB] wants the test changed and the
IEP teams to be isolated from pressure to reduce the standards.
MS. OSSIANDER answered yes, [the ASB] would like to work in that
direction.
CHAIR DYSON asked if [the ASB] has language that would do that.
MS. OSSIANDER responded [the ASB] has a proposal. She noted
that there is already the safety of the [EED's] instituting
regulations and procedures to govern how much flexibility the
IEP team has. She stated that [the ASB] would urge, in
addition, that there be a district review team that would keep a
watchful eye on the IEP teams in order to monitor compliance
with these regulations.
Number 1070
MS. OSSIANDER continued, stating that in Section 4, regarding
the report that the EED provides, [the ASB] is concerned with
the amount of paperwork that each individual school is asked to
do. Having a school prepare a report detailing how the
curriculum is aligned is a difficult task to put on a site. She
stated that [the ASB] would ask for a little more flexibility in
preparing that report at the district level. Finally, she asked
if the intent in Section 5 is for the annual public meeting to
be held at the time of the regular school report card meeting.
CHAIR DYSON stated that Representative Bunde had nodded in
response to Ms. Ossiander's question.
MS. OSSIANDER asked if the committee has talked at all about how
to deal with a student who comes into the district with limited
English proficiency and whether the waiver process could cover
those students.
Number 1185
LOUISE PARISH testified via teleconference and stated that her
main reason for testifying is to make sure that no amendments
are passed that will lower standards for the learning-disabled
community. She said if [the bill] passes, with no amendments,
she is concerned with page 3, line 4, which states, "This
subsection does not apply to a student who is a child with a
disability if the student's individualized education program
team recommends that the student not be retested." She said her
concern is that this will skew statistics. She remarked that
she is still uncertain whether the portfolio is designed for the
really cognitively disabled or for all special-education kids.
She said she is concerned that there is teacher "scaffolding"
and about whether the portfolio is actually a portrayal of that
student's mastery or is work that has been completed with
assistance.
MS. PARISH concluded by stating, in reference to Section 4, that
it would be helpful to have in the report the total number of
kids who were eligible to take the test.
Number 1301
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that [Ms. Parish] made an
interesting point on the difference between alternative and
alternate. He asked Ms. Parish to give a better background of
the terms.
MS. PARISH responded that she understands that the alternate
assessment is designed for the severely cognitively disabled
kids. She mentioned that she has been waiting for people to
come up with ways for IEP teams to get creative when developing
IEP diplomas. She stated that she sees the alternative program
as opening up the door to no change for these kids, and she does
not support it. She clarified that she fully supports the
alternate plan - the way it is right now - whereby kids are able
to get a diploma with accommodations, without accommodations, or
in an alternate assessment.
Number 1405
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked how Ms. Parish feels about Ms.
Ossiander's suggestion of having a district review team.
MS. PARISH responded that she does not support that. She stated
that she doesn't think that those who will sign up for that
quality team will really have the in-depth knowledge to address
those problems or to take any sort of corrective action.
Number 1476
THOMAS GARRETT testified via teleconference on behalf of
himself. He read to the committee a letter he wrote. He
stated:
I wanted to applaud the state legislature for trying
to improve education standards for all students in
Alaska. However, the statewide exit exam, I feel, is
just a tad premature and needs to be refined and
implemented a little bit more slowly as to not hurt
the future of all Alaska students. As I have been
following this issue, because I'm a concerned parent,
the reading scoring is a little too low and the
mathematic scoring is much too high. Actually, there
are no remedial classes here in Fairbanks at the high
school level, adult center, library, or University of
Alaska for the test as they are administered for the
reading, writing, or even the mathematics. The
general educational development exam, which people can
take if they are actually divorced from the whole
school system, which covers mathematics, social
studies, science, reading, and writing skills, should
be considered as an alternative to the Alaska
statewide exit exam. For those students who have
already passed all of the test, they should be given a
gold ribbon high school diploma with no questions
asked. Therefore, at this time I support the passage
of SB 133 until refinements and remedies can be
incorporated.
MR. GARRETT remarked that he would like to see somebody who is
in charge pass out a sample test. He stressed that as a parent
he is concerned and he does not have any guidelines to help his
daughter or his niece because [no one] has given him anything.
He shared that his daughter and his niece are both juniors in
high school and have both taken the exam three times. The first
time, they passed the reading; the second time, they passed the
writing; and they are waiting for the results on the
mathematics. He said that uncomfortable decisions are forced on
the family unit [as to what classes their children should take].
He concluded by saying that he knows there are resources in
Fairbanks but he doesn't think people are putting in any extra
effort.
Number 1808
ED McCLAIN, Assistant Superintendent, Kenai Peninsula Borough
School District (KPBSD), testified via teleconference. He
stated that the bill needs to address not only the students
covered by the IDEA (Individual Disability Education Act), but
also those students that have 504 plans. He said the bill, as
it is currently written, speaks to a portfolio of works, and
[the KPBSD's] preference is to speak to alternatives and then
allow the portfolio as one type, rather than as prescribed. As
for modifications, if a student with a disability has it built
in to his or her IEP, learns, for example, how to use a
calculator accurately and appropriately, meets the expectation,
and then is forced to take an exam without that modification,
there seems to be an unfairness that doesn't meet with the
intent of the testing program.
MR. McCLAIN pointed out to the committee a safeguard that can be
built in for accountability. He stated that page 5, line 23,
addresses a report that has to be made to the public and to the
legislature. Right now the report talks about including the
number of graduates with waivers. He said it would seem that if
the number of students who graduate through alternatives was
included in the report and the [EED] was directed to look into
those, there would be accountability.
Number 2021
MR. McCLAIN remarked that the current bill states that students
who transfer to a public high school in the state shall receive
a diploma if they pass the competency exam in the state from
which they transferred. He explained that this will solve the
problem for the students who transfer from the approximately 17
states that have competency exams. He added that it raises the
issue of a variety of different bars that are out there. He
stated that he is concerned that this is a potential door that's
open for students from states that have the exam, but it doesn't
help the students who come from the other 34 [states]. He
concluded that he would like to know the intent [at which point
in high school] transfer-students are allowed waivers.
Number 2094
ROBERT SAM came forth as a parent and stated that he is in
opposition of SB 133. He shared with the committee:
I was raised in Alaska during a time when our [Native]
culture and our heritage were almost gone. The
language and the history of our people were not being
taught to students. ... I recall, during that period
in time ... a lot of Native students going through
the school districts had very low self-esteem and had
a lot of problems in school. ... I did not have a
very good experience in the school district. I did
have some problems at home, and the teachers and the
educators at the time didn't recognize my problems,
didn't recognize the social issues that I had while I
was going to school - except for one teacher. One
teacher started spending time with me. ... The
teachers at the time ... had the impression that I was
stupid. This teacher recognized that I was not
stupid.
... Contributions that we have made to this society
[have] allowed this society to grow. I am a
contributing member of this society, and I base my
testimony on how strong I am in my culture and my
heritage. It is shown that when our culture and our
heritage [are] reintroduced back into our culture, the
level of suicide goes down; our people become active
members of this society. I am a storyteller; I
preserve history and I share that with our young
people. In sharing that with our people, it allows
them to realize that as Alaska Natives they have
something that they can contribute and that they can
... contribute a part of their history at school.
That's very, very important for [young people who are]
going to school and get up and introduce themselves -
sometimes in their own language. And once they
introduce themselves like that, they become proud; and
then when they become proud, they start to improve in
math, in English, in history and they really become
active members of this society. I am very good at
speaking English because I am very good at speaking my
own language and knowing my history.
... To take away this heritage from our young people
is going to reintroduce suicide, drugs, [and] alcohol
back into our society because we have nothing to
replace them. We really need to have this history in
our schools, and we really need to be open to new,
innovative ideas. ... This bill is going to prevent a
lot of students [from] reaching their potential.
Number 2341
CHAIR DYSON expressed that all the bills [that the legislature]
passes and all the money will never do as much as one gifted,
caring teacher can.
TAPE 01-43, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, [which
she had offered and then withdrawn at the hearing on 4/5/01].
Amendment 3 read:
Page 2, line 5:
Delete "sec. 7"
Insert "sec. 4"
Page 2, line 13, through page 4, line 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. AS 14.03.075, added by sec. 1, ch. 58, SLA
1997, is repealed and reenacted to read:
Sec. 14.03.075. Academic standards for high
school graduation. (a) Before graduating from
high school, each student is required to
(1) be tested in a graduation
examination in the areas of reading, English,
and mathematics; and
(2) meet academic requirements
established by the state and the governing
body.
(b) The department shall determine the form
and contents of the graduation examination and
shall score completed examinations.
(c) Based on the results of the graduation
examination, each student receiving a high school
diploma shall receive an endorsement on the
diploma as follows:
(1) a student who exhibits proficiency
in mathematics - a mathematics endorsement;
(2) a student who exhibits proficiency
in reading - a reading endorsement;
(3) a student who exhibits proficiency
in writing - a writing endorsement; and
(4) a student who is not eligible for
an endorsement under (1) - (3) of this subsection
- and endorsement consisting of the Alaska flag
symbol.
(d) The department shall establish by
regulation uniform standards for awarding and
endorsement required under (c) of this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, line 9, through page 6, line 15:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 7, lines 8-29:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 7, line 30:
Delete "except as provided in sec. 11 of this
Act, this"
Insert "This"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated that this amendment separates the
diploma from the benchmarks and the school reports. It allows a
student to graduate from high school having earned a diploma
based on the academic standards. She remarked that in 1997,
when this was passed, the goal was to have accountability for
the schools; to have tools for the teachers, the parents, and
the students; and to have workers that were ready for the
workplace. However, what has been learned during the years
since then is that the benchmarks have in fact shown that there
are better ways to teach. States that are putting laws like
this into place are finding that high stakes exams are
problematic. There's a real problem with unfairness in having
it linked to the diploma itself.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA remarked that part of this has been fixed
in the new version of this bill, but some of the important
issues can't be fixed because there is a whole range of skills
that are required for the workplace that can't be tested. She
stated that most people keep their jobs because they can get
along with people or have good work skills. Having passed the
test may get a person the job, but it won't keep [the job].
Number 2234
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA continued, stating that by making [the
exam] difficult for students with learning disabilities causes
these students to be lost. For example, she said, Einstein
couldn't talk until he was nine years old. She stated that
great thinker after great thinker falls into the category of
learning-disabled. They go out into the workplace, and because
they are overachievers, they "burn up" whatever profession they
go into. She stated that she thinks the benchmarks and the
reports to the schools are extremely important, but that "the
students themselves need to be taken out of the equation as
hostages in this."
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE remarked that at the teacher [job] fair in
Anchorage there were fewer teachers than there were number of
openings. He stated that oftentimes the new teachers coming
into the districts are not familiar with the standards, and it's
the kids who are ultimately paying a steep price.
Number 2100
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna, Joule, and
Wilson voted in favor of adopting Amendment 3. Representatives
Coghill, Stevens, and Dyson voted against it. [Representative
Kohring was absent.] Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of
3-3.
Number 2090
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to adopt Amendment 6 [labeled
Amendment 8 in packets, offered on 4/5/01 by Representative
Stevens but not adopted or voted on]. Amendment 6 read
[original punctuation included]:
Page 2, following line 12:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) 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, review the
potential for an individualized education program
team's inappropriate lowering of individualized
education program goals and objectives for the purpose
of providing a diploma to a student who has not
achieved the state performance standards to the
maximum practicable and take appropriate corrective
action."
Page 3, lines 10-19:
Delete all material and insert:
(1) 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 and [sic] alternative assessment program
required by the student's individualized program or
required in the education plan developed for the
student under 19 U.S.C. 794; alternative assessment
program must, to the maximum extent possible, conform
to state performance standards established for the
competency examination required under (a) of this
section;"
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(f) A student shall receive an endorsement on the
student's diploma and transcript identifying the areas
of the examination successfully passed.
(g) The department shall by regulation establish
uniform standards for an alternative assessment
program required under (c)(1) of this section. The
alternative assessment program under (c)(1) of this
section may not be changed after February 1 of the
student's junior year of study."
Page 7, lines 16-18
Delete
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated that he offers this in the hopes
that the committee will deal with the modifications and
alternative assessments for those students with IEPs.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for a summarization of the
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE explained that this would allow students
who have IEPs and cognitive learning disabilities to get a
modified exam or an alternative assessment.
Number 2030
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON clarified that an accommodation provides a
student something that would help offset the disability, that an
alternative assessment is a different way of finding out if the
student has mastered the material, and that a modification
changes the content of the test. He added that he understood
that everyone had agreed on providing accommodations for kids
with disabilities and that in the rare and unusual situation a
child's disability can be assessed by an alternative method in
order to find out if he or she is competent with the same body
of information.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE remarked that through this whole debate the
discussion has always been in terms of high stakes as well as
high standards. The previous amendment [Amendment 3] dealt with
high standards, which give the school districts the ability to
work on the standards and for the students to achieve them.
That amendment having failed, he has offered this amendment for
consideration.
Number 1941
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
the chair of the HEDU committee, remarked that he thinks
[Amendment 6] would allow modifications for anybody with an IEP,
not just those students who are severely cognitively impaired.
He said, "Ms. Ossiander suggested that there be a group from the
district to support and be watchdogs; however, if the school
districts are doing everything they ought to be doing, we
wouldn't be here talking about high standards because we'd
already have them." He noted that modifications, as Ms. Parish
testified, would bring the test down to the student instead of
the student up to the test. He added that McGraw Hill said it
could not legally defend a modified test.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON, in response to Representative Bunde's
remarks, stated that he doesn't think any district would end up
with as many tests as IEP students.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether this amendment would mean if
the IEP doesn't work, [the exit exam] could be modified.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if a person could then use a
calculator, if needed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE answered yes.
Number 1829
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that he has some problems with
several issues that are addressed in the amendment. He said he
is going to vote against it because the major issue that has
been added to the bill is the two-year delay, which allows time
to see exactly what happens in the next two years and how many
students are able to pass the test.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if this would affect English-as-a-
second-language students.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of Education, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development,
answered that this does not address students with limited
English proficiency. Potentially, the waiver process could do
that.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what this amendment does that
[Representative Cissna's Amendment 3] doesn't.
MR. JOHNSON responded that there would be an alternate
assessment. For example, a student with a decoding disability
who may never actually learn to read could still demonstrate
some proficiency in the area of reading, such as comprehension.
The IEP team would have the capacity of devising an instrument
that would allow that student to demonstrate his or her capacity
outside the disability. Another example is if a student has
been introduced to a calculator as part of his or her IEP plan
at the fourth grade and is now required to pass the exam; that
student is going to have to be taught in a very different and
quick way in order to successfully meet the demands of the
mathematics portion of the high school qualifying exam. He said
[the EED's] goal is for all students to be educated so that they
can take the pencil-and-paper version of the exit exam. He
added that right now there are a lot of students that may not
have a fair "shake" if there are no adjustments. [The EED]
would like the IEP teams to be able to make those adjustments
and to decide on an individual basis.
CHAIR DYSON stated that someone could therefore get a diploma
that indicated a reading skill, yet the person couldn't read.
In the bill before [the committee] the test itself would not be
modified, but the amendment would allow "relatively rare sorts
of things." He asked Mr. Johnson if there is anything left
that is "messy."
MR. JOHNSON replied that he thinks there are some concerns in
the report section, but he thinks it can be straightened out.
Number 1512
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna, Joule, and
Wilson voted in favor of Amendment 6. Representatives Coghill,
Stevens, and Dyson voted against it. [Representative Kohring was
absent.] Therefore, Amendment 6 failed by a vote of 3-3.
Number 1475
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to move the HCS CSSB
133(EDU), as amended, from committee with individual
recommendations and the attached fiscal note. There being no
objection, HCS CSSB 133(HES) moved from the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented:
In no way is this bill intended to demean anybody's
self-esteem or any cultural group. As a matter of
fact, when we first began working on this, back in
1996, a group of elders from Hoonah stopped by and
they said, "Thank you very much for introducing this
bill, because when our students now get a high school
diploma, based on some standards across the state, it
will do wonders for their self-esteem," because
they'll know their education is equivalent to anyone
who went to school in Juneau, or Anchorage, or any
larger school.
[HCS CSSB 133(HES) was moved out of committee.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|