Legislature(2009 - 2010)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/20/2009 09:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Moore Vs. State | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 20, 2009
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Bettye Davis
Senator Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Charlie Huggins
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Overview: Moore vs. State
HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
NEAL SLOTNIK Assistant Attorney General
Representing the Department of Education
Alaska Department of Law
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided details about Moore vs. State.
JOHN HOLST, Consultant
Avant-Guard Learning Foundation
Sitka, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed what the state needs to do to
improve education in rural Alaska.
JIM HICKERSON, Superintendent
Bering Strait School District
Unalakleet, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Stressed the importance of early learning
programs.
LARRY LEDOUX, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed what the Department of Education
is doing to address Moore vs. State and the educational
challenges in rural Alaska.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:06 AM
CHAIR KIM ELTON called the Senate Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Olson, Stevens and Elton.
^Overview: Moore vs. State
Overview: Moore vs. State
CHAIR ELTON announced the business before the committee would be
to hear an overview of Moore vs. State. He expressed his
appreciation to the people who were present to help the
committee begin a dialog on exactly what Moore vs. State means,
not only to the Department of Education and the executive
branch, but to the legislative branch, and how they can work
together given the strict timelines they are facing. He also
stated that the committee is not interested in past or future
legal strategy but in looking forward to what the legislature's
and the executive branch's responsibilities are going to be and
what the executive branch expects from the legislature.
With that, he asked how the executive branch would like to
proceed with this presentation.
8:04:53 AM
NEAL SLOTNIK Assistant Attorney General, Alaska Department of
Law (DOL), said he was Chief Council in the Moore vs. State
litigation. He brought one of the handouts produced for the
trial, which shows some of the statistics the Department of
Education gathers; it is a year-over-year comparison from 2005
to 2008 of all the districts in the state and what percent of
children in those districts are proficient in reading on the
standards based assessment (SBA). The red blocks on the chart
show where the districts were in 2005 and the bars show where
they were on the most recent SBA in 2008.
He said this is a result of the accountability system called the
"designator system," that the legislature established in 1998,
which merged with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Accountability
System that came later. The reason this comparison only dates
back to 2005 is that they have to have comparable tests in every
year; they can't compare to a different test.
8:06:51 AM
SENATOR DAVIS joined the meeting.
8:07:06 AM
MR. SLOTNIK pointed out that the graph generally shows
improvement across the state and added that it tops out at 90
percent; they cannot say a school is 100 percent proficient
because that would identify individual children's records. He
said the point he is making with this graph is that this is the
result of the designator accountability system working in most
of these districts. The issue is that in some districts they
weren't seeing sufficient progress; so Commissioner Samson made
the decision to intervene in those districts in 2006. He had to
be careful, because he didn't want to intervene where the
accountability system was working; that would result in two
different systems and could cause back-sliding. Commissioner
Samson worked very hard to develop the Desk Audit System, the
Instructional Audit System, to determine in what districts the
state can help and what the state can do once it goes into a
district. The department's focus is on building the capacity of
the district to make progress on its own using the data the
state is able to provide. The department presented that
intervention system to the legislature last year; it was focused
on leadership, collaboration among teachers; and getting more
information in the classroom using formative assessments.
Interventions began in school year 2006; by 2007 there were five
districts in which the department had determined the state could
help.
In 2004 the Moore case was filed.
8:10:09 AM
SENATOR STEVENS asked how he can determine where interventions
have taken place.
MR. SLOTNIK answered that the intervention districts are in
light blue on the graph. The cross-hashed districts are
plaintiffs in the Moore case but are not intervention districts.
CHAIR ELTON asked how the department decides where to intervene.
Chatham and Yukon Kuskoquim have almost the same percentile and
YK seems to have made more progress, yet they are intervening in
YK and not in Chatham.
8:10:37 AM
MR. SLOTNIK said the process is very deliberate, very
complicated and looks at individual children, year-over-year
growth and where growth is occurring, how many schools are in
the district etc. He could not answer the specific question
regarding Chatham and YK; he suggested that is a question for
Mr. Morse.
CHAIR ELTON indicated they can discuss that later.
8:11:46 AM
MR. SLOTNIK continued; while they were building the intervention
system in 2004, the Moore case was filed. The plaintiffs took
the same data that was provided to the committee and said "Look
at this achievement gap; this is proof that there's not enough
money in education." They argued that, under the education
clause of the state constitution, this type of an achievement
gap proves the state does not have a system of public schools
and that the legislature isn't doing its job to establish and
maintain those schools. The plaintiffs argued that it is because
there isn't enough money in those systems.
As a result of the original trial in this case, the judge
disagreed with the plaintiffs that money is the answer. She
established a four-part test:
· There must be enough money.
She found that the funding formulas satisfied the
constitutional requirements.
· There have to be assessments.
· The state has to provide standards to the districts.
The judge determined that the Department of Education's
standards and assessments were some of the best in the
country.
· There has to be state oversight and accountability.
On this point, the judge found there was sufficient
oversight and accountability in most districts by virtue of
having local control answerable to voters; but in
chronically underperforming districts, the state's "hands-
off" approach to oversight wasn't working well enough. The
judge seemed to be focusing on the state's local control
statutes, which were a reaction to the earlier system in
rural Alaska of state-operated schools, which wasn't
especially successful.
He thinks the judge was looking at the statutes instead of at
the designator system the department was trying to direct her
to; she did not feel there was enough authority for the
Department of Education to intervene meaningfully. So last year
the department discussed this with Senator Stevens and he
carried SB 285, which provided the department with limited
intervention authority where they were able to identify that
instructional practices could be improved by state intervention.
8:15:44 AM
Returning to the judge's findings in the Moore case, Mr. Slotnik
said she found there was evidence that there was not sufficient
oversight in Yupiit School District. There was evidence that the
district was not focused on improving its instructional
practices and there needed to be more state involvement in that
district. She instructed the Department of Education to go to
the legislature, to identify any other districts needing state
oversight and to report back [to the court] in one year.
MR. SLOTNIK stated that, until this time, the department thought
this case was about money and hadn't presented a lot of evidence
about the designator system, the accountability system or the
intervention process that already existed. When they went back
to court last fall, they presented evidence of the ongoing
interventions in five districts, about the system for
identifying which districts need intervention and which are
making progress on their own; they gave her information about
the elements of the interventions, the implementation of the
interventions and what was happening with them at that time. He
admitted there were aspects of the implementations that didn't
always go well and they brought that evidence to her. In their
closing arguments, they told her that she no longer needed to
oversee this process because the state board and the legislature
were already providing oversight. The judge agreed that the
identification system was working and that elements of the
intervention were consistent with best practices. She was
critical of the implementation however, and the scope of the
interventions, which she felt was too narrow. When the
department goes into a district to intervene, it can't make too
many changes too quickly; so it is true that the scope was
limited during the first couple of years. It is also true that
the scope was expanding, even as the trial progressed.
The court instructed the department to work with intervention
districts to amend the district improvement plans and expand the
scope of those interventions. In addition, where she makes a
finding of unconstitutional quality of education, which she made
only for the Yupiit School District, the department cannot
administer the high school exit exam and has to require
remediation for the students. The department stepped in and
required a remediation plan and the judge found the scope of
that plan was also too narrow.
8:20:54 AM
CHAIR ELTON interjected that they are running out of time and
should probably discuss the exit exam question next week. They
have scheduled a bill by Senator Davis about the exit exam and
may want to discuss that bill in the context of amending the law
to accommodate the judge's ruling.
MR. SLOTNIK agreed that it is a topic for another day.
8:21:46 AM
He wanted to make one other point for the record. The department
is working with this decision and they believe they are in
compliance. He does not want to leave the impression that they
concur with the judge's legal findings; that would not be
accurate. Even though they may disagree with those legal
findings however, it does not mean that they don't agree that
this achievement gap needs to be addressed. That is the
legislature's goal and, to the extent that the legislature's
goal is in concurrence with the court's requirements, they are
prepared to address it.
8:23:23 AM
SENATOR STEVENS said he wants to be sure he understands what the
department is and is not in agreement with.
8:23:50 AM
MR. SLOTNIK said the first question is "What is the floor for
education; what is the minimum the constitution requires?" The
department does not agree that she has drawn the line in the
right place, but even given where she has drawn it, the second
question is "Does the evidence show we're in compliance?" The
department thinks that they are.
8:24:41 AM
JOHN HOLST, Consultant, Sitka, AK, is taking Shirley Holloway's
place here today representing "Avant-Guard Learning Foundation."
He is also a contractor working with the Northwest Arctic
[School District] as the district improvement coach. He was a
school principal for 13 years, taught for eight years, was a
superintendent in two districts in Alaska and retired as
superintendent eight years ago. During the last seven years, he
has been consulting extensively; he worked from 2001 to 2005 in
Lower Yukon and for the last two years in Northwest Arctic. He
has done instructional audits in Yupiit and Yukon Flats and has
done other work in Hoonah, Juneau, Tanana, Nenana, Sand Point,
Bristol Bay and other places in Alaska.
He said he assumes what they want to know is "what's needed." In
speaking to Dr. Holloway of Avant-Guard about phase two of the
alignment study completed last fall, the two gaping holes they
found in the alignment study were pre-K and the transition from
high school to the world of work. The most important thing to
talk about today is pre-K.
MR. HOLST said the difficulty is that children in much of rural
Alaska, especially those in predominantly native communities,
are arriving in kindergarten two to three years behind in
language development. So the teachers are expected to get the
kids to advance two years in each of the years from kindergarten
through second grade in order to catch up. These are the schools
that have the highest turnover of teachers; some districts have
as high as a 60 percent turnover. Judge Gleason asked him during
the Moore trial what he would do and he suggested that the state
should intervene in the pre-kindergarten time frame and should
assist families. This is not a school issue alone; there needs
to be a parent component. Parents are the first teachers of the
children and in homes where parents exercise that
responsibility, the children come to school better prepared.
There also needs to be a community component, some sort of
support system in the community to value language development.
He clarified that when he says "language development and early
literacy" he doesn't believe it matters what language it is; if
it is an indigenous language, so much the better.
8:31:11 AM
In some cases there is a difference of two to four times as many
words in the vocabulary of high performing kids as in the
vocabulary of low performing kids... 50 versus 250 words. This
emphasized that this has nothing to do with the intelligence of
the students; with the exception of the few students who have
issues with fetal alcohol or something, they are all capable of
learning at the same pace. He referenced an article entitled
"Closing the Opportunity Gap" by Arthur Griffin, which is about
pre-K literacy. He commented that when he talks about "literacy"
he is talking about the language development component, not
forming letters or reading, but the ability to develop
communication skills so children understand what is being said
and can let others know what they are thinking.
8:33:28 AM
SENATOR OLSON wondered whether language literacy hasn't improved
with the advent of television in the rural areas.
MR. HOLST said TV has enhanced the opportunities but has also
become a surrogate for parenting. There are educational TV
programs, but they cannot substitute for real interaction.
8:34:37 AM
SENATOR OLSON asked if the high incidence of otitis media in
rural Alaska was taken into consideration.
MR. HOLST said he doesn't think it is as big a factor as others
such as fetal alcohol syndrome and in some communities, a lack
of law enforcement to ensure safe places for adults and kids.
8:35:32 AM
CHAIR ELTON wondered whether people who deliver other services
in rural communities were involved at the time the judge was
making her decision.
[Unidentified representatives of the Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED) nodded.]
CHAIR ELTON continued; the committee probably needs to talk
about how the department is working with other departments to
address the preschool component.
MR. HOLST believes what is needed is a balanced home-based
program, with the school program helping parents to carry the
role of first-teachers. Just having a daycare isn't enough; what
is needed is quality, professionally-trained and certificated
teachers directing the programs and delivering the services if
possible. If that is not possible, then they need programs like
the "Step up to Learning" program in Northwest Arctic, which
focuses on all of those components and uses Sandy Covey to help
develop the programs.
8:38:00 AM
SENATOR STEVENS wanted to talk about the article "Closing the
Opportunity Gap." He commented that the ending quote by Mark
Twain, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my
education," seems to fly in the face of what Mr. Holst just said
about the need for trained teachers.
MR. HOLST disagreed. A good early childhood education focuses on
language development, which is what these children need. That
does not mean teaching four year olds how to read and that is
what he takes away from the quote by Mark Twain in terms of this
article; there have to be balanced components. That is why it is
so important to have community and parent involvement. Offering
only the school component is not going to provide the success
they are looking for.
8:39:36 AM
He went on to say that one of the problems he's seen is that
there is a wide range of quality in the rural Head Start
programs. Although the programs are offered by well-meaning,
hard-working people, they often don't have enough training or
professional development to be as successful as they could be.
8:40:37 AM
CHAIR ELTON said when he hears the word "training", he questions
who does it, what other programs are out there, what other
service-delivery people are out there and who pays for it. For
instance, the native community has some wonderful health
providers who can help families; so what is role of each of
these providers?
8:41:17 AM
MR. HOLST said the state is beyond saying they are going to run
a pilot program; there have been pilot programs since the 70s,
some of which were very successful. They need to deliver
services to these kids today. The underperforming schools on the
chart don't have opportunities, choices in those communities. He
suggested that the state allow districts that are under scrutiny
by the department to do early entrance for four year olds as
kindergarteners and fund that with literacy grants. As a
tradeoff, they would be required to use those funds to provide
the kind of quality literacy programs he has been talking about.
8:43:50 AM
CHAIR ELTON thanked Mr. Holst. He asked Mr. Hickerson, who was
waiting to testify, how long his presentation would be.
MR. HICKERSON said Mr. Holst covered almost everything he was
going to say, so it would be short.
CHAIR ELTON thanked him and asked him to proceed.
8:45:05 AM
JIM HICKERSON, Superintendent, Bering Strait School District,
Unalakleet, AK, has been with the Bering Strait School District
for 28 years; it is his second year as superintendent. He wanted
to follow up on the need for effective early childhood programs.
Mr. Holst covered some key points regarding how they might be
implemented but, he added, in communities where there is a Head
Start or Rural Cap program, he supports partnerships between the
district and those programs to provide professional staff to
work with the local providers.
MR. HICKERSON appreciated the commissioner's work on the pilot,
but concurred with Mr. Holst that the state needs to move more
quickly. He closed by saying that having the department sit down
with law enforcement and the local social services is what it is
going to take to fix things in his district. The schools can
only control the variables between 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM; it is all
of the things that happen before and after that time that have a
tremendous impact on what happens in school. Until they start
addressing the whole child 24 hours a day, they will not have
the success they need.
8:48:50 AM
CHAIR ELTON told Mr. Hickerson it would be a big help if he
would put some thought into what other organizations could be
part of the solution and submit something to the committee in
writing.
MR. HICKERSON said he would be happy to.
CHAIR ELTON noted for the record that Mr. Hickerson is the
superintendent of a school district that is being intervened
with and is a plaintiff in Moore vs. State.
MR. HICKERSON corrected that they aren't under intervention;
they will be having an instructional audit March 2, 2009.
CHAIR ELTON apologized to the department for allowing so little
time for their testimony. He asked them if they would provide a
broad overview for today and said he would schedule another
meeting to talk about what the department expects of the
legislature over the next 60 days.
8:51:26 AM
LARRY LEDOUX, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development, said all of the literature agrees that success
starts with early literacy; the Alaska Department of Education
has been moving to improve the success of kids in Alaska for
some time. He just left a meeting with Jim Hickerson in
Anchorage, where they were talking about immediate steps the
state can take to intervene in the graduation rate. One of the
earliest steps they can take is to move to a comprehensive early
childhood program, to make sure that every child enters school
with the pre-literacy skills they need to succeed.
The landscape in early education is very complex. There are a
number of service providers delivering services; many of the
districts in which the state is intervening have had early
childhood programs funded through Head Start or Impact Aid for
years. As the department moves in to support districts, they are
moving from a philosophy of independent local control to one of
active participation and sometimes taking over certain parts of
the district. This is a major change in philosophy and the
department wants to move in with the minimum of interference
necessary to insure that each child is successful in school. It
is complicated because they have to maximize community
ownership, so the people will value their schools and feel a
part of their mission; they have to improve instructional
practices and work with teachers to make sure assessments and
quality teaching are driving instruction. They have to improve
teacher retention and work with community Leadership. And
finally, they need to create attitudes of success among kids.
The key in the long-term is to make sure that every child comes
to school ready to read and the department is moving in that
direction.
8:55:26 AM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX said the pilot is designed to be implemented
in throughout the state; it is designed to increase the capacity
of parents to work with their own children. He agreed that the
school cannot do everything, but said they can do more to help
parents gain the skills necessary to help their children read.
He added that this is not a problem reserved to rural Alaska. He
was an elementary principal for ten years and as communities
worked together to find out what they needed to do to be
successful, they quickly identified that many of their young
people came to school without any early learning experience.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX said that the department has recognized that
they have to work together and has developed close partnerships
between the University of Alaska, the Department of Labor, and
Health and Social Services. Many of the interventions they've
implemented this year were not considered by the judge. He said
he has several pages of implementation steps they have carried
out this year that were not considered in the latest court
decision.
In reference to Senator Elton's question he said, what the
legislature can do right now is to consider their pilot program
so when they expand this program it will be efficient and will
actually meet the needs of children; the state can't afford to
spend resources without careful thought. He also hopes the
legislature will support their request for increased Head Start
funding so the department can target those resources to
communities that need a slot or that don't have a program due to
lack of funding. He recognized that the department has to move
from the stance of providing compliance and monitoring to one of
active technical support; so they have an increment in the
budget of over $800,000 to contract for technical support to
districts in everything from the arts to technology and reading.
They are also recruiting for a reading specialist to work in the
department to facilitate programs in schools.
8:57:39 AM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX assured the committee that the department
would be back to request increased money for early learning and
technical support; this is just the first step, but they want to
do it well. In future hearings, when Deputy Commissioner Morse,
who has been tasked specifically to lead the school improvement
effort, has a chance to share some of the things the department
is doing with current resources, he believes the legislators
will realize they are using their funds efficiently and
directly. He said that more money alone will not solve the
issues, nor will more training; they know their success in
Alaska will be multidimensional and they intend to pursue it
that way.
8:58:25 AM
CHAIR ELTON thanked Commissioner Ledoux and said it might be
helpful if he would provide copies to the committee before the
next meeting of the pages of implementation steps he referred
earlier. He also said he is not hearing all he wants to about
partnerships; his reaction is that they need to expand beyond
state agencies to include people in organizations that are
already providing services in rural communities.
8:59:40 AM
SENATOR STEVENS said the issue that is troubling to him is local
control versus the state taking over; he wants to hear more
about how they are going work their way through that.
9:00:35 AM
CHAIR ELTON announced that the committee will recess now and
reconvene in the Senate Finance Committee room for a joint
presentation on seismic hazards.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ASHSC_rpt_to_Gov_Leg_2009.pdf |
SEDC 2/20/2009 9:00:00 AM |