Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/13/2012 08:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB194 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 13, 2012
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Joe Thomas, Co-Chair
Senator Bettye Davis, Vice Chair
Senator Hollis French
Senator Gary Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 194
"An Act providing for a school improvement and revitalization
procedure in the Department of Education and Early Development;
establishing advisory councils for school improvement; and
requiring reports to the legislature."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 170
"AN ACT REQUIRING VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COUNSELING IN PUBLIC
SCHOOLS."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 194
SHORT TITLE: PROCEDURES FOR LOW-PERFORMING SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(s): EDUCATION
02/08/12 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/12 (S) EDC, FIN
02/13/12 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
MURRAY RICHMOND, Staff
Senator Joe Thomas
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 194 and answered questions.
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Neutral on SB 194. He answered questions
regarding SB 194.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:05:21 AM
CO-CHAIR JOE THOMAS called the Senate Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators French, Stevens, Davis, Co-Chair Meyer and
Co-Chair Thomas.
SB 194-PROCEDURES FOR LOW-PERFORMING SCHOOLS
8:05:40 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced the consideration of SB 194. He said
the Moore Case had an impact on 2008 legislation, which
established intervention guidelines for low-performing schools.
He said the bill refined the intervention process by involving
local communities, districts and the Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED) by establishing governance councils to
provide guidance prior to intervention. He noted that
legislation from the Alaska House of Representatives to repeal
the current intervention guidelines would be a mistake due to
its necessity for the state to receive a waiver from the federal
government for the No Child Left Behind Act.
8:07:20 AM
MURRAY RICHMOND, staff to Senator Joe Thomas, co-aide for the
Senate Education Committee, Alaska State Legislature, said SB
194 was based on the Moore Case.
MR. RICHMOND said section (1), stated that schools or districts
could be designated as low-performing by DEED. He said
designation would be dependent on base student assessments and
graduation rates.
He said section (2), addressed low-performing as the bottom 3
percent and would encompass 17 schools.
8:09:44 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked to clarify the definition of a school when
multiple schools share the same building.
SENATOR STEVENS commented that the Kodiak School District had
their high school, middle school and the elementary school in an
attached building with separate principals.
8:11:47 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development, Juneau, answered that school configuration
was a function of how the district categorizes their schools and
less about the building.
SENATOR STEVENS asked to clarify that schools were treated
separately when a building was shared.
MR. MORSE answered correct. He noted that charter schools would
be treated the same way and the legislation would apply to them
as well.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if all schools were given the same
standardized tests to determine their performance level.
MR. MORSE answered correct.
SENATOR FRENCH inquired about page 1, line 6, regarding the
sentence, "the public school or district that was designated
low-performing." He asked how a district would be designated
low-performing when some schools were performing well.
8:15:02 AM
MR. MORSE responded that DEED would look at both school and
district performance. He said based on the lowest 3 percent
designation, there would be one or two districts and 17 schools
categorized as low-performing.
SENATOR FRENCH commented that DEED had come up with some odd
designations.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if DEED would separate schools within a
district to classify which were low-performing.
8:17:25 AM
MR. MORSE answered correct.
SENATOR DAVIS asked what the definition was for low-performing
schools.
MR. MORSE answered that a low-performance designation was based
upon annual trends from the Adequate Yearly Progress report.
MR. RICHMOND responded that a low-performing school was defined
by statute AS 14.03.123.
8:19:38 AM
MR. RICHMOND said AS 14.03.123, section (3), subsection (h),
would be amended to allow DEED to invoke 12 improvement actions
for a low-performing school or district to undertake.
He said action (1), provided an "education coach." He said
action (2), provided an in-depth audit to review where financial
resources were being directed. He noted that Judge Gleason
stated from the Moore Case that there was no financial oversight
of what was going on in the districts and this would provide
some financial oversight. He said action (3), directed school
boards to use state and federal funds for critical needs. He
said action (4), provided incentives to attract highly qualified
teachers or principals.
8:21:23 AM
MR. RICHMOND said the action (5), provided additional training
and technical assistance for guardians and parents of children,
teachers and schools. He said action (6), was based on the Moore
Case to target resources to assist students who do not pass the
High School Qualifying Exam. He said action (7), directed school
boards to identify model curriculum, textbooks, material and
supplies. He said districts would not be told which curriculum
to use, but they would be directed to identify the most
appropriate curriculum. He noted that Judge Gleason stated a
need for rural school districts to receive greater technical
support for selecting its own curriculum.
He said action (8), empowered DEED to interpret performance data
to assist school boards to develop and implement a plan. He said
action (9), assigned a technical assistance team to work with a
district.
8:25:04 AM
He said the action (10), established instructional and learning
environment benchmarks for schools or districts to meet. He said
action (11), directed the establishment of learning-cohorts in
school that required continuous monitoring of student
performance by teacher groups. He said teachers working in
isolation would receive additional peer support. He said the
action (12), provided better training to school boards through
the Alaska Association of School Boards.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if school board responsibilities were
being changed. He commented that he did not recall text book
approval being part of the responsibilities for a school board.
MR. MORSE answered yes in some districts. He said curriculum was
statutorily a local function and the bill would cause school
boards to be more involved.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked how the 12 improvement actions were
developed and were they modeled after programs in other states.
MR. RICHMOND answered that the actions were gleaned from
legislation in the states of Michigan, Connecticut, Texas and
North Carolina.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked to confirm that adjustment to the 12
improvement actions was possible.
MR. RICHMOND answered yes.
8:29:13 AM
MR. RICHMOND said subsection (i), stated that an academic
performance audit would be administered for the two years
following a low-performance designation. He said subsection (j),
identified the audit criteria in the areas of curriculum,
assessment, instruction, learning environment, professional
development and leadership. He said an examination must include
the following: student demographics; mobility patterns; school
feeder patterns; strategic allocation of resources; high
standards and expectations for all students; high level of
collaboration and communication; frequency of monitoring of
learning and teaching; high level of family and community
involvement; alternative secondary schools best practices; and
any unique circumstances or characteristics of the school or
district, including substance abuse and other social factors.
8:33:35 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked that the term "degree of" be used in the
wording for audit performance criteria to clarify measurable
criteria.
MR. RICHMOND responded that revisions would be made.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS noted that some of the audit performance
criteria were based on the Moore Case and the bill was a
starting point.
8:35:31 AM
SENATOR FRENCH responded that the audit performance criteria
were great factors that just required language clarification.
MR. RICHMOND said AS 14.03.123, section (4), was amended with a
new section that established a process by which a local
community could have a say in the revitalization of their school
district. He said DEED would initiate the revitalization
designation if a school or district had gone three consecutive
years as low-performing without improvement. He said
revitalization would continue until a school or district earned
its way off. He said the school board would receive assistance
to develop and implement a revitalization plan. He said support
would be provided to maintain federal and state aid eligibility.
He said superintendents involved in revitalization would receive
support from a cohort comprised of two additional
superintendents from similar districts. He said the
superintendent cohort would meet regularly with a report
submitted nine months after revitalization designation.
8:37:36 AM
SENATOR FRENCH commented that he liked the idea, but was
concerned with rural travel time and cost factors. He asked how
often superintendents would meet.
MR. RICHMOND answered that input from superintendents would be
helpful.
SENATOR FRENCH commented that he understood the benefit from
peer group support. He said he was worried how the
superintendent cohort would be implemented.
8:39:04 AM
MR. RICHMOND said a school or district that has not been
designated as a revitalization school or district may request
the establishment of a governance council. He said a request may
be submitted prior to the revitalization designation.
SENATOR STEVENS said he was concerned that the governance
council would take responsibility and power away from the
elected officials on the school board.
MR. RICHMOND answered that the school board would appoint the
governance council.
SENATOR STEVENS asked to clarify that the school board would not
ask for the governance council.
MR. RICHMOND answered correct.
SENATOR STEVENS asked to confirm that a school district would
request the governance council and not the school board.
MR. RICHMOND answered correct.
8:41:45 AM
SENATOR STEVENS commented that he believed that action would go
against our history of public education.
MR. RICHMOND responded that the intent was not to demolish our
standards of election. He said the objective was to provide new
ways for low-performing school districts to change.
SENATOR STEVENS replied that the public elects the school board
to make decisions. He said what was proposed in the bill was a
revolutionary thought.
MR. RICHMOND responded that people who work in rural districts
were asking for additional support.
SENATOR STEVENS replied that electing new school board members
was the current system to bring about change.
MR. RICHMOND answered correct.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS commented that some school boards were lacking
in the ability to understand and implement some of the changes.
He said the intent was to work with school boards and allow them
to appoint some of the governance council members.
8:44:17 AM
MR. RICHMOND asked Senator Stevens to clarify his comment on the
governance council concept.
SENATOR STEVENS responded that he had concerns with allowing
nonelected individuals to make education decisions.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS said Senator Stevens' concerns would be noted.
SENATOR FRENCH commented that there could be a potential
management clash between a governance council and a school
board.
MR. RICHMOND said AS 14.03.123, section (4), subsection (c),
addressed a school board's guidelines to establish a governance
council. He said the council would be composed of one school
board member, four parents or guardians, four community leaders,
two teachers, one DEED member, one to four principals or
designees of schools in the district and the superintendent or
designee from the superintendent cohort.
8:47:04 AM
MR. RICHMOND said subsection (d), allowed smaller districts to
have less council members. He said subsection (e), specified
that terms would be two years and no member would serve more
than two terms.
He said subsection (f), specified that a governance council
would work in conjunction with DEED and the superintendent
cohort. He noted that "school board" would be added to the prior
statement.
SENATOR STEVENS commented that adding "school board" to the
language was advisable.
MR. RICHMOND said the governance council shall: analyze school
achievement data and needs; review the superintendent cohort
report; participate in principal and school administrative
interviews; assist the principal in making programmatic and
operational changes; develop a compact to partner with parents
and legal guardians; work with DEED if intervention was
required; prepare a revitalization model from recommendations
made for review and vote. He noted the importance of involving
family and community in the governance council process per Judge
Gleason's summation from the Moore Case.
8:51:11 AM
MR. RICHMOND said subsection (g), specified that a governance
council may assist the principal with reports pertaining to the
education plan goals and major policy matters affecting the
school He said matters relating to collective bargaining
agreements with teachers were excluded.
He said subsection (h), specified that the school board and DEED
would provide appropriate training to aid the governance council
members with the execution of their duties.
He said subsection (i), specified that a local school board had
30 days to conduct a public hearing and acceptance vote after
the governance council announced the completion of a
revitalization model. He said the school board may elect to
maintain the current status or select an alternative
revitalization model. He noted that DEED could ultimately decide
whether to implement the revitalization model recommended by the
governance council or the school board.
8:54:35 AM
He said subsection (j), specified that DEED would monitor
schools and districts within two years of the school board's
revitalization model approval. He said demonstrable progress
would be monitored via the following indicators: the
revitalization model adopted, the number and type of
disciplinary incidents, the number of truants, the dropout rate,
the student attendance rate, the average HSQE scores, the number
of high school students completing advanced coursework, the
teacher retention rate and the existence and size of the parent-
teacher organization.
He said subsection (k), specified that DEED would make audit
finding available to the audited school district and staff, the
local community, and the State Board of Education and Early
Development.
MR. RICHMOND said section (5), required DEED to present a
revitalization report to the legislature's standing education
committees. He said subsection (b), established a sunset clause
on or before January 1, 2018.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS commented that it became apparent that change
was needed after discussions with the low-performing districts.
He said the Moore Case came up with a variety of suggestions
that need to take place. He admitted that some of the
suggestions sounded a bit dictatorial. He said SB 194 was a
starting point and additional information and advice was
important.
8:57:31 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS said he would hold SB 194 in committee.
8:57:44 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Co-Chair Thomas adjourned the Senate Education Standing
Committee meeting at 8:57 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB0194A.PDF |
SEDC 2/13/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 194 |
| SB194-EED-TLS-2-10-2012.pdf |
SEDC 2/13/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 194 |
| AS 14.03.123.pdf |
SEDC 2/13/2012 8:00:00 AM |
|
| SB 194 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SEDC 2/13/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 194 |