Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
01/20/2016 08:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Alaska Measures of Progress Testing; Every Student Succeeds Act | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
January 20, 2016
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Senator Mike Dunleavy, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Berta Gardner
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Liz Vazquez, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Colver
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative David Talerico
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
All members present
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Lora Reinbold
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: ALASKA MEASURES OF PROGRESS TESTING; EVERY STUDENT
SUCCEEDS ACT
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
LEE POSEY, Federal Affairs Counsel
Education Committee
National Conference of State Legislature (NCSL)
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA).
LISA SKILES PARADY, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Related information about the Alaska
Measures of Progress (AMP).
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the Alaska Measures
of Progress (AMP).
MARGARET MACKINNON, Director
Assessment and Accountability
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the Alaska Measures
of Progress (AMP).
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:39 AM
CHAIR MIKE DUNLEAVY called the joint meeting of the Senate and
House Education Standing Committees to order at 8:01 a.m.
Present at the call to order were Senators Huggins, Giessel,
Stevens, Gardner, and Chair Dunleavy, and Representatives
Seaton, Vazquez, Colver, Drummond, Kreiss-Tomkins, Talerico, and
Chair Keller.
^PRESENTATION: Alaska MEASURES OF PROGRESS TESTING; EVERY
STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT
PRESENTATION: ALASKA MEASURES OF PROGRESS TESTING; EVERY STUDENT
SUCCEEDS ACT
8:02:04 AM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY announced that the first order of business would
be a presentation on the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),
followed by a presentation on the Alaska Measures of Progress.
He introduced the members of the committees. He noted that the
meeting was informational only.
CHAIR KELLER introduced the first presenter, Lee Posey, from
NCSL, a bipartisan group. Chair Keller opined that ESSA is part
of the problem, not part of the solution due to the ever-
increasing control of education by the federal government. He
said he was especially interested in hearing how the state's
rights have increased. He said ESSA goes into effect in August.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY noted the arrival of Representative Drummond.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY commented that today's topics are important and
it is Alaska's responsibility to provide the best education for
its students.
8:06:31 AM
LEE POSEY, Federal Affairs Counsel, Education Committee,
National Conference of State Legislature (NCSL), provided
information on the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). She began
by informing the committee about the reauthorizing of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to No Child Left
Behind (NCLB), in 2002. She said it is NCSL's opinion that NCLB
pushed the pendulum of control too far to the federal
government. There were many problems from a state perspective.
She listed some of the problems with NCLB: federally mandated
targets for school achievements and interventions for not
meeting those requirements and mandated 100 percent proficiency
in reading and math by 2014 measured by the Adequate Yearly
Progress requirement. She said in order to get out of NCLB
requirements, states had to seek onerous waivers from the U.S.
Department of Education. In addition, the Race to the Top grants
tied funding to common academic standards and assessments and
other federally mandated policies.
8:10:20 AM
MS. POSEY continued to describe the path of the reauthorization
of NCLB to ESEA. The U.S. House and Senate passed
reauthorization bills the summer of 2015 and then a conference
committee adopted a conference report on November 19, 2015. It
was signed into law on December 10, 2015.
She read a quote from the Wall Street Journal referring to ESSA
as "... the largest devolution of federal control to the states
in a quarter century."
8:13:12 AM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY recognized Representatives Reinbold and Gattis in
attendance.
MS. POSEY described what was in the bill for the states. The
bill provided for state legislative involvement, prohibitions on
federal authority, and a new approach for accountability with no
more Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Each state department of
education must now consult with its legislature before
submitting a Title I plan to the U.S. Department of Education.
She listed what the federal government is prohibited from doing
under ESSA. It cannot dictate standards or assessments. She said
there is a new approach for accountability and no more AYP.
8:16:48 AM
She detailed the implementation timeline from ESEA to ESSA. ESEA
flexibility waivers ended as of 8/1/2016. State plans will be
developed in the 2016-2017 school year and will be fully
implementation in the 2017-2018 school year. There will be
continuing regulation and guidance from the U.S. Department of
Education regarding ESSA. Competitive funding for FY 2016 will
flow under current law; FY 2017 dollars will flow through ESSA
provisions.
8:20:43 AM
MS. POSEY described a new approach for state-designed
accountability. There are some required indicators, such as
academic achievement measured by proficiency on annual
assessments or by another measure such as academic growth. Other
required indicators are the progress of English Language
Learners and a measure of school quality and student success.
For high schools, graduation rates are also indicators.
States must now weigh the academic measures more heavily than
the other indicators and will also need to incorporate test
participation in their accountability system.
She commented on the new role of assessments. The NCLB
assessment schedule remains. There is hope that if the tests are
less "high stakes", there should be less concern. She said that
a statement of parental "opting out" is included; however, 95
percent of all students must be tested. There is still a risk
that Title I funds could be withheld if that percentage is not
met. Alaska's Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED) is going to continue to look at the 95 percent
requirement. Local education authorities may choose to use a
nationally recognized high school assessment, such as the SAT or
ACT. States may also seek to form a consortia with other states.
She added that Alaska may take advantage of the federal
assessment grant and do an audit of test data.
8:27:48 AM
MS. POSEY turned attention to the issue of equity in education
for all students. She listed the provisions regarding subgroups
of students. States must continue to disaggregate data by
student subgroup. State accountability systems must identify any
school in which a subgroup of students is consistently
underperforming for target support and improvement.
She addressed which schools require intervention: schools that
are in the bottom five percent, any high school failing to
graduate one-third or more of their students, and any school in
which a subgroup of students is consistently underperforming.
Under ESSA, local education authorities will design an evidence-
based plan to turn those schools around and the effort will be
monitored by the state. The schools will be identified every
three years and exit criteria can be included in the plans. The
state would step in after four years of no progress, but are
given no mandates regarding solutions. She noted this area was a
place of compromise when ESSA was written.
8:31:35 AM
MS. POSEY related the kind of support states have under ESSA for
schools and students. There are new Student Support and Academic
Enrichment (SSAE) grants. These grants have three purposes: to
provide all students with access to a well-rounded education,
improve school conditions for student learning, and improve the
use of technology in order to improve the academic achievement
and digital literacy of all students. She suggested that this is
an area that Alaska can make use of. Alaska is estimated to
receive $8,003,000 in FY 2017 (source: FFIS). This amounts to
0.5 percent of total available SSAE funding.
8:34:29 AM
She addressed Title I issues. Portability is not included in the
bill, but there's a weighted student funding pilot that could
allow some districts to experiment. There is no formula change
to date. Accountability provisions for English Language Learners
were moved to Title I from Title III.
8:35:51 AM
She described Title II changes: the formula for Part A grants
were amended and the hold harmless allotment will be gradually
eliminated by FY 2023. She shared how the change would affect
Alaska.
She described other programs in ESSA, such as Education of
Migrant Children, Education of Neglected, Homeless, or
Delinquent Youth, language instruction for English Language
Learner and Immigrant Students, Impact Aid, Rural Education, and
others.
8:37:40 AM
MS. POSEY talked about Early Education Provisions and Preschool
Development Grants totaling $250,000,000 per year. She noted
there are also some permissive uses for various Title programs.
She concluded by offering to answer questions.
8:39:36 AM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY asked why a state would want to accept ESSA.
MS. POSEY explained what would happen if a state did not accept
the provisions in ESSA. Some states have looked into the
implications of not accepting federal funding for education and
all the programs that would be affected. No state has decided
not to accept federal funding.
8:41:24 AM
SENATOR STEVENS pointed to a conflict between the allowance of
parents being able to opt their student out of testing and the
mandate to test 95 percent of students. He asked whether the 95
percent is calculated by school, district, or whole state.
MS. POSEY clarified that the calculations are done for local
education agencies and the whole state. She thought that at the
high school level it might be hard to get 95 percent of students
tested. She agreed there was a conflict. The state would have to
come up with a plan should the 95 percent not be reached. There
was a big push to get students whose parents did not allow them
to take the test, to not be included in the 95 percent, but that
did not happen.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY asked which rate would be used, the school's, the
school district's, or the state's.
MS. POSEY said the district's rate and the state's rate.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY gave an example of a school that had zero
participation, but the district met the 95 percent goal.
MS. POSEY reiterated that the department is monitoring the local
education authority rate and the state rate.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY gave an example of a school where many parents do
not want their students to take the test. He asked what the
federal reaction would be.
MS. POSEY replied that the federal government's goal is to test
all students in order for the test to be valid. She agreed that
there is a conflict in the two policies.
8:46:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to examples of indicators of
accountability, such as advanced courses in place of testing. He
asked if a program like Alaska Native Science and Engineering
Program (ANSEP) would qualify.
MS. POSEY said it could. Other courses such as AP courses could
be included in a plan as an indicator.
CHAIR KELLER pointed out that the accountability system in
Alaska is as a result of NCLB and is run by federal regulation.
He asked if most states are the same. He suggested that deleting
accountability laws would be a daunting task.
8:50:12 AM
MS. POSEY related that some states feel that few changes to
their regulations will be needed, whereas, some states do not
agree with that. There is flexibility in ESSA, but also
expectations of standards and statewide assessments. She
concluded that there is time for states to review statutes.
CHAIR KELLER referenced the grants which go directly to
districts, bypassing the legislature. He wondered if there is
room for changing that process.
MS. POSEY noted that it was difficult on the federal level to
get recognition that legislators have a role in looking at Title
I grants. It is a choice that state legislatures can make
because ESSA recognizes the state's role in the process. She
said every state is different and has its own rules about
federal funding.
8:54:58 AM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY pointed out that Alaska's Constitution requires
that the legislature establish and maintain a system of public
schools.
He asked if, under ESSA, the state has to base its standards on
the Common Core model.
MS. POSEY said no; ESSA states that standards do not have to be
a particular kind, but must be "challenging academic standards."
CHAIR DUNLEAVY restated that Alaska is not compelled to have
standards based upon the Common Core model.
MS. POSEY agreed.
8:56:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked how much flexibility states have
when creating assessment models and whether they can use "off
the shelf" tests.
MS. POSEY said the state is not required to use a particular
assessment, but it must be used statewide. There is a peer
review process at the department level that will look at
assessment models. There is flexibility to look at alternative
methods of assessments, such as portfolios or competency-based
models.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY requested that DEED and the Alaska State Board of
Education work closely with the legislature on ESSA. He handed
the gavel over to Chair Keller.
8:59:03 AM
At ease.
8:59:08 AM
CHAIR KELLER followed up by noting the significance regarding
the difference between federal guidance and federal regulation.
He requested that Ms. Posey keep in contact with the state on
that topic. He said the Alaska State Board of Education will be
monitoring the reform of the state's accountability under ESSA,
if that is the direction the state chooses to go.
He noted since the beginning of ESEA in 1965, expenditures in
education have doubled and graduation rates are flat. He asked
Ms. Posey what she sees in ESSA that gives her hope.
MS. POSEY said she looks at ESSA as a reform effort to reduce
federal overreach and for the state to look for new ideas and to
have the flexibility and responsibility to improve education.
9:02:46 AM
At ease
9:04:09 AM
CHAIR KELLER introduced the topic of Alaska Measures of Progress
(AMP) and Lisa Skiles Parady to present it.
9:05:08 AM
LISA SKILES PARADY, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators (ACSA), related information about Alaska Measures
of Progress (AMP). She reported on the ACSA/superintendent
working group's meetings regarding its position on assessments
and AMP, and the need to work closely with districts on the AMP
process. She read the Alaska Superintendents Association's
statement:
Alaska Superintendents demand and support a strong
system of accountability. We will not support an
assessment program that is developed without our input
or that does not inform student instruction. The
Alaska Superintendent Association (ASA) has been and
continues to be ready to share its educational
assessment expertise to collaboratively develop an
effective, comprehensive assessment framework that
accurately reflects student learning that is useful in
guiding and informing student instruction.
The credibility of the Alaska Measure of Progress
(AMP) has been called into question because it does
not meet this criteria. More specifically, "The AMP
information is not intended to be used to make
instructional decisions…" (Achievement and Assessment
Institute, University of Kansas, 2015).
A state level assessment is a condition of Alaska's
waiver from the requirements of No Child Left Behind.
Due to the testing vendor's failure to provide
credible reports, it is necessary for the state to
pause its implementation of the current accountability
system, including the 2016 administration of AMP. It
is in the best interests of Alaska's students that
DEED initiate a comprehensive and collaborative review
of the entire system. Alaska's students deserve a
system of accountability that accurately informs both
classroom instruction and public understanding of
student achievement.
She noted that Commissioner Hanley has reached out to ACSB and
the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) has
been working on this difficult issue.
She reported that during the first working group meeting, they
addressed questions about assessment, data and reporting,
process, and the need for district input. The second meeting was
on January 4 and a timeline was set and outcomes developed.
9:11:10 AM
MS. SKILES PARADY reported on feedback from a survey of
superintendents regarding AMP. She shared the questions on the
survey and preliminary results. She read several comments by
superintendents, which varied. She reported that eleven
districts requested to testify before the legislature on AMP and
she noted that ACSB is aware of test scores and trends.
9:17:35 AM
CHAIR KELLER thanked Ms. Skiles Parady for her organization's
work. He introduced Commissioner Hanley and requested a brief
overview of the challenges AMP has had so far.
9:18:04 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), provided information on the Alaska Measures
of Progress (AMP).
MARGARET MACKINNON, Director, Assessment and Accountability,
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), provided
information on the Alaska Measures of Progress (AMP).
COMMISIONER HANLEY agreed with Ms. Parady's assessment of AMP
and ESSA. He noted challenges of Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) and agreed it was "a necessary adjustment, but not
sufficient." He said ESSA has some flexibility, but also
requires significant accountability measures in order for the
state to receive federal funding.
9:22:18 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY provided the background of AMP. He referred
to the process that led up to the new state assessment. He said
it began in 2009 at an education summit where Alaskans called
for a review of reading, writing, and math standards. Those new
standards were adopted in 2012 and were the impetus behind
requiring a new assessment. The new standards are very similar
to Common Core standards and have high expectations.
He explained that the purpose of an assessment is to show how
students are progressing. The shift to new standards requires
time, training, and new curriculum. After three years the state
implemented a new assessment. The state procurement law dictates
how an assessment vendor is chosen. He described how the
Achievement and Assessment Institute (AAI) of the University of
Kansas Research Center was selected by an RFP evaluation
committee as the assessment vendor.
9:24:48 AM
COMMISSIONER HANELY related that the RFP had to meet federal and
state requirements and he described the assessment system
components. AMP was designed to be a summative test for grades 3
through 10, and to be phased in, resulting in a wholly computer-
based test. Performance tasks were removed, and the state is
moving toward an adaptive test - which changes questions based
on a student's skills. It allows a better assessment of a
student's achievement level. That test will be fully developed
by spring 2018.
9:27:42 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY described the optional testing tools
available to districts. An interim assessment can be given
several times a year to check student progress, and formative
resources or instructional tools will be available to teachers.
He spoke of the first administration of AMP, which was given
during a 5-week window from March 30 to May 1, 2015. The first
on-line administration of AMP was generally successful. He said
95.9 percent of students participated.
He related how the score ranges were established. Alaska
educators met in Anchorage to make recommendations on how well
students must do to meet the standards. The four levels of
standards are now eight levels and the State Board of Education
and Early Development adopted the test score range on October 9,
2015.
9:32:27 AM
COMMISSIONER HANELY discussed the reports for AMP and the data
release. The reports include a student report, a school &
district report, and a school & district summary report. He
addressed the concerns related to the reports. He pointed out
the issues related to the test results, included distribution
delays and reports lacking sufficient level of detail.
He explained the State Board of Education's involvement in
December of 2015 regarding the process of AMP testing. They are
working with superintendents and the vendor on resolving the
issues of concern. He detailed the actions and steps to
resolution. He commented on the positives of AMP, such as the
end of working under a NCLB waiver.
9:36:38 AM
COMMISSIONER HANELY shared the plan for 2016. He said AMP will
be used for the spring 2016 assessment. The issues of timely and
accurate reporting for 2016 tests will be resolved through the
use of a high quality subcontractor with reports delivered by
late June. Reports will be redesigned to provide more
information. Improvements have been made to the logistical
administration of the test, and any changes to the assessment
system for 2017 will be considered as part of the stakeholder
discussions.
COMMISSIONER HANELY stressed the importance of fixing AMP. There
is a federal and state requirement to have a state assessment.
There are no other options to meeting federal and state law if
the state dumps AMP. It would take six months to put out a new
RFP. He stated that he is determined to make AMP as good as
possible, beginning now, taking into account the flexibility
within ESSA.
9:38:46 AM
COMMISSIONER HANELY read from a letter he wrote to the U.S
Department of Education:
Alaska is a state of extremes; our districts are both
urban and rural, most are not connected to a road
system, the ethnic diversity is enormous, many
families still live a subsistence lifestyle, and
indigenous languages are sometimes the first language.
"One size fits all" does not work for Alaska. This is
particularly true for student assessment. We strongly
encourage allowing states maximum flexibility to use
multiple assessment tools with local school districts
having the option to select the best tool to measure
the progress of their students.
9:39:45 AM
CHAIR KELLER requested a copy of the letter.
He asked if there would be new money required to get through the
contract with the vendor.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said no. The contract is five one-year
contracts and is renewable on June 30 every year.
9:40:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked what happens if the state
does not have an assessment and fails to meet federal law.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY spoke of financial sanctions including loss
of $93 million in Title monies and about $300 million in total
federal money for Education Alaska.
CHAIR KELLER requested a report on the total amount of money at
risk.
9:42:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER questioned the idea of being stuck with
AMP and the statement that there was superintendent support for
AMP. He wondered why the state has to stick with the vendor and
AMP. He stressed that the legislature should look for other
options that would have the confidence of school districts. He
suggested implementing Measures of Academic Progress (MAP). He
expressed an interest in looking for solutions and moving
forward.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he is looking for solutions, as well.
He clarified that he does not feel he can ignore or unilaterally
not follow state and federal law. He pointed out that the state
is "stuck" only because there is no time to change assessments
and still follow the law. He emphasized that he is going to
follow the law.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked why the department is resistant to
using the test 37 districts are already using - MAP.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY explained that state procurement laws
require the department to put out an RFP and go through a
process. He said he does not have a resistance to MAP: ESSA
allows for an interim assessment and he is seeking feedback to
move in that direction.
9:46:15 AM
CHAIR KELLER suggested that under ESSA an audit can be paid for
by the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ wished to see an example of a student
report and a link to test questions. She noted Alaska students
are not performing to the standards and asked why the standards
need to be changed. She suggested more training to meet the
standards.
9:48:13 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY pointed out that the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) allows Alaska to compare itself to
other states. The NAEP expectations are much higher, which gives
the impression that Alaska scores were low. He agreed that
Alaska standards were low, or missing. However, 80 percent of
Alaska students were meeting Alaska standards; only 35 percent
of Alaska students were meeting NAEP standards. He shared the
need to change local expectations. He said he would be glad to
provide student reports and scores.
9:49:20 AM
SENATOR STEVENS shared his sympathy for the enormous problems
facing Commissioner Hanley. He opined that the department is on
the right track and should not get rid of AMP. He suggested that
the assessment be audited.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed. He said the vendor has been audited
at every step and will continue to be audited. He added that
there is a need to audit at the local level, as well.
9:50:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON drew attention to the the main complaint
he has heard - teachers do not receive adequate, meaningful
data. He asked if that would change and adaptive tests would
provide accountability.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY explained that the adaptive tests will not
be available until the 2017-2018 school year. However, the
vendor has committed to adding more questions to the current
test which would lead to better data on specific standards and
questions for teachers to use within their classrooms.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested communicating to teachers the
plan to have adaptive tests in order to provide useful data. He
noted there are interim assessments available and wondered if
they would be costly to the district.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY explained that they are part of the contract
and have no additional cost.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that those tests may be helpful
to teachers.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said those tests are still being developed.
He agreed that it is important to communicate with schools and
districts regarding all assessment tools.
9:54:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND voiced appreciation for computer-based
testing, but noted concern about the availability of computers
in some schools. She asked what is being done to ensure equal
access to the computer-based test.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that using computers has been left
up to local districts and paper and pencil tests are allowed.
The goal is to move toward all computer-based testing. It has
been a challenge because funding for technology has not been
included in AMP.
9:56:24 AM
SENATOR GARDNER asked why the state did not go with the MAP
vendor.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA)
that owns MAP did respond and came in second out of five
applicants. However, NWEA did not propose the MAP test because
ESSA requires an annual summative test, which they had not
developed. He said AAI had a test available that could be
modified for Alaska.
SENATOR GARDNER understood that the problem was not with the
test content, but with the administration of the test and the
reporting of the results with useful data.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed. He said the content has not been
questioned, just the use of reporting data.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ summarized that the concerns involved the
administration and not the content.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY clarified that there were only a few
glitches in administration. The problems related to the data
reporting after the test.
9:59:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER referred to a parent report of test
results. He asked when formative resources would be available,
what they are, and when they will be available.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said those resources are only used within
classrooms and are not included in the test report. This year
the goal is to have the best test data available without
changing the test.
10:01:29 AM
MS. MACKINNON related that several of the formative resources
have been developed and are available. Those "testlets" are
aligned to the standards. The bank of testlets is being expanded
and will provide data to the vendor with a goal of enabling
teachers to know how to group those testlets and to see
immediately how students perform. She offered to make those
available to the committee.
10:02:22 AM
CHAIR KELLER thanked the presenters.
10:03:23 AM
There being no further business to come before the committees,
Chair Dunleavy adjourned the joint meeting of the Senate
Education Standing Committee and the House Education Standing
Committee at 10:03 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| NCSL ESSA Presentation.pdf |
SEDC 1/20/2016 8:00:00 AM |
|
| NCSL ESSA School Supports.pdf |
SEDC 1/20/2016 8:00:00 AM |
|
| NCSL Lee Posey Bio.pdf |
SEDC 1/20/2016 8:00:00 AM |
|
| S&H Joint EDC 1-20-16 AMP Hearing.pdf |
SEDC 1/20/2016 8:00:00 AM |