Legislature(2015 - 2016)ANCH BENSON BLDG
12/07/2016 02:00 PM 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: Commissioner Johnson Department of Education and Early Development: Update on the Development of the Essa State Plan | |
| Presentation: Commissioner Johnson Department of Education and Early Development: the Implementation of Hb 156 | |
| 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
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Anchorage LIO, 1500 E. Benson Boulevard
December 7, 2016
2:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Jim Colver
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative David Talerico
Representative Harriet Drummond
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Senator Mike Dunleavy, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Liz Vazquez, Vice Chair
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Senator Gary Stevens
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lora Reinbold
Representative Shelley Hughes
Representative Sam Kito, III
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: COMMISSIONER JOHNSON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT: UPDATE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ESSA STATE
PLAN
- HEARD
PRESENTATION: COMMISSIONER JOHNSON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HB 156
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAEL JOHNSON, EdD, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with both EED presentations and
responded to questions.
SUSAN MCCAULEY, PhD
Education Policy Coordinator
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided both EED presentations, and
responded to questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
2:02:06 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY called the joint meeting of the House and Senate
Education Standing Committees to order at 2:02 p.m.
Representatives Keller, Colver, Drummond, and Talerico; and
Senators Dunleavy, Huggins, and Gardner were present at the call
to order. Representative Seaton and Senator Giessel arrived as
the meeting was in progress. Representatives Hughes, Kito, and
Reinbold were also in attendance.
^Presentation: Commissioner Johnson Department of Education and
Early Development: Update on the Development of the ESSA State
Plan
Presentation: Commissioner Johnson Department of Education and
Early Development: Update on the Development of the ESSA State
Plan
2:02:26 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY announced that the first order of business would
be a presentation by Commissioner Johnson, from the Department
of Education and Early Development (EED): Update on the
Development of the ESSA [Every Student Succeeds Act, 12/10/15]
State Plan.
2:03:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out the importance of putting
parents in the "driver's seat," as regards their child's
education, which he expounded, is the thrust of Sec. 1, in HB
156. The bill provides a third law in the educational statute
series contained in AS 14.03. The first law establishes public
schools, the second sets forth purpose, and HB 156 provides the
third by addressing parental control. Additionally, the
deletion [Sec. 5, (c)(5)] is significant as a means for keeping
parents in the loop by removing the language that required EED
to conform to federal law.
2:10:40 PM
MICHAEL JOHNSON, EdD, Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development (EED), introduced himself and turned the
presentation over to the Education Policy Coordinator.
2:12:00 PM
SUSAN MCCAULEY, PhD, Education Policy Coordinator, Department of
Education and Early Development (EED), established that the
State Board of Education (board) and EED do not hold, or desire
to hold, ESSA [Every Student Succeeds Act, 12/10/15] and federal
education rules, as the vision for public education in Alaska.
Referring to AS 14.03.015, she paraphrased the section to
underscore the purpose of education in Alaska, which reads as
follow:
It is the policy of this state that the purpose of
education is to help ensure that all students will
succeed in their education and work, shape worthwhile
and satisfying lives for themselves, exemplify the
best values of society, and be effective in improving
the character and quality of the world about them.
2:14:11 PM
DR. MCCAULEY said a mission statement was newly adopted by the
board, to assist educators in upholding the education policy, to
wit: "An excellent education for every student every day." The
board has also revised the strategic priorities, focusing on
five key points, which are to: increase student achievement;
inspire community ownership of educational excellence; modernize
the education system; ensure excellent educators; and promote
safety and well-being. Specific, actionable goals are being
created to address each of these priorities. When speaking
about ESSA, she said, it is necessary to ensure that the state
priorities and the federal law are complimentary and not in
conflict. Much of HB 156 is synchronous with aspects of ESSA,
which enjoyed a high level of bipartisan support as a vehicle to
supplant the widely unpopular No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
[2001]. Laws typically state what is required and infrequently
state what is not allowable, but ESSA is full of prohibitions,
she pointed out, and opined that it represents a direct response
to the "bureaucratic, one-size-fits-all, and heavy handed nature
of No Child Left Behind."
2:16:51 PM
DR. MCCAULEY reviewed the evolution of the national approach for
education reform beginning with the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), 1965. The goal of ESEA was to improve the
quality of education for low income students. It is
periodically reauthorized by Congress, which resulted in the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) version that was in effect from 2002-
2015. "For all intents and purposes," she said, "It became a
system of puppet schooling, with prescribed metrics that were
imposed on all schools in the country." The Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) is the most current reauthorization and was
signed into law on December 10, 2015. It authorizes states to
control the majority of educational decision making, which was
withdrawn under NCLB. Residing under Title I, are three key
elements, she continued, which are: standards and assessments;
accountability; and school support and improvement. The
approach the department is taking, in establishing the state
educational plan in concert with ESSA, is to lay a foundation
that will provide the maximum benefit for Alaska's students and
ensure that the plan represents what Alaskans value the most for
their children. To that end, the department and board have been
meeting with stakeholders and engaging in conversations meant to
inform the plan. The development process is reliant on
participation from diverse audiences, practitioners, and
leaders. Thus, some decisions are still being formulated and
formalized, pertaining to the requirements of the key elements
being presented today.
2:19:38 PM
DR. MCCAULEY proposed to address each key element by first
visiting what ESSA requires, identifying how it differs from
what was held by NCLB, and reviewing Alaska's status for meeting
the requirement, as held in statute. Beginning with education
standards, she said ESSA requires assurance that states have
adopted challenging academic content standards in English
language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science, and that the
adopted standards are aligned with public college and relevant
Career Technical Education (CTE) entrance requirements. The
major difference between ESSA and NCLB, throughout, is what the
U.S. Department of Education (USED) is not allowed to mandate.
Thus, for this element, it prohibits the Secretary of Education
from: exercising authority over states' standards, requiring
states to submit their standards for review, or incentivizing
the adoption of any particular set of standards. Alaska's
current status shows that ELA and mathematics standards were
adopted in 2012 and science standards and grade level
expectations were last revised in 2006. In this ongoing
process, the department will continue collaborating with the
board, as it considers adoption/revision of standards.
2:22:00 PM
DR. MCCAULEY addressed the assessments aspect, stating that ESSA
requires annual content assessments for ELA, mathematics, and
science. The ELA and math assessments are to be conducted
annually in grades 3-8, and at least once in grades 9-12. The
science assessments are to be administered at least once in
grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. The differences from NCLB are:
states can use a single summative assessment or multiple interim
assessment to produce a summative score; districts may choose to
use other "nationally-recognized high school assessments" rather
than the state's assessment - with state permission; states are
allowed to establish their own laws regarding "opt-out"
provisions; and ESSA maintains a 95 percent assessment
participation rate, but consequences for not meeting the
requirement are to be determined by the state. Alaska's current
status shows that assessments are being annually administered in
ELA and mathematics in grades 3-10 and in science in grades 4,
8, and 10. Thus, continuing the status quo will meet the
requirements of ESSA.
2:24:40 PM
DR. MCCAULEY continued with the committee handout page titled,
"Key Element 2: Accountability," page 18, and said ESSA
provides that the state will determine an accountability system
using requirements that must: "meaningfully differentiate"
school qualities and student achievements; have ambitious state-
designed long-term goals for all students and traditional
subgroups such as economically disadvantaged and ability
challenged; include five required indicators; include additional
indicators at the state's discretion; weigh the academic
measures more heavily than the other indicators; and incorporate
a participation factor of at least 95 percent. The five,
required ESSA accountability indicators must show: academic
achievement as measured by proficiency on state assessments -
what percent of children are proficient; another measure of
academic achievement, such as student growth from year to year
to indicate movement towards proficiency; high school graduation
rates; a measure of school quality or student success and
recognition of a measure of non-academic achievements; and
measure of progress in learning English for English learners.
The final two requirements are newly added indicators. Under
NCLB districts were required to submit adequate yearly progress
(AYP) reports, attain standardized metrics, such as 100 per cent
student proficiency by a date certain, and the Secretary of
Education was allowed to prescribe aspects of the accountability
system. Currently the Alaska's status for accountability
includes the Alaska School Performance Index (ASPI), and a
summative star rating for schools on a 1-5 scale. The ASPI
elementary/middle school indicator percentage weightings for
students in grades K-8 are: school progress 40, academic
achievement 35, and attendance at 25. The percentages for high
school are: school progress 40, academic achievement 20,
graduation rate 20, college and career ready 10, and attendance
rate 10. She said that, should the board choose to retain the
star system, the measures, with little alteration, are in
keeping with ESSA standards; however, the star system itself is
not a requirement.
2:31:`03 PM
DR. MCCAULEY said the ESSA requirement for "Key Element 3,
School Support & Improvement," [handout page 25] directs states
to identify schools that require comprehensive support. Schools
to be identified are Title I facilities that rank in the lowest
five percentile, and any high school with a graduation rate of
less than 67 percent. However, ESSA provides vague guidelines
to indicate what constitutes comprehensive support - a departure
from the prescribed interventions dictated under NCLB which
included steps for replacing the administration and faculty.
Additionally, any school in which a subgroup of students is
consistently underperforming, must be targeted for support;
however, the state is given with the responsibility for
identifying what constitutes a consistently underperforming
school and the best means for providing support. The strategies
the state undertakes to fulfill these requirements, are to be
evidence-based; another significant departure from NCLB's
research-based approach. By removing prescribed interventions
and employing an evidence v. research based approach, the
department and districts are allowed a welcomed latitude of
flexibility. Alaska's current status, she explained, is that
the agency has been identifying "focus and priority schools,"
monitoring school improvement plans, and using the State System
of Support coaching model to assist the lowest performing
schools. All of this was put in place to comply with NCLB
requirements and to be consistent the NCLB waiver.
2:34:39 PM
DR. MCCAULEY addressed the topic of what to expect with the new
administration, quoting from department advisors who report,
"There's no appetite in Congress for revisiting ESSA;" - it has
garnered bipartisan support, it includes appropriate guardrails
while providing adequate flexibility, and the developers would
like to see implementation given a chance. The U.S. Department
of Education has issued draft regulations and EED has gathered
and submitted public comments in response to key areas. The
first issue addressed was the timeline for implementation.
Next, a move was made to require an overall summative rating,
such as the star rating, to which objections were noted. She
said, "It's not that we think that's a bad idea, necessarily, we
just don't think that the U.S. Department of Education should
tell us to do that, if the law doesn't require it." The final
area for comment was graduation. The law is not prescriptive
regarding the use of a 4-year graduation rate. The initial ESSA
draft regulations did not permit a 5-year graduation period,
referring only to an extended year graduation. The 5-year
allowance is integral in Alaska, particularly for schools that
serve special populations, where it can be used as one of the
comprehensive support possibilities. She provided examples of
how the 5-year graduation allowance works in Alaska's
educational matrix, to stress its importance. These concerns
were raised and comments were submitted to USED. The final ESSA
regulations were released on 11/28/16, and the revisions
reflected all of the expressed concerns: the implementation
timeline has been delayed by one full school year, now 2019; the
summative rating was made optional; and the 5-year and extended
year graduation rate was accepted for special populations. Dr.
McCauley explained that, although the regulations won't go into
effect until 1/31/17, pending review by the incoming Secretary
of Education, Alaska's issues of concern have been addressed and
incorporated. Further, there is general, widespread acceptance
for ESSA, and the expectation is that the latest version
received by EED is what will go forward for full implementation.
2:40:08 PM
DR. MCCAULEY reviewed the decision points that have not been
finalized in each of the key elements, beginning with standards
and assessments. Consideration is being given to high school
assessments, and whether one or more grade levels should be
tested. The law only requires testing of only one grade level,
but the choice is up to the state. Regarding accountability,
she said the size for a subgroup is being questioned, as well as
what measures to apply in determining school quality and student
success. A subgroup size is limited under ESSA to 30 or less,
but Alaska currently has subgroups with as few as 5 students.
The number of small schools across the state makes the
appropriate determination of a subgroup size crucial, for
accountability purposes. Apropos to school support and
improvement, she stressed that determinations need to be made
regarding what will be perceived as most helpful and what
innovative approaches will best support school improvement, as
well as meet Alaska's unique opportunities and challenges.
2:42:50 PM
DR. MCCAULEY expanded on the process used for developing
Alaska's state plan, which include: incorporating work
generated from ESSA stakeholder groups to help prepare tribal
organizations, school districts, parent groups, and
associations; consistent agency consultation with a broad
representation of education stakeholders; use of focus groups at
various events/meetings across the state; formation of topic-
specific work groups to identify ways and means for meeting the
new requirements; draft plan delivery geared for March, 2017,
with September as the delivery target; continued efforts to seek
broad input to complete the draft; engagement of, and approval
by, the board regarding related regulations; and consultation
with the legislature, as required by law. Dr. McCauley finished
by providing images of the EED website and describing how to
access the ESSA information page, which the department is
maintaining for the public's edification and comments.
[Chair Keller assumed the gavel.]
2:47:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD recalled that the federal common core
standards were called the Alaska academic standards, and are now
known as the college and career academic standards which, she
opined, are all virtually identical, and USED mandates a student
participation rate of 95 percent on the assessment. She
referred to the committee packet and the department handout
titled, "Joint Meeting of the House & Senate Education
Committees," [39 numbered, undated pages] page 10, to point out
that, in accordance with "Key Element 1," assessments are to
align with college entrance requirements and asked what specific
tests are being considered.
2:49:00 PM
DR. MCCAULEY responded that the law requires Alaska's standards
be aligned with college entrance requirements but does not
specify an assessment. Alaska has accomplished this requirement
by having UA review the K-12 standards. It determined that any
Alaska, public school graduate, by meeting the standards, will
be prepared to take college, credit bearing classes. She
stressed that there is no requirement for a particular score on
a specific assessment, neither was the university's review
linked to a specific assessment. In further elaboration, she
said the university received no prescription, nor was one
required under ESSA, in evaluating the standards and arriving at
its determination. The intent behind the requirement is to
eliminate learning gaps and ensure that public school graduates
will be well prepared when they enter university. The public
schools and postsecondary institutions are supposed to be
working in concert to ensure a student's preparedness, she
reiterated, and underscored that the standards must align for
that reason. Thus, there is no prescription under ESSA to
accomplish that end, but assurances need to be made to the USED
that college readiness is the goal and can be met.
2:52:20 PM
CHAIR KELLER asked [due to technical difficulties, Chair
Keller's question was not captured on the record.]
DR. MCCAULEY said there is not a set process in regulation;
however, there is a requirement in statute for EED to establish
standards, as well as the federal expectation. She said it is
necessary to consider what Alaska's process will be for
measuring the requirements and standards.
CHAIR KELLER commented [due to technical difficulties, Chair
Keller's comment was not captured on the record.]
2:53:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, recalled that the University of Alaska
(UA) practices an open enrollment policy, and has reported that
every year a percentage of Alaskan graduates require remedial
classes. He asked whether the criteria UA used to comply with
ESSA was designed to eliminate the need for remedial courses.
2:54:34 PM
DR. MCCAULEY said yes, and explained that a committee was
convened to assure that the standards aligned with Alaska's
postsecondary expectations and that graduates would be ready to
enroll at college in credit bearing, non-remedial courses.
2:55:21 PM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY noted that many UA students enroll nation and
international locales. Considering the transient populace, he
asked how it would be possible to eliminate education gaps
between K-12 and college level study. The system is not
unified, he opined, nor was it ever intended to be, as the
college level is entirely different. He asked whether there is
an expectation that, by adopting certain standards at the K-12
level, by the time a student enters college "they should do
fine, and if not, what happens, or whose fault is it, or where's
the responsibility." He posited that a differentiation should
be made between remedial and developmental as being two very
different concepts. Perhaps the concept is to create K-12
feeder schools to universities, he conjectured.
DR. MCCAULEY offered that the thrust is to ensure that high
school graduates choosing to enter college will be prepared to
enroll in credit bearing classes. The new law stipulates that
the K-12 academic standards need to be in line with relevant CTE
standards. This is a new requirement, she pointed out and
opined that it speaks to [the federal government] not holding
the perspective that K-12 institutions are feeder schools to
universities, but rather establishes a goal to ensure that
graduates are prepared to pursue any chosen postsecondary
program or the work force.
2:58:05 PM
SENATOR GARDNER directed attention to the handout, page 30, to
ask whether Alaska's schools were invited and participated in
developing the state plan.
DR. MCCAULEY deferred comment and offered to provide further
information.
2:58:57 PM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY recalled that the initial federal team, which
worked to establish the Secondary Education Act (ESEA), 1965,
called for the bypass of state governments and viewed state
legislatures as a hindrance, particularly in relation to the
civil rights movement. He posited that this is an attitude
still held today, despite the law requiring governmental
consultation, and asked, "Under ESSA, what does that
consultation look like?"
DR. MCCAULEY responded that the law is not prescriptive, and
stated:
It says consultation with the legislature, and that
language is included in a paragraph that requires
consultation with a whole lot of entities: parents,
administrators, teachers, the governor, state boards
of education - the legislature is in that list ...,
but it doesn't say at all what that needs to look
like.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY opined that ambiguity resides in the
[reauthorized ESEA] bill and asked what the department's
approach will be for interpreting any vagueness. He suggested
that a minimalist view would be to leave off any actions that
aren't required, allowing maximum flexibility for state
initiatives. Using subgroups as an example he said:
The question would be why would we want to have any
subgroups at all if we don't have to, or why would we
not want to minimize those subgroups and why would we
want to maximize those subgroups.
DR. MCCAULEY said the department began engaging stakeholders in
the planning process as early as March 2016, which was not a
requirement, thus, in some cases, the agency has already
exceeded federal consultation law. She said there has been no
indication, from any of the state educational entities including
the legislature, that a minimalist consultation approach is
expected, and opined that focusing on what the state entities
anticipate will be sufficient for keeping with federal
requirements.
3:02:36 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS returned to the strategic priorities, committee
handout page 4, to highlight the third and fourth points.
"Modernize the education system," he said, "that's an 800 pound
gorilla; I hope you're serious about that." The fourth point,
[to] ensure excellent educators, may be difficult considering
the national forecast that educators are soon to be in short
supply, he said, and predicted, "You're going to be getting warm
bodies." The state has little prerogative as far as the
qualification/production of quality teachers. The tenant that
is most important for the state, however, is that the
responsibility to educate, as was established under NCLB, has
now been significantly changed to include educational authority.
It's important that the department exercise that authority and
get on with [achieving the strategic points.] Education in the
state is now "accountable to ourselves," he stressed, and it's
important to be candid, frank, and honest, without camouflage,
as to what is being accomplished. The educational outcomes in
the state will be the fault of all involved whether students
excel or not and can no longer be attributed to an unworkable
system - NCLB. Alaska's scholar program is a prime example of a
failed system, with a large number of students not completing
college despite their way being paid, he finished, and said the
possibilities under ESSA are exciting.
3:08:15 PM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY turn to the handout, page 10, and the
requirement to have standards and assessments align with college
entrance requirements to ask whether university requirements
have changed recently. He pointed out that the entrance
requirement to UA may or may not involve holding a high school
diploma, as there may be other avenues for entering the system.
DR. MCCAULEY answered that ESSA is not specific and allows the
state to make college ready determinations.
3:10:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked how many pages comprise ESSA.
DR. JOHNSON responded that it is over 300 pages without
references, and including the references it is 1,000 pages.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER conjectured that, given its volume, ESSA
may well be specific on how to relate and receive feedback from
stakeholder groups; noting that it would only be fair to extend
standards to all entities. Regarding the regulations of ESSA,
he suggested that it is on the agencies back to gather
information that reflects what the sovereigns of the state
desire. Such information, he opined may best be obtained via
the legislators who represent their constituents interests and
EED may want to use legislative resources to ensure equal access
to entities across the state.
DR. MCCAULEY said that the public comment process permits any
entity to submit feedback on the draft regulations directly to
EED. In addition, the agency assembled an advisory committee
for the purpose of ensuring representation comprised of peers,
principals, and superintendents. The department's final comment
was based on that input, but did not include conversations with
legislators. The public comments were not developed behind
closed doors in Juneau, she stressed.
3:15:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD queried whether EED, or the state board,
are able to completely change the standards; does ESSA provide
that level of freedom.
DR. MCCAULEY answered yes, full discretion is allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that the AMP (Alaska Measurement
of Progress) assessments have been a challenge and the new
assessments still need to be fair, reliable and valid. She
questioned how a home school, international, or students new to
the state might be impacted, when trying to enter the UA system.
Finally, she asked whether ESSA presents any additional costs to
the state.
3:17:45 PM
DR. MCCAULEY assured the committee that the requirements held by
the state, to provide assessments that are valid, reliable, and
of high technical quality, remain in place. For any students
who are schooled outside of Alaska's public system, the age
level standards and achievements are available.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD restated the question: will students
who are not a product of the state public system, not having
been through the assessments, be able/eligible to enter the
university system.
DR. MCCAULEY said not necessarily, and explained that the
requirements are in place for students who have attended public
school in Alaska exclusively; not those who prepared for college
via other means. Regarding additional costs to the state, Dr.
McCauley contrasted the costs of the NCLB flexibility waiver
with ESSA. The provisions under NCLB, and the NCLB waiver that
caused consternation are completely absent from ESSA, she said,
and provided two examples: 1) NCLB required teachers to obtain
highly qualified status, which necessitated a great deal of
record keeping, reporting, and planning; and 2) the NCLB waiver
required evaluation systems that used student performance data.
She opined that there are no requirements contained in ESSA that
will result in unfunded mandates, new requirements, or
complicated systems, as was the case under NCLB and the waiver.
3:22:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the key element for
school support and improvement, pages 25-27 of the handout, to
report that there is a current movement away from applying
evidence-based criteria, and replacing it with research-based.
Evidence-based is restrictive, he noted, and best applied to
"randomized control experiments or designed projects." The
national conference for state legislators, which he recently
attended, spoke to this specific topic, he said and expressed
concern whether this facet of the EED strategy is in keeping
with the latest approaches, unless the department is defining
the term differently for this application. If not redefined, he
posited, its use would be restrictive and run contrary to the
flexibility that EED is espousing.
DR. MCCAULEY said the department's intent is to move away from
the heavy hitting technical requirement of research-based to a
softer evidence-based requirement. Under NCLB unless the
intervention methods or support strategies used a strong
research-base approach, the U.S. Department of Education would
disapprove the action. An evidence-based approach allows
latitude for strategies that indicate a likelihood of improving
student achievement. There will need to be some evidence that
the action will attain the intended outcome, but there is no
need to reach the threshold requirement of a random controlled
trial. It's perceived that the [research-based] requirement
impedes innovation that might likely result in significant
improvement.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the federal terminology,
discussed at the conference, was exactly the opposite as it
relates to health department, and he asked to have EED ensure
that it is being applied appropriately for education purposes.
3:25:00 PM
CHAIR KELLER asked what evidential source could be applied to a
strategy. For example, he said, could the teacher coaching
program, widely used in Alaska, be supported by anecdotal
evidence and receive federal approval.
DR. MCCAULEY said the new regulations indicate that the state
can make determinations and approvals for intervention
strategies. State determined intervention strategies must be
supported "to the extent practicable by the strongest level of
evidence." Thus, she pointed out, vagueness exists - what does
practicable mean - but the sentiment is clear that there should
be some evidence of effectiveness without restricting
innovations that could be useful.
3:27:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that, for the majority of
research where reference is made to the strongest level of
evidence, it relates to randomized, controlled trials. He
underscored the need to explore how these terms are to be
understood in the field of education, given that it is opposite
when applied to the area of health.
3:28:40 PM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY noted the various ways for entering college
that wouldn't require a high school diploma, or other program,
that has been aligned with college entrance requirements. One
means is by taking college classes, while in high school,
similar to a junior college approach, but which may extend high
school for six to seven years because of the class level focus.
He asked whether such an approach would be allowable under ESSA.
DR. MCCAULEY explained the waiver structure, which EED submitted
under NCLB for use as an alternate graduation metric for
specific alternative schools; allowing for an extended, 5 year
graduation period and alleviating any punitive aspects attached
to a late graduation. The same will be allowed under ESSA, she
opined.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked what assessment approaches the department
is considering, and suggested various existing, low cost,
established assessments that should be available.
DR. MCCAULEY deferred response to the HB 156 section of the
presentation.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY posed another question for that section of the
presentation regarding any penalties a school might receive if
it doesn't achieve a 95 percent testing quota due to parents
opting their students out of assessments.
3:34:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said the flexible graduation rate has
been beneficial for special populations, and asked whether the
metric can be applied to comprehensive high schools to track
graduates in a similar way.
DR. MCCAULEY said that, as per ESSA requirements, the four year
graduation rate must be used unless a school is serving a
special population and justification has been made to USED.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND opined on the need for a five year
graduation rate, and that it exists outside of alternative
programs. Perhaps a comprehensive high school could qualify an
identified subgroup.
DR. MCCAULEY stressed that the degree to which the state
supports students to graduate is important, as well as the
accountability to the federal government. The law makes
frequent references to four year and extended year graduation,
which, she opined, is a move in the right direction. The
required caveats are for schools which serve special populations
and schools where special justification has been provided.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND indicated interest in exploring the
flexibility options beyond alternative schools.
3:38:36 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:38 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.
^Presentation: Commissioner Johnson Department of Education and
Early Development: The implementation of HB 156
Presentation: Commissioner Johnson Department of Education and
Early Development: The implementation of HB 156
3:45:18 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business would be
a presentation by Commissioner Johnson, from the Department of
Education and Early Development (EED): The Implementation of HB
156. [Contains discussion of HB 156 passed into law without
governor's signature 7/28.16.]
3:45:46 PM
SUSAN MCCAULEY, PhD, Education Policy Coordinator, Department of
Education and Early Development (EED) provided a review focused
on the sections of HB 156 with target actions for EED. She drew
attention to Sec. 5, which requires a comparison of Alaska's
public school system to public schools in other states. The
department is still in the process of determining how this will
be approached. Expectations are being clarified as to whether
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests
will suffice, or if other assessments need to be considered.
Moving to Sec. 7, she said special recognition is to be given to
school's based on overall improvement and performance.
Recognition measures are not required under ESSA, but will be
incorporated into the accountability aspect of the state plan.
3:47:19 PM
DR. MCCAULEY continued with Sec. 8, of HB 156, and referred to
AS 14.03.123 (f), which reads: Standards-based assessments must
be selected with the input of teachers and school administrators
and minimize disruption to classroom instruction. The process
for selecting new assessments included a great deal of
stakeholder input, she said. The section provides flexibility
for the department and alleviates it from the state procurement
processes, she explained, and detailed how the new assessment
selection was undertaken to comply with HB 156 requirements.
Considerable time was focused on minimizing the disruption that
assessment instruction and administration can cause in the
classroom schedule. The proctoring method chosen will allow
districts to choose from computer-based or paper-based
assessments and allows schools to set specific schedules for
testing while allowing flexibility within the testing window.
Neither of these facets are going to be prescribed to districts
by EED, she underscored.
3:50:25 PM
DR. MCCAULEY paraphrased Sec. 9, AS 14.07.020(a), which reads:
"The department may consult with the University of Alaska to
develop secondary education requirements to improve student
achievement in college preparatory courses." She reported that
there has been increased partnership with UA, as directed by the
State Board of Education and the Board of Regents, in an effort
to strengthen the alignment between the two educational systems.
She described how the agencies are interacting, in light of HB
156, and said that, of primary consideration, has been how to
reduce the number of UA students needing developmental
coursework.
3:51:14 PM
DR. MCCAULEY paraphrased additional language from the same
section and statute, which reads: "The department may consult
with businesses and labor unions to develop a program to prepare
students for apprenticeships or internships that will lead to
employment opportunities." She reported that the EED
commissioner, the president of the statewide chamber of commerce
and the UA president, have been involved in conversations
focused on ways and means to promote internship/apprenticeship
opportunities in the business community and how to provide
students with opportunities to learn and earn credits outside of
the traditional high school or college classroom settings.
3:52:10 PM
DR. MCCAULEY paraphrased from Sec. 10, AS 14.07.175, which
reads:
The department may not require a school district or
school to administer a standards-based assessment
after July 1, 2016, and before July 1, 2018. The
department and the board shall create a plan for
working with school districts to develop or select
statewide assessments that are approved by school
districts. The plan must provide for the first
administration of the assessments not later than the
school year that begins in 2020. ... The department
shall require a school district or school to
administer a statewide standards-based assessment if
the United States Department of Education provides
notice that it intends to withhold all or a portion of
the state's education funding as a result of the
department's compliance with this section.
DR. MCCAULEY said the department is moving forward to offer a
standards-based assessment to districts, consistent with the
language in HB 156, allowing districts the choice of
administering assessments. Districts annually sign assurances,
when applying for federal funds, which contain a statement that
a standards-based assessments will be administered. It will be
the district's prerogative whether or not to sign the
assurances; to date, all districts have signed the statement.
The bill makes it very clear that EED cannot require a district
to administer an assessment and, if the decision is made in
favor of assessing, parents have the right to choose whether or
not to have their student participate. The U.S. Department of
Education (USED) has confirmed that the state is required to
administer an assessment, and the department is offering the
choice to the districts. The requirement was waived by the
federal government, by agency request, for 2016 without
consequence; however, USED expressly stated its expectation that
Alaska would resume compliance in 2017.
3:54:40 PM
[Due to technical difficulties a dialogue exchange between
Representative Colver and Chair Keller was not captured.]
3:55:05 PM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked for clarity on the federal assessment
requirement and compliance by the department.
DR. MCCAULEY said the department agreed to offer a standards-
based assessment to districts.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said:
As part of accepting the [federal] grant, we have to
administer an assessment. ... But parents are under
no obligation to force their children to take the
assessment. ... Will school districts be threatened
in any form or fashion, coerced in any form or
fashion, or made to feel bad ... if there are a number
of parents in a specific school that choose not to
send their children to school that day to take the
assessment; yes or no.
DR. MCCAULEY replied, "No."
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if the federal government has threatened
the state or school districts with penalty, monetary or
otherwise, should students not participate in the assessment.
DR. MCCAULEY said the answer depends on the definition of
threatened: ESSA holds that schools, districts, and states will
assess at a participation rate of 95 percent. The rate is to be
factored into the state accountability system. The federal law
is vague regarding consequences for non-compliance. The ESSA
regulations indicate that a state will use one of four methods
to respond to test participation rates that fall below the 95
percent threshold: 1) the summative performance rating of a
school may be lowered; 2) the school may be identified to
receive targeted support and improvement measures - although
targeted support and improvement is not defined under ESSA; 3)
the school's academic performance indicator may be lowered one
level; or 4) a consequence may be imposed based on a state
determined action that is sufficiently rigorous and described in
the state plan.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY noted that ESSA contains no indication that
federal funding will be jeopardized if a parent decides to not
have their student take the test. He asked for assurance that
there will be no concern, notes home or finger pointing, if only
5 students in a class of 30 are in attendance to take the
assessment.
DR. MCCAULEY said, "No."
3:58:58 PM
CHAIR KELLER predicted that the Department of Law may become
involved.
3:59:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER expressed concern regarding the
administration and procedures surrounding assessments. It has
been the norm, he said, for other school work to be disrupted
for perhaps several weeks to accommodate the proctoring of
assessments. Additionally, the resulting score can be
acquainted to being a speedometer reading versus identifying
specific areas where a student needs to improve. He asked what
the department's plan is for providing a meaningful assessment.
DR. MCCAULEY explained that state law defines the purpose of
assessment, which is to inform policy level decision making for
the improvement of student learning. One of the problems with
the last assessment, she opined, is that the department
attempted to make it be everything to everyone. Inadvertently
and unintentionally, the state assessment was basically
competing with the local level assessments, which are better
able to provide specific student information; far better than a
state level, summative assessment. The department then moved to
develop reports to provide useful data, however, the statutory
purpose for assessment is for policy level decision making and
general accountability. The districts already have in place
highly valuable tests that inform classroom instruction
insights. However, she assured, lessons have been learned
regarding what the state summative assessments should and should
not do to meet state law, without being overly burdensome or
creating a duplication of effort, and which will render valuable
data for state reporting purposes. The flexibility provided by
HB 156, removing the requirement for the department to obtain an
assessment via the state procurement process, is very helpful to
this end, she stressed.
4:03:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented on the need to hold education
sovereign within the state, versus responding to dictates from
the federal government, and opined on the failures of the
national approach to education since 1965. Assessments occur in
a window period, she noted and asked about the implementation of
a standardized opt-out procedure. Further, she requested that
copies of correspondence between EED and USED be made available
to committee members for their own interpretation.
DR. MCCAULEY responded that EED is not developing a standardized
opt-out procedure for districts. She opined that doing so would
be inconsistent with HB 156, which requires local school boards
to establish policies and procedures to permit opting-out by
parents. Districts will choose different methods for
approaching this topic, and she suggested various means that may
be instituted at the local level.
4:06:29 PM
CHAIR KELLER agreed that the bill language directs local school
districts to establish and standardize opt-out procedures. He
indicated his interest in having a future response for how this
requirement is being addressed by districts and the department,
and pointed out that there is no consequence for non-compliance
included in the statute.
4:07:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned to the ESSA requirement that
schools, districts, and states will assess students at a
participation rate of 95 percent, to be factored into the state
accountability system. He noted that one action for non-
compliance would be that a school with an academic performance
indicator could have their star rating reduced from a four to a
three or three to a two, say, and asked to have the other three
possible actions repeated.
DR. MCCAULEY reiterated that the school may be identified for
targeted support and improvement measures, that it receive the
lowest performance level on the academic indicator portion of
the metric, or be subject to a state determined action that is
sufficiently rigorous and described in the state plan.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if there is anything being
contemplated for inclusion in the state plan.
DR. MCCAULEY responded that the department has not determined
which of the four options will be chosen as a means for
complying with the ESSA requirement.
4:09:19 PM
SENATOR GARDNER directed attention to the committee handout,
page 33, and paraphrased the final bullet point, which read in
part: "Comparisons with some other states are possible with our
new assessment." She queried how an assessment, uniquely
crafted for Alaska, will allow comparisons to be drawn with
other states in terms of student performance.
DR. MCCAULEY answered that the new assessment is not used
exclusively by Alaska. She said it's possible that a metric
calibration will be available, and said the parameters for the
assessment are still be formed. A question is whether the new
assessment options will be superior to NAEP, given that NAEP is
administered in all 50 states. Determinations are being made,
she emphasized.
4:10:36 PM
CHAIR KELLER interjected that HB 156 inserts compliance language
regarding a requirement that has long existed. He opined that
NAEP could be an appropriate assessment, but the board and EED
will choose the mechanism for compliance.
SENATOR GARDNER agreed that NAEP would be appropriate, as a
national assessment, and suggested that the bullet point would
be more accurate if it read, "Comparisons with some other states
might be possible with our new assessment," as the possibility
has yet to be ascertained.
4:11:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND referred to the committee handout
titled, "Enrolled HB 156 Sectional Analysis," [unnumbered] page
2, provided by Chair Keller's office, and paraphrased the
language, which read:
Section 10. Adds a new section prohibiting the
department from requiring a school district or school
to administer a statewide standards-based assessment
after July 1, 2017, and before July 1, 2019.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND pointed out that the EED committee
handout, page 38, reads: "... after July 1, 2016 and before July
1, 2018. She questioned the inconsistency on these dates and
expressed concern for the length of time that will have lapsed
between the state proctored, standards-based assessments. She
opined that there may be a lack of data available to guide
policy decisions.
CHAIR KELLER pointed out that all the school districts have
agreed to take statewide assessments.
DR. MCCAULEY said it appears that the sectional analysis
document may be incorrect, and concurred that the law doesn't
prohibit the department from administering assessments, but
rather prohibits the department from making assessments a
requirement.
4:14:06 PM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY voiced that the impetus for HB 156 serves as a
reminder to the federal government that the state is in charge
of education for the people of Alaska. Services provided by the
department are to the state, not the federal government, he
reminded, and said, "When in doubt, ... err on the side of the
people of Alaska; when in doubt, work with the representatives
on the educational matters; ... work with us; side with us."
CHAIR KELLER echoed the final sentiments offered by Senator
Dunleavy and thanked the day's participants.
4:15:29 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committees, the joint
meeting of the House Education Standing Committee and Senate
Education Standing Committee was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|