Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/11/2006 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Education Financing | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 11, 2006
9:01 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Lyda Green convened the meeting at approximately 9:01:42
AM.
PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Co-Chair
Senator Gary Wilken, Co-Chair
Senator Con Bunde, Vice Chair
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Donny Olson
Also Attending: ROGER SAMPSON, Commissioner, Department of
Education and Early Development; LES MORSE, Director, Division of
Assessment and Accountability, Department of Education and Early
Development
Attending via Teleconference: There were no teleconference
participants.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
[Note: Due to computer malfunctions only the first and last
timestamps are connected to the For The Record (FTR) audio
recording. The other timestamps are for indication purposes only.]
^Education Financing
9:01:35 AM
Presentation on Education Financing
By Commissioner Roger Sampson
Department of Education and Early Development
9:02:12 AM
ROGER SAMPSON, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development, utilized a PowerPoint presentation titled "Alaska
School Performance Incentive Program" [copy on file.]
Slide 1
Alaska School Performance Incentive Program
Measuring Individual Achievement
Mr. Sampson began as follows.
I hope to share with you today a concept and a program I'm
very excited about the potential and the impact it can have on
students in Alaska.
It's titled, "Alaska School Performance Incentive Program" and
clearly this program is about "incentifying" for educators and
paying when we can accelerate student learning much more
rapidly than currently exists. We're talking about as a
program that provides an environment for great student
achievement. We're talking about targets being based on
growth, which is much different than many other models. I'm
going to talk extensively about "wide growth" and why this is
the real leveling factor and balancing factor.
It's about providing an opportunity to use the tremendous
expertise that exists in our schools today in Alaska. We have
some fantastic educators with great skills, innovative ideas,
but fostering the environment to have them work together
towards a common goal.
9:04:05 AM
Slide 2
What is the Program?
· Performance incentive pay for improved student
achievement
· Entire staff in a school receive incentive (all or
none)
· Target based on growth, or sustained advanced
performance of student achievement
· All schools qualify if they meet growth target
· Based on a reliable tool aligned to the Grade Level
Expectations
· Program is unlike merit pay programs which cause
conflict rather than cooperation
Mr. Sampson:
It's about impacting an entire staff of a building. This is a
very different component that I'll speak in detail about. It's
not about one teacher versus another; it's about an entire
school, an entire staff working together to where they either
succeed as a team or they don't hit the mark as a team.
It would be available for every school. Not just some schools;
not just large, not small, not just rural, not urban. It would
be available for any school that hits the target. So it's not
like grading on a curve. It's grading on a standard.
It's based on a reliable tool that's aligned to Alaska's grade
level expectations. And it's about building partnerships with
both people within the building, outside of the building and
doing things differently than we have done day in and day out
over the past decades.
This is a program about increasing accountability.
9:04:12 AM
Slide 3
Why have the Program?
· Accelerate growth in student achievement
· Stimulate the educational system by using a proven
private sector concept
· Utilize and empower expertise within the schools to
work together for the benefit of Alaska students
· Increase return on Alaska's investment in public
schools
Mr. Sampson:
The first question that comes to mind is "Why have this
program?" I think there's some real critical needs for a
program like this. One, we have to find a way to accelerate
student growth and student achievement in this state as we do
across the nation.
Yes, we've had some great increases in the number of students
showing proficiency in reading, writing and mathematics. But
we also know that the bar and the need for students to know
more and be able to apply those skills is increasing every
single year. So we need a methodology that accelerates this
achievement level.
We need a way to stimulate the educational system to use a
proven, private sector practice. Now not every private sector
practice is going to be effective in the public sector, but I
absolutely believe that this one does apply, can apply, and of
all the private sector practices to induce and stimulate
increases in hitting the targets, this is one that's probably
been used more in this country than any other particular
strategy. It's time that we give this an attempt in the public
sector.
It will empower schools and give them a reason to work
together. We need to capture that stability that we have in
many of our schools that are not certificated teachers. What
I'm talking about there is any many of our schools the great
connection between kids and adults might be between a student
and an instructional aide, might be between a custodian, it
might be between secretary, and clearly those individuals have
a different connection to parents in the community often times
than do teachers and principals. So we need to capture that
stability and that great connectivity there and use it in how
we accelerate student learning.
Any finally, we need a program like this because we need to
increase the return on Alaska's investment in public
education.
Slide 4
Benefits
· No risk program: no performance = no cost
· Create a strong workforce for Alaska
· Enhance teacher recruitment efforts
· Accountability: directly linked to high levels of
achievement
· Promote collaboration, effective instruction and
spread responsibility across grade levels and
content areas
· Involve all staff: currently in large high schools
only 15% of staff are responsible for reading,
writing and mathematics
Mr. Sampson:
Benefits to the program; this is my favorite part because the
benefits are great. Most importantly this is a program that,
if it's not successful, for a variety of reasons that I'll
talk about, if we're unable to move our students to advanced
levels of achievement than there is no liability or no cost to
the State. So it's a no-risk program to the State of Alaska.
We need to have the benefits of increasing the number of
students that graduate from Alaska schools with the skills
that prepares them to transition into the workforce, whether
that's vocational training, whether that's postsecondary
education, that's a benefit that I think this program will
provide.
It creates a strong workforce for Alaska. As we know we've got
many jobs that are not able to be filled by Alaskans right
now.
Another benefit to this program is it needs to enhance our
teacher recruitment effort. We have a national shortage we're
looking at. Alaska is not exclusive to that shortage. We have
two things that this would provide. One, I think this would
help Alaska attract the best and the brightest, while the
mentoring program will help us retain the best and the
brightest once we acquire them. So I think that's a huge
benefit for Alaska.
This is a program that links accountability directly to
student achievement. Something we've not had before. It
promotes collaboration, effective instruction and it spreads -
most importantly - it spreads the responsibility for the core
foundation contents: reading writing and mathematics, across
the entire staff.
If we look at a typical comprehensive large high school today,
we've agreed in this state and across this nation, that
there's three content areas that are core. Some states agree
there's more, but everyone agrees that reading, writing and
mathematics, or the ability to compute, are foundational
content areas. All of our students must have those. Right now
we are measuring those on an annual basis. If you look at the
comprehensive high school, there's only about 15 percent of
the staff that have direct responsibility for reading, writing
and mathematics. If these are core and foundational, and in
fact the student's ability to be proficient at those, has a
great impact on their ability to be successful in other
content areas: history, sciences, home economics, vocational,
a number of those courses, then everybody has to take some
responsibility for reading, writing and mathematics.
This program will help create the environment to spread that
responsibility across the entire staff. Every content area,
every grade level.
9:09:14 AM
Slide 5
Why Measure Growth?
· Focus on individual student learning
· Expect high performing and low performing students
to grow in achievement
· Provide visible and objective targets to meet
· Incentive for all school staff to team together,
think creatively, and design systems to improve
student performance
· Evaluate school performance
· Focus is on improving each student from where he
or she is to proficiency and beyond
Mr. Sampson:
This is a critical component of this project. This is about
"why measure growth" and "what growth to measure". This is
very different from what we put out every year under [the
federal] No Child Left Behind [Act] (NCLB) and schools that
meet adequate yearly progress. That particular model measures
groups of students and not the same group of students. It
compares a group of fourth graders from last year to a new
group of fourth graders this year.
This proposal is about measuring individual student growth -
every student in the school, every student in the state - and
comparing that growth of that student from current year to
previous year.
As Alaskans, we expect every student to grow and achieve.
Whether they're the lowest performing student or the highest
performing student, we expect growth from our kids. We don't
want them to become stagnant. That's one thing that NCLB has
missed: that kids go off the radar screen once they become
proficient. That's not acceptable to Alaskans. We expect
growth from all of them.
When you look at individual growth this begins to foster
meeting individual needs of kids. When you begin to meet
individual needs of kids, you have a whole different level
engaging from that student. When you meet individual needs of
students, you see changes in dropout rate for the better. You
see increases in graduation rates because kids begin to
understand how they fit into the system and their needs are
met.
If we don't focus on individual needs of students in this
program, based on data we get from assessment, then there's no
way that the school will be able to meet the performance
incentive. So it forces focuses instruction.
9:11:21 AM
Slide 6
How Growth is Measured
· How did "Student A" do in the current year compared
to the previous year
· How did all of the students perform within the
school
· Did the school demonstrate growth based on a
comparison of the same individual students from
current year to the previous year
Mr. Sampson:
How we're going to measure this growth. Again it's different
from NCLB because we're looking at every student. What we're
going to do is compare a "student A" for example, how that
student did this year compared to the previous year. We're
also going to look at how students perform within an entire
school.
We'll be able to break those groups of students down any way
we want with any factors. We could take just a certain grade,
we could take a certain ethnicity, we could take socio-
economic status because we have the ability with our unique
identifier to track those kids anywhere in the state by
groups.
We can also look, as we're proposing here, how that school as
a whole did from one year to the next working with the same
students not different students.
When we measure the same students from one year to another
this is especially important in Alaska because of our small
schools. If you don't measure individual students but
different groups, you get very distorted results in that the
smaller the school or the more mobile the population. So while
the group comparison seems to make sense on a national level,
it doesn't make sense many times for Alaska's small schools.
And finally, [the] most important part about measuring
individual growth, is when you measure individual growth, you
create an environment for the parent of those children to have
a meaningful dialog with school and school staff about how
their child's doing and how to enhance that.
9:13:04 AM
Slide 7
Value Table
[Table allotting points for the Current Year Level based
on the Previous Year Level as follows:
Current Year Level: Far Below Proficient Minus
Previous Year Level: Far Below Proficient Minus
Points: 0
Current Year Level: Far Below Proficient Minus
Previous Year Level: Far Below Proficient Plus
Points: 140
Current Year Level: Far Below Proficient Minus
Previous Year Level: Below Proficient Minus
Points: 170
Current Year Level: Far Below Proficient Minus
Previous Year Level: Below Proficient Plus
Points: 200
Current Year Level: Far Below Proficient Minus
Previous Year Level: Proficient
Points: 220
Current Year Level: Far Below Proficient Minus
Previous Year Level: Advanced
Points: 220
Current Year Level: Far Below Proficient Plus
Previous Year Level: Far Below Proficient Minus
Points: 140
Current Year Level: Far Below Proficient Plus
Previous Year Level: Far Below Proficient Plus
Points: 80
Current Year Level: Far Below Proficient Plus
Previous Year Level: Below Proficient Minus
Points: 40
Current Year Level: Far Below Proficient Plus
Previous Year Level: Below Proficient Plus
Points: 10
Current Year Level: Far Below Proficient Plus
Previous Year Level: Proficient
Points: 0
Current Year Level: Far Below Proficient Plus
Previous Year Level: Advanced
Points: 0
Current Year Level: Below Proficient Minus
Previous Year Level: Far Below Proficient Minus
Points: 170
Current Year Level: Below Proficient Minus
Previous Year Level: Far Below Proficient Plus
Points: 140
Current Year Level: Below Proficient Minus
Previous Year Level: Below Proficient Minus
Points: 90
Current Year Level: Below Proficient Minus
Previous Year Level: Below Proficient Plus
Points: 50
Current Year Level: Below Proficient Minus
Previous Year Level: Proficient
Points: 20
Current Year Level: Below Proficient Minus
Previous Year Level: Advanced
Points: 20
Current Year Level: Below Proficient Plus
Previous Year Level: Far Below Proficient Minus
Points: 200
Current Year Level: Below Proficient Plus
Previous Year Level: Far Below Proficient Plus
Points: 170
Current Year Level: Below Proficient Plus
Previous Year Level: Below Proficient Minus
Points: 140
Current Year Level: Below Proficient Plus
Previous Year Level: Below Proficient Plus
Points: 90
Current Year Level: Below Proficient Plus
Previous Year Level: Proficient
Points: 50
Current Year Level: Below Proficient Plus
Previous Year Level: Advanced
Points: 50
Current Year Level: Proficient
Previous Year Level: Far Below Proficient Minus
Points: 220
Current Year Level: Proficient
Previous Year Level: Far Below Proficient Plus
Points: 200
Current Year Level: Proficient
Previous Year Level: Below Proficient Minus
Points: 180
Current Year Level: Proficient
Previous Year Level: Below Proficient Plus
Points: 140
Current Year Level: Proficient
Previous Year Level: Proficient
Points: 100
Current Year Level: Proficient
Previous Year Level: Advanced
Points: 100
Current Year Level: Advanced
Previous Year Level: Far Below Proficient Minus
Points: 220
Current Year Level: Advanced
Previous Year Level: Far Below Proficient Plus
Points: 200
Current Year Level: Advanced
Previous Year Level: Below Proficient Minus
Points: 180
Current Year Level: Advanced
Previous Year Level: Below Proficient Plus
Points: 150
Current Year Level: Advanced
Previous Year Level: Proficient
Points: 130
Current Year Level: Advanced
Previous Year Level: Advanced
Points: 110
A notation reads:
Values may change as a result of 2006 data analysis,
public input, and State Board regulations.
Mr. Sampson:
This [value table] is the core of this whole proposal and
model. This is the equalizer, the balancer. This is what makes
it fair whether you're in a large school, small school, rural
school, urban school, school with high performing kids, low
performing kids, poor children, wealthy children.
There are six performance levels that are identified on this
value chart: Far Below Proficient Minus, Far Below Proficient
Plus, Below Proficient Minus, Below Proficient Plus,
Proficient, and Advanced.
Mr. Sampson outlined the point system awarded for those individual
students who achieved an increase in their proficiency, regardless
of the level. He stated:
This grid is designed so you can compare the previous year to
the current year. Obviously the goal is to take a student,
wherever they performed the previous year, and moving them one
or more performance categories up.
For a student who was advanced the previous year, it's quite a
feat to keep them advanced. So they would be awarded or valued
by staying advanced. That would be our expectation.
This value table is designed so it is not likely that a school
could focus on a single group of kids, such as, "Let's put our
attention on the group of students that are currently
proficient and let's try to move all of those students, or a
large percentage of those students, to advanced and not pay
attention to the other students." The value table is designed
to where if that approach was taken they would not be able to
reach a performance compensation level.
9:15:30 AM
Slide 8
Computing Index
[Spreadsheet listing ten hypothetical students and
corresponding Previous Year Level as follows:
Student A Proficient
Student B Below Proficient Minus
Student C Advanced
Student D Below Proficient Plus
Student E Far Below Proficient Plus
Student F Proficient
Student G Far Below Proficient Plus
Student H Below Proficient Minus
Student I Below Proficient Plus
Student J Advanced]
Mr. Sampson noted this and the following two slides are related in
that they demonstrate a progression in the calculation of scores
for individual students and the school.
Mr. Sampson:
We are able right now to take every student in Alaska who took
the State assessment last April. We would be able to place
them in one of six performance categories as we speak today.
9:16:33 AM
Slide 9
Computing Index
[Spreadsheet listing the same ten hypothetical students
as indicated in Slide 8 and corresponding Current Year
Level as follows:
Student A Advanced
Student B Below Proficient Minus
Student C Proficient
Student D Far Below Proficient Plus
Student E Below Proficient Minus
Student F Below Proficient Plus
Student G Below Proficient Plus
Student H Below Proficient Plus
Student I Below Proficient Plus
Student J Advanced]
Mr. Sampson compared the current year level of the same students
from the same school to the previous year level shown on Slide 8.
For example, Student A was deemed to be at the Proficient level the
previous year and improved to the Advanced performance level in the
current year. The progression of Student D was negative, from Below
Proficient Plus the previous year, to Far Below Proficient Plus the
current year.
9:17:32 AM
Slide 10
Computing Index
[Spreadsheet listing the same ten hypothetical students
as indicated in Slides 8 and 9 with the corresponding
number of points awarded based on the comparison of
current year proficiency level to the previous year level
as follows:
Student A 130
Student B 90
Student C 100
Student D 10
Student E 140
Student F 50
Student G 170
Student H 140
Student I 90
Student J 110
The spreadsheet also computes the "School Index Score" by
totaling the points for all the students and dividing the
amount by the number of students:
1030 / 10 = 103]
Mr. Sampson explained how the points are derived utilizing the
Value Table as shown on Slide 7.
Mr. Sampson pointed out that in instances in which a student was
scored less than 100, that student did not "get a full year's worth
of growth". A score exceeding 100 indicates that growth exceeded
the worth of a full year. The higher the number, the more growth
was achieved.
9:19:22 AM
Slide 11
Performance Levels
[Table listing the Growth Index Level based on the Index
Point Value as follows:
Growth Index Level: Strong= Index Point Value: 102-104.99
High = 105 - 107.99
Excellent = 108 - 109.99
Outstanding = 110 and Greater
A notation reads: Model is built on 100 as one year of
growth.]
Mr. Sampson spoke to the four performance levels as follows.
We looked at over 20 years of performance models, both in the
private sector and in the public sector. Quite frankly most of
them were in the private sector because that's where this
model's been used the most. And one of the theories there,
that they said were very important in making this model
successful is "you have to have more than one cut-off point or
one point of recognition and incentive". Multiple levels
generated different levels in more interest in employees to
change and shoot for those targets. So this reflects four
different compensation levels and performance levels.
The second column that says "Index Point Value" - that
represents the school score. In our example on the previous
page, a score for that school of 103 would have met a
compensation level; it would have met the first compensation
level called "Strong".
9:20:33 AM
Slide 12
Performance Level Incentive
[Table indicating the amount of compensation that would
be awarded to Certificated and Non-Certificated staff
based on the Growth Index Level outlined on Slide 11 as
follows:
Strong
Certificated: $2,500
Non-Certificated: $1,000
High
Certificated: $3,500
Non-Certificated: $1,500
Excellent
Certificated: $4,500
Non-Certificated: $2,000
Outstanding
Certificated: $5,500
Non-Certificated: $2,500
A notation reads: Multiple levels provide greater
incentive and achievable graduations, but recognize real
growth in achievement.]
Mr. Sampson explained this table reflects the value of compensation
for certificated and non-certificated. Non-certificated staff
includes secretaries, custodians, and teachers aides. The
compensation is based on the level of performance for the school.
Mr. Sampson:
This is always about a balancing act and this is what the
research said on these models. I know that there are people on
this Committee that have much more expertise on how it applies
to the private sector and models. The balancing act is always:
setting that first threshold, that first target, must be high
enough to where it's credible and meaningful and valued either
by the employer or by the citizens of Alaska. Yet it must be
realistic enough to where the people we're trying to
incentify, in this case, our school employees, that they
believe it's realistic and obtainable.
The other piece of the research that was very clear is this
model can fail if in fact the compensation is not great enough
to induce a desire to change. There's probably a lot of
thought right now thinking "my gosh, this could be
considerable dollars on a statewide level." When we address
the fiscal note on this I'll share what that looks like at
different levels. But I think importantly, the way we've
looked at this, remember, it's a no risk benefit to the State
- no performance no cost. If in fact, we have a large number
of our schools and our school employees who met the highest
level of compensation. I can't of a getting a greater return
on our investment in education than that.
9:22:58 AM
Slide 13
Expected Outcomes
· All staff have ownership of instruction and share
responsibility for results
· Incentive to work differently, embrace innovation
and create partnerships to improve student
achievement
· Accountability and incentive to cause all students
to reach proficiency and higher levels of advanced
achievement
Mr. Sampson:
What are the expected outcomes of this program? We expect
increases in proficiency in reading, writing, and mathematics
- those fundamental skills. We expect that we're going to see
those fundamental skills addressed across grade levels and
across content areas.
We believe that there will be actively seeking ways to enhance
those fundamental skills so that the content, while they may
not teach reading, writing or mathematics, they know it's
critical to share the information they have in their content
area and they know it's a target that they're teaming on as a
school as a whole.
We think it will create school-wide ownership of student
learning. Instead of being shared by not every staff member
right now.
I think that this is an incentive that encourages people to
work differently than they have worked: to work with
innovation, to do some real self-judgment on effective ways to
deliver in their own schools. This is not about one process
that will work in every school in the state. But this is about
creating the environment so that each school - their entire
staff - has a framework to develop a system that will work in
their school in their community.
It's about accountability. It clearly is about accountability.
And there's an incentive there to help each child to move
[from] wherever they're performing to a higher level of
performance. And those that are performing high, to keep them
performing high.
When students understand how reading, writing, mathematics or
whatever the skills and content are - when they understand how
it fits into life outside of the school and out of the
classroom, they soon value it and they become very good at it.
This model would produce those kinds of outcomes in my
opinion.
9:25:08 AM
Slide 14
Why Other Models Fail
· Not based on student growth
· Unrealistic targets
· Conflict among staff: Some must lose for others to
win
· Exclude building administrators
· Instrument used to measure is not reliable and
consistent
· Compensation not large enough to provide incentive
for change
· Weak commitment to the program
Mr. Sampson:
Why did other models fail? Whenever you say "performance
compensation" or "performance incentive" and you're talking
about public schools, everybody instantly goes to the "M
word": "merit pay". Merit pay has got more than 20 years of
history to it. It's at best had mixed results.
We looked at why models work in education and out of education
and we built this model trying to address every one of those
reasons that those models failed. So it's very important.
The first thing is that the models were not built on student
growth. They failed because they weren't built on growth,
which meant if you were a school or a teacher that happened to
have high performing kids, you automatically began with a
great advantage. This one's built on growth. [It] doesn't
matter where your kids perform. [It provides] equal
opportunity to raise them. It's the whole growth levels that
level the playing field from school to school, student to
student.
Another reason that these fail: they're unrealistic targets.
They were either too easy and not valued by the public or the
lawmakers of that state, or they were too difficult,
unobtainable, and people quit trying.
Other models created conflict from one staff member to another
staff member because they pitted one against one another. What
we're inducing here is collaboration, shared responsibility,
teamwork. This model is about bringing people together using
expertise across the curriculum, across content area and
across grade level for a common target result.
Other models failed because they didn't include the building
administrator. This model includes the administrator and all
staff.
Other models failed because the instrument used wasn't
reliable and wasn't applied consistently.
Other models failed because the compensation wasn't large
enough to bring about change; a desire to change, an incentive
to do things differently.
And finally, other models failed because there was a weak
commitment on behalf of the program. They started, they may
have worked great, there wasn't the commitment from either the
employer, or whoever [was] moving the program forward, to
continue that model.
This model that we're proposing addresses every single one of
the bullets of why other models failed.
9:27:59 AM
Slide 15
What Lies Ahead
· The final target or value table will be established
by examination of 2005 to 2006 assessment results
to create a baseline
· Once the incentive program is in place, then
motivation exists to accelerate academic
achievement beyond a year's growth
· The cost of the program will vary from year to year
Mr. Sampson:
We'll set final targets on the value chart when we get the
results in 2006. This April, we'll do the comparison. We'll go
through a cut scoring process to fine tune the numbers on the
value chart to make sure that the baseline that's created is
fair, consistent and level.
Once the program is adopted, and if adopted, then we can apply
that whole incentive piece. It will be there. We have no past
history of the impact of incentive on this program. So that's
a bit of an unknown. If we've set the targets correctly, we
think incentive will be great.
The cost of the program will vary from year to year because we
don't know the impact of that incentive. I hope that the cost
of the program escalates. But I hope that it escalates because
it's hitting substantial targets that are reflective of
students achieving more than a year's worth of growth.
9:29:06 AM
Slide 16
School Performance Incentive Program
· Based on growth in student achievement
· Empowers expertise of educators and school
personnel
· Includes all staff: all make it or no one makes it
· Based on an understandable system
Mr. Sampson concluded the presentation. It is time that the State
apply to the public sector, some of the effective strategies
employed by the private sector.
9:29:44 AM
Senator Bunde applauded the commissioner for the development of
this program that has significant potential. Senator Bunde spoke of
his own experience in the need to include the entire staff. He
relayed an instance in which a janitor of a school would, on a
regular basis, sweep the halls then sweep the dirt out the door as
the children were returning from recess. The message Senator Bunde
gleaned from this is that the students were dirtying the janitor's
school, rather than the janitor recognizing that the students were
indirectly supporting his job.
Senator Bunde also recalled instances where non-teaching staff,
including custodians, could connect with students and provide a
"friendly adult face" at the school.
9:31:06 AM
Senator Bunde asked if the Department of Education and Early
Development would determine the measurement of progress.
9:31:18 AM
Mr. Sampson affirmed.
9:31:23 AM
Senator Bunde asked if this program could be undertaken utilizing
existing staff and resources or whether more funding and positions
would be necessary.
9:31:32 AM
Mr. Sampson replied that the calculation of growth could be done
with current staff. If the program were implemented the Department
would be responsible for disbursing compensation for those schools
demonstrating growth. Additional personnel would be necessary to
issue payments. The timing between the completion of testing and
awarding of bonuses would be critical.
9:32:12 AM
Senator Bunde asked if any research had been conducted to determine
whether the proposed compensation amounts would be sufficient.
9:32:47 AM
Mr. Sampson had researched a number of school districts in the
Lower 48 that utilize monetary compensation for student growth and
achievement. The amounts awarded in those programs was reviewed and
compared against the successes and weaknesses of the programs. Some
districts offer considerably higher amounts than the highest amount
proposed in this presentation.
9:33:35 AM
LES MORSE, Director, Division of Assessment and Accountability,
Department of Education and Early Development, told of the Little
Rock school district in the state of Arkansas that paid as much as
$8,000. However, the average amount was between the range of $1,500
and $4,100.
9:33:57 AM
Mr. Sampson cautioned against failure due to inadequate incentive
for educators and school staff to change behavior. Conversely, the
program should not be a "give away" with insufficient goals.
9:34:20 AM
Co-Chair Wilken characterized the proposal as a "skeleton" to be
further developed. He appreciated the concept of investment,
asserting that if the benefits of the program do not exceed the
funds allocated to it, the program would be "nothing more than a
tar baby that we'll never get rid of."
Co-Chair Wilken was not interested in "reinventing the wheel". He
asked to what extent this proposal was modeled after other
programs. He noted that the State of Colorado has been operating a
similar program for six years.
9:35:14 AM
Mr. Sampson replied that this model is similar to the program
implemented in the State of Colorado in that it focuses on the
growth of students. However, the Colorado program includes only one
level of measured growth and does not include support staff.
9:35:45 AM
Co-Chair Wilken asked if the proposed plan is modeled after any
existing program.
9:35:56 AM
Mr. Sampson answered it is not.
9:35:58 AM
Co-Chair Wilken surmised it as "plowing new ground".
Co-Chair Wilken, referencing the Value Table on Slide 3, noted that
points were still awarded for a student who regressed one level.
9:36:55 AM
Mr. Sampson explained that a score of 100 equals one year of
growth. A student could slip from the Advanced level to the
Proficient level, but still learn more than expected in one year.
This is known as "regression to the mean". Maintaining one student
at the highest level year after year is difficult.
9:38:06 AM
Co-Chair Wilken asked if the "yardstick" measuring growth would be
valid, given the testing changes implemented in recent years.
9:38:27 AM
Mr. Sampson responded that the Department has no plans to change
the existing measuring methods. Currently two independent
evaluations are required by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act,
and are utilized in Alaska along with a third evaluation. These
studies agree that the methods are a valid and reliable tool for
measuring student growth.
9:39:25 AM
Co-Chair Wilken asked, based on the measurements of the previous
year, how schools would have rated if this program were implemented
a year prior and whether any schools' staff would have received the
incentive payments.
9:39:43 AM
Mr. Sampson replied that such calculations were made although he
stressed that the incentive factor could not be considered. If this
program were implemented the previous year, without the enticement
of the monetary awards, 19 schools would have qualified for the
highest level. However, flat student achievement was experienced
statewide. Some schools and some students achieved growth, but
overall, the students and schools did not advance.
9:41:15 AM
Co-Chair Wilken asked if the Department had considered implementing
this proposal as a pilot program for three schools since the method
is unproven. This could prevent excessive expenditures if the
program required alterations.
9:42:03 AM
Mr. Sampson asserted that he was "so strongly committed that this
would help Alaskan kids" that he was willing to consider all
options for implementation.
9:42:21 AM
Co-Chair Wilken asked if the bonuses would be subject to collective
bargaining.
9:42:31 AM
Mr. Sampson responded that the proposal is specifically structured
to exclude the incentive payments from bargaining as well as the
provisions of the Public Employees Retirement System and the
Teachers Retirement System.
9:42:51 AM
Co-Chair Wilken relayed his experience with commissioned employees.
He was amazed that after the turmoil of implementation of a
commission system, he found that the incentive extended beyond
monetary benefits. Employees took pride and ownership in their
duties. They cooperated with other employees and took greater
effort with customers.
Co-Chair Wilken suggested involving the students in this incentive
program by presenting an award, hosting a pizza party or providing
another form of recognition. He predicted such validation would
"light up their eyes".
Co-Chair Wilken looked forward to further developing this program.
9:44:51 AM
Senator Hoffman asked if the incentives would be paid for one year
or incorporated into the base salary.
9:45:12 AM
Mr. Sampson replied that the awards would be granted for each year
the school qualified. These payments would not affect salary or
terms of a negotiated contract.
9:45:23 AM
Senator Hoffman, noting the high turnover of teachers and
recruitment difficulties, speculated whether teachers would take
into consideration accepting employment at a school that received
past. He predicted that teachers would not choose to work at a
school that never achieved a rating sufficient for incentive
payments. He asked how this program would address the likelihood
that over time, certain schools would secure the best teachers and
the remaining schools would be "left behind".
9:46:39 AM
Mr. Sampson agreed that some schools would earn a higher level of
achievement. The reason a school is or is not meeting these
accomplishments should be determined. He anticipated that the
community, students, teachers and support staff would collaborate
to improve the school's score. Given the national teacher shortage,
this program would provide an advantage to this state in attracting
and retaining teachers. The value and process must be demonstrated
as fair and that the size, location or student population of a
school does not give an advantage.
9:48:24 AM
Senator Hoffman stressed that those teachers motivated by the
financial incentive of this program would opt to work at schools
within the state that have achieved the highest scores. This would
disadvantage other schools. He asked how this tendency would be
compensated. He compared the situation to that of the National
Football League (NFL) and that organization's implementation of a
draft process to ensure that a winning team does not dominate the
recruitment of the strongest players.
9:49:25 AM
Mr. Sampson agreed that as certain schools "rise to the top" they
could have an advantage in recruitment and retention. He admitted
he had not considered the impact of this scenario. However, the
factors contributing to the successes of some schools must be
identified and shared with other schools to provide opportunity for
those schools to excel as well.
9:50:22 AM
Senator Dyson recalled his approval of the selection of Mr. Sampson
for the commissioner position. Senator Dyson was aware of Mr.
Sampson's achievements in his previous position at a small school
district. Senator Dyson requested Mr. Sampson provide an overview
of these earlier efforts.
9:51:07 AM
Mr. Sampson told of his experience in applying this concept to a
remote small school district in Alaska. He assisted in determining
that education of reading, writing and computation were important
to the community and he identified a method to measure these
skills. This concept was first applied to the entire district, then
to schools and finally to individual teachers. The teachers wanted
teamwork, but also individual recommendations. When a teacher was
unsuccessful, he or she would contact other teachers within the
district to learn what practices were successful. This was possible
because the program had no competition between teachers or schools.
This concept was also successfully applied to efforts to control
health care costs.
9:54:06 AM
Senator Stedman understood that school district superintendents
would be excluded from the proposed incentive program, while school
principals would be included.
9:54:23 AM
Mr. Sampson affirmed, stating that principals must be included,
because they set schedules, move students, and make other decisions
that impact the overall performance of a student body. He spoke
informally with superintendents and concluded that these positions
should not be included in the incentive program, as doing so could
"send the wrong message". Superintendents negotiate separately with
school boards for salary amounts and other compensation.
9:55:35 AM
Senator Olson surmised that motivated students would be included in
these efforts. However, low achieving students often have
discipline problems, which are not addressed in this proposal.
9:56:26 AM
Mr. Sampson responded that discipline is indirectly referenced in
this proposal. To be a viable program, the scoring must acknowledge
factors that school staff could not control, such as weather
conditions and parental involvement. Discipline is a substantial
issue regardless of an incentive program. Some schools have
undisciplined students, yet achieve substantial growth; other
schools have little disciplinary problems but are unsuccessful at
achieving measurable growth. However, if an entire school staff
consistently enforces a code of acceptable student behavior, the
likelihood for growth is greater.
Mr. Sampson also pointed out that students displaying discipline
problems usually do so for a reason. They could be unchallenged or
overwhelmed. This incentive program would encourage the entire
school to address the issue.
9:59:11 AM
Senator Olson clarified his concern related more to the self-
discipline of attending school, studying, and applying oneself,
rather than behavioral discipline.
9:59:47 AM
Mr. Sampson replied that both types of discipline must be addressed
as a whole. One teacher may not have a relationship with a student
or parent, but a secretary or custodian may, and that relationship
should be fostered to encourage the student's growth.
10:00:34 AM
Co-Chair Green asked about allowances for those students who do not
attend a school for a full year.
10:01:06 AM
Mr. Sampson answered that such allowances would be made, although
growth would still be expected for these students. Transient
students would be treated in the same manner currently utilized to
determine appropriate grade level placement.
10:01:49 AM
Senator Bunde referenced a conversation held the previous summer in
which the commissioner predicted this program could be implemented
at no additional expense. Senator Bunde asked if this is no longer
the expectation.
10:02:12 AM
Mr. Sampson remarked that the program could be implemented with no
additional funding if no schools met the performance levels.
10:02:31 AM
Senator Bunde remarked that a program should not be established if
no improvements are expected.
10:02:51 AM
Mr. Sampson agreed. He listed the projected costs. If five percent
of certified and classified employees statewide qualified for the
highest compensation award the cost would be $3 million. The cost
would increase to $15.4 million if 25 percent of the employees
qualified.
10:03:28 AM
Senator Bunde referenced Governor Murkowski's State of the State
address the previous day, noting the Governor's request of $90
million for education. Senator Bunde surmised that if this amount
were appropriated, adequate funding would be available for this
program.
10:03:49 AM
Co-Chair Wilken asked when a formal proposal for this program would
be released.
10:03:54 AM
Mr. Sampson replied that he first wanted to present the idea to
legislators and get feedback. A final evaluation table would not be
completed until May or June of 2006 when the results of the 2006
assessments are received. The program could best be implemented
through Department of Education and Early Development regulations.
The legislature could address specific areas if necessary.
10:04:43 AM
Co-Chair Wilken noted the Governor had indicated that if a contract
was negotiated for a natural gas pipeline, the legislature could
become consumed with consideration of the contract and associated
activities. Co-Chair Wilken directed the Department to submit a
formal proposal soon in the event the legislature was diverted from
its normal duties later in the session.
10:05:16 AM
Senator Stedman suggested the incentives be calculated in some
manner as a percentage of the base student allocation.
10:05:43 AM
Senator Hoffman asked if educators would prefer that the base
student allocation be increased or that this program be enacted.
10:06:08 AM
Mr. Sampson responded that both positions would be opined. Some
educators prefer an incentive program; others would deem increased
funding to the school as the priority.
^
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Lyda Green adjourned the meeting at 10:07:07 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|