Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/21/2001 01:36 PM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
February 21, 2001
1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chair
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chair
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW
PRESENTATION ON THE HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION QUALIFYING EXIT EXAM
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Greg Maloney
Special Education
Teacher and Learning Support
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
Mr. Phil Reeves
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
Mr. Rich Kronberg
NEA-Alaska
114 2nd Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Ms. Beth Nordlund
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-12, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN LYDA GREEN called the Senate Health, Education & Social
Services Committee meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. Present were
Senators Leman, Wilken and Green. CHAIR GREEN announced Mr. Greg
Maloney would discuss the impact of the High School Graduation
Qualifying Exam (HSGQE) on special education students and Mr. Phil
Reeves would discuss the legal defensibility of the HSGQE.
MR. GREG MALONEY, Director of Special Education for the Department
of Education and Early Development (DOEED), said he would give an
overview of the assessment requirements under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act 97 (IDEA 97), review the specific
results and discuss improvement strategies to support the
performance of students with disabilities. Mr. Maloney reminded
the committee that Dr. Bruce Johnson presented the overall results
of the norm referenced test along with the benchmark and high
school exam results at a previous meeting.
MR. MALONEY said IDEA 97 emphasizes the importance and sets the
standard that all students, including students with disabilities,
be included in statewide assessments. The purposes for that policy
are to ensure that high standards exist for all students and to
increase accountability among school districts for the performance
of those students. Rather than consider regular education and
special education separately, the goal is to look at education for
all students. IDEA 97, more than its predecessors, was very clear
that students with disabilities should be included in the
assessment system, and that the data and performance of those
students should be taken into account and reported in the same way
that data for students who are not disabled is reported.
MR. MALONEY said there are three ways that all students can
participate in the assessment. A student can take the standardized
test, whether it be a benchmark or qualifying exam, with or without
accommodations or a student can take an alternate assessment.
There is some confusion about an alternate assessment and an
alternative assessment. The regular statewide assessments are not
necessarily appropriate for all students with disabilities. As a
result, IDEA 97 mandates that states have in place an alternate
assessment system. The alternate assessment is not necessarily a
test, it is a process in which products and skills that a student
with disabilities demonstrates are collected and compared to a set
of performance standards that have been developed based on the
current performance standards for all students that have been
extended to include those students with significantly delayed
skills or development.
CHAIR GREEN asked for an example.
MR. MALONEY said the IEP team determines whether a student will
participate in the alternate assessment or in the traditional
assessment. Criteria for participating in the alternate assessment
are:
· the student demonstrates cognitive impairment and delays in
adaptive skills that prevent completing the standard academic
curricula, even with accommodations;
· a student requires extensive, direct instruction in multiple
settings to apply and transfer skills;
· the student is involved in a functional basic skills
educational program; and
· the student's inability to complete the standard curriculum is
not the result of extended absences, visual, auditory or
physical disabilities, emotional or behavioral disabilities,
specific learning disabilities, or social cultural or economic
differences.
MR. MALONEY said this applies to a relatively small number of
students who have very significant disabilities and whose
participation in the traditional assessments would be meaningless.
Number 418
CHAIR GREEN asked if this criteria was developed at the same time
the qualifying exam was developed.
MR. MALONEY said it was developed in response to IDEA 97 and to
align with the current assessments, those being the benchmarks and
the qualifying exam.
CHAIR GREEN asked if it was designed to be the alternate assessment
to the qualifying exam.
MR. MALONEY said that is correct.
CHAIR GREEN asked if this would not be the test that a bright
student who happens to be delayed by two years would take.
MR. MALONEY said it would not be and that is where the confusion
about alternative versus alternate comes in. The alternate
assessment process is a formal process that has been designed
specifically for about 2 percent of students who are significantly
impaired. It is similar to a portfolio assessment. The group
working with the particular student would collect a series of
products - math problems, drawings, or other products in line with
the student's skills. The alternate performance standards maintain
the same line as the content standards and performance standards
but continue to provide a level of comparison that is appropriate
for that student. Mr. Maloney said a particular performance
standard for that student might be that the student will
participate meaningfully in the community. One indicator to
measure that participation would be, "Working with a peer, Mary
stamps the sponsor cards at the one-mile marker at the community
walk-a-thon," or "Working with a peer, Mary hits a switch to count
the number of people attending a class-sponsored spaghetti dinner."
The evidence could include a videotape or written documentation by
peers.
MR. MALONEY pointed out there is a standardized process for scoring
the alternate assessments. A numerical score is derived that
designates a proficiency level for those students.
CHAIR GREEN repeated that a very small percentage of students would
participate in that type of assessment.
MR. MALONEY agreed and said that is why it excludes most of the
disabilities that qualify for special education. He pointed out
the assumption is that most students will participate in the
traditional or current assessments. The alternate assessment is
for those students for which that would not be appropriate.
CHAIR GREEN noted that Senators Ward and Davis were present.
MR. MALONEY said the alternate assessment process is currently
being field tested for grades 3 and 11. It will match the
benchmarking exam. DOEED believes that eventually, it will only do
the alternate assessment for students who are in 11th grade one
time, rather than provide the repeated process used for students
taking the traditional assessment. In general, the purpose of the
alternate assessment is to further emphasize that all students
should be included in the assessment system.
MR. MALONEY referred to a chart entitled, "Performance of Students
with Disabilities on the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam."
Number 718
SENATOR LEMAN asked if there is any way to determine what type of a
disability these students have.
MR. MALONEY said he could not break the information out by each
category of disability at this time. That data will be built into
the system eventually and will be determined by how the test
booklets are coded.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if Mr. Maloney has a list of the types of
disabilities in the disabilities category.
MR. MALONEY said there are 14 categories and he could provide that
information to Senator Leman this afternoon.
CHAIR GREEN asked how a student is identified, regarding a
disability, when taking the test.
MR. MALONEY explained that information about whether the student
has an IEP and whether accommodations were made available is placed
on the cover of the booklet.
CHAIR GREEN noted the practice test does not ask for that
information. She questioned how many students would list their
disability.
MR. MALONEY said sometimes students are not aware of their
disabilities. In general, the accuracy of the test booklet coding
would fall to the test coordinator so the local school district
would make sure the information is correct. He noted DOEED is
focusing on that process as well.
CHAIR GREEN expressed concern that a lot of that information would
be unsubstantiated.
MR. MALONEY responded there may be ways of getting that information
in the future so that it does not depend on the accuracy of the
cover of the booklet. He felt the goal is to track the individual
progress of a student, maintain confidentiality, and get at that
information from the data system.
MR. MALONEY explained the information on the Performance of
Students with Disabilities chart lists the results for both the
spring and fall administrations of the exam. The chart shows the
number of students with and without disabilities who passed all
sections in the spring and fall and that failed. The pool of
students taking the exam in the spring was larger because the fall
administration was a retake for those who failed. Clearly,
students with disabilities performed less well than students
without disabilities. What is interesting is that the performance
of students with disabilities follows a similar pattern as that of
students without disabilities. The reading scores were higher
while math and writing scores were lower. This information
provides important baseline data from which to determine how
schools are improving and supporting the outcomes for students with
disabilities. That is why, in a sense, student participation is so
important - the data represents a top to bottom range of assessment
of all students. That differs from the past across the country.
No level of importance was placed on having students with
disabilities participate in assessment data. The data was
generally focused more on IEPs than on the connection of special
education to the general curriculum. One of the most important
pieces of IDEA 97 has been to support the notion that the services
that a student with disabilities receives should be connected to
the general curriculum so that the student is given a supportive
program - rather than a separate program - that allows the student
to achieve the standards to the best of that student's potential.
MR. MALONEY said along with increasing test scores, DOEED wants to
focus on participation rights and drop out rates for students with
disabilities. One concern is what impact a high stakes exam will
have on students leaving school prior to graduation. Students
enrolled in special education have historically demonstrated a
proportionally higher level of drop out rates.
MR. MALONEY pointed out that DOEED is making several efforts to
increase overall student performance. DOEED has received a five-
year systems change grant (the Quality Education in the Last
Frontier grant) from the federal government that is specific to
special education programs. About 25 states have received similar
grants. This grant focuses on improving professional development
of those working with students with disabilities, as well as other
students, and to help ensure that students with disabilities are
included in school-wide or statewide reform efforts.
CHAIR GREEN asked who will be overseeing that grant process and who
will be a typical recipient.
MR. MALONEY said DOEED has about 45 different partners for this
grant: local school districts, other government agencies,
institutions of higher education, and professional organizations
who work with the private sector. The six goals of the grant
program are:
· to increase the level of participation and outcomes of
students with disabilities in statewide school reform efforts;
· to increase training and skills of parents, family members,
and community members in the education process;
· to increase the level of intra- and inter-agency cooperation
among agencies that are working with students with
disabilities;
· to enhance professional development and recruitment and
retention of teachers who work with students with
disabilities;
· to support the development, recruitment and retention of para-
educators, or class roommates; and
· to evaluate the project.
Within each goal area, there are a number of strategies. The first
one focuses on having students with disabilities included fully
within school reform efforts.
MR. MALONEY stated that the exam data gives DOEED pause, especially
when looking at the results of DOEED's efforts to provide more
support and direction to districts as they work to improve the
outcomes for students with disabilities.
SENATOR WARD referred to the chart and asked if the federal
government wants the data by age rather than grade.
MR. MALONEY pointed out that statewide information is grade-based
so drop-out rates are derived from the number of students that drop
out from certain grades. The federal government does require
reporting by age so DOEED reports the number of students with
disabilities in different areas by age. The problem with the
comparison is that not all tenth graders are the same age,
especially students in special education. DOEED can come up with
rough estimates but DOEED needs to fix that and make grade to grade
comparisons.
SENATOR WARD asked if the chart reflects age, not grade.
MR. MALONEY said no, it reflects the grade. It only reflects
students with disabilities enrolled in tenth grade last fall.
Number 1327
SENATOR WILKEN asked how many Alaska high school students have an
IEP.
MR. MALONEY estimated that the number for all students in Alaska,
ages 6-21, is about 13,000 to 14,000. He guessed about 5,000 to
6,000 of those students are in high school.
SENATOR WILKEN stated that the main concern he has heard regarding
the competency test is the special education component but the
problem cannot be resolved in a short period of time because there
are many variables. He asked Mr. Maloney's opinion of setting the
test aside for the 6,000 high school students with IEPs but
administering it to the other students and, in the meantime work on
the special education component.
MR. MALONEY replied that one focus of IDEA 97 is to make sure that
students with disabilities are included in the same systems as
students without disabilities. The focus is on how to make the
system responsive to all students. His concern would be, on what
basis would those 6,000 students be separated out. The state could
run into discrimination issues, issues of accountability, and DOEED
could face compliance problems with its special education
requirements.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if the discrimination issue would exist if the
state was clear about its intent to come up with a test for the
special education component. He felt that because the standards for
5 percent of the student population are not ready, the other 95
percent cannot be measured, which he thought was a form of reverse
discrimination.
MR. MALONEY said he would provide Senator Wilken with more
information from the Office of Special Education (OSE) in
Washington, D.C. and that he is not in a position to say whether
DOEED should go ahead with that. He repeated the concern would be
how the 5 percent are being included and how they are being
assessed by looking at how they are performing in terms of the
general curriculum.
CHAIR GREEN suggested focusing that conversation on what
alternatives and accommodations need to be made available for that
population. She felt that issue could take several years to
decide.
Number 1590
MR. PHIL REEVES, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
said he had the opportunity to complete his remarks from the
February 12 meeting, but a number of people requested a copy of the
notes he was testifying from. He provided the committee with a
cleaned up copy of those notes and was available today to answer
questions.
SENATOR WARD asked whether any other states have been able to
devise a competency test and have a separate one for the 5 percent
with IEPs. He asked if so, whether there are additional legal
conflicts about that 5 percent.
MR. REEVES replied the requirement is that unless they cannot, all
children with disabilities should be included in the normal
assessment systems. He said he believes that many children with
disabilities would be able to pass the exit exam with
accommodations and that the assessment would be meaningless for a
much smaller percentage than 5. He thought removing the 5 percent
from the assessment program would prove difficult. He pointed out
that the standard required for those students to receive a diploma
may be a different question. Those students could be involved in
the same test but, in his reading of the federal law, the federal
government's concern is that all children be involved in the
assessments to ensure that schools can see how those students are
doing comparatively and provide the services they need. He was not
sure that goes so far as using exactly the same standard to receive
a diploma.
SENATOR WARD referred to the Texas case Mr. Reeves cited at a
previous meeting [87 F.Supp.2d 667] and said he was under the
impression that the students who fell into this category were not
required to take the competency test.
MR. REEVES said he is unable to answer questions about the
specifics of all of the testing systems. The cases he discussed
did not address children with disability issues. He offered to
provide that information at a later date.
CHAIR GREEN directed Senator Ward to the chart that compares how
states consider the standards for special education students. She
noted that Texas did not give the exit exam to students with IEPs
for 10 or 12 years but it has since rolled the exam into its
program.
There being no questions of Mr. Maloney or Mr. Reeves, CHAIR GREEN
announced that the committee would discuss pending legislation.
She referred to her HSGQE legislation proposal and noted that some
of it was adapted from the Indiana plan. Alaska is not the only
state that is undergoing this conversation. She emphasized that
her proposal is a very, very broad roadmap that needs a lot of
refining. She hopes to have legislation drafted before Friday to
release to the Legislative Information Offices for people to
testify to. She noted that her proposal does not address a date
for the exam. It changes the focus so that the test is not the
single factor in receiving a degree. She asked people who testify
to not address whether the exam should be delayed.
CHAIR GREEN said she hopes to put in place legislation that would
provide the public with a description of what a high school
graduate would know. She would like to require, in statute, a high
school transcript that includes test scores, CAT scores, whether
the student took advanced AP courses, etc.
CHAIR GREEN said that it came to her attention, while speaking with
Commissioner Holloway, that DOEED has no way to know what courses
are being taught in Alaskan high schools. DOEED and the state
board should have that information on file so that when a student
says a class was never offered, that can be substantiated. There
is a fear that in some districts, the scheduling of courses is not
what it should be. The state cannot require a competency test if
it doesn't know whether all students are being taught the subject
matter.
CHAIR GREEN indicated that she would like to see the test
administered on an in-service day, so that one-third of the
students are not in limbo while the test is given on a regular
school day. In addition, appropriate exams must be developed for
the learning disabled and the developmentally disabled. She noted
the writing portion of the test indicates the ability to give the
correct answer. A student may be able to provide the correct
answer using a method other than writing but whether other methods
can be used is unknown at this time.
CHAIR GREEN said that vocational and technical programs seem to be
cyclical. She is interested in how such a program could be
identified on a transcript and on a diploma. Such a student may
have the mastery of competency highest level diploma with a
vocational technical certification. She is also promoting that
students must maintain a "C" average and that attendance criteria
be included in graduation requirements if students fail the test.
Number 2040
SENATOR WARD asked how the 95 percent attendance requirement came
about.
CHAIR GREEN replied that several school districts are having
problems with the attendance rates of students, particularly in the
elementary grades. In some districts, the local school board has
not adopted any regulations requiring students to attend. She
believes that is a standard that has to be maintained, while
leaving room for excused absences and illness.
SENATOR WARD commented that the 95 percent attendance rate does not
include sick days or other family considerations.
CHAIR GREEN agreed and ventured to guess that some districts have a
high standard in place while some have none. The high standard
might include nine unexcused absences per year. She repeated that
her proposal is meant to be a suggestion and is negotiable. Her
goal is to figure out a system that shows that Alaska students are
qualified to graduate. She pointed out the first paragraph in the
proposal focuses on creating another path for students to receive a
diploma because a large number of students are unlikely to pass the
exit exam and receive a diploma.
CHAIR GREEN explained that the State of Indiana offers three
methods in which a student can receive a diploma.
Number 2197
SENATOR LEMAN commented that he has three concerns with the
proposal. While he commends the requirement of a "C" average, he
is unaware that there is a uniform standard for grading throughout
the state, therefore grades might be elevated in some districts and
not in others. He believes that coming up with a statewide grading
standard will be difficult.
CHAIR GREEN asked Senator Leman if he believes that uniformity in
grading exists now. She said if one compared transcripts of
students from Mat-Su and Juneau, it is likely there would be a
variance in the same grade.
SENATOR LEMAN said he agrees the problem exists now but it will
create a difficulty in making a "C" grade requirement meaningful.
CHAIR GREEN asked Senator Leman if he would be more comfortable
using a percentage.
SENATOR LEMAN said no because it would not make a difference. His
second concern is about the attendance policy. He felt there
should be a way to make up unexcused absences short of repeating
the school year. His third concern is that, rather than wait until
2004 for the endorsement, he would prefer that the endorsement
begin in 2002.
Number 2297
SENATOR DAVIS asked if a student would be required to maintain a
"C" average to finish high school.
CHAIR GREEN explained that the "C" average, attendance policy, the
minimum number of credit hours, and remedial classes would be
required of students who fail the exit exam to graduate.
SENATOR DAVIS expressed concern that almost two-thirds of Alaska
students have not passed the math portion of the practice test.
She asked if under this proposal the one-third who passed will get
a diploma and a special certificate proving they mastered the test.
CHAIR GREEN said that is not correct.
SENATOR DAVIS asked if the students that go through the hoops of
taking remedial classes and maintaining a "C" average will get the
same diploma.
CHAIR GREEN explained that her proposed plan is meant to be in
place for a couple of years until an endorsement process is
established. In that way, students who pass the exam will receive
credit and praise.
TAPE 01-12, Side B
CHAIR GREEN continued. Under Phase II, several diplomas would be
offered. The diploma of advanced mastery would be given to
students who pass the exit exam and take all required coursework.
The diploma of foundational mastery would be given to students who
pass the arithmetic portion of the math test. That would be
typical of students who did not take algebra or geometry.
SENATOR DAVIS commended Senator Green for her proposal but thought
it might be more difficult to implement than the current program.
She said she supports the idea of giving a Regents certificate to
those students who pass the test. That certificate would be in
addition to a diploma and would reward the student. She thought to
require students who do not pass the test to have a "C" average
could increase the number of students who cannot graduate. She
pointed out that many students graduate with less than a "C"
average and, according to the grading system used, a "D" is
considered to be a passing grade. She agrees that attendance is a
serious problem but she thought remediation of that problem should
be tied to school funding.
CHAIR GREEN pointed out that Texas, in association with the Texas
Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), has also started to do major
attendance work. She asked members to think about an adequate
system to put into place that requires everyone to be tested. She
repeated that testing is a good thing in that it gives people the
ability to evaluate schools within a district and among districts
but the state cannot require a test for graduation that some
students have not been prepared for. She would like to think that
in the future all students would be prepared for the highest level
of the test.
Number 2219
SENATOR WARD noted that Senator Taylor mentioned that a student who
has passed all portions of the exit exam in the junior year may
want to attend the University if the student has completed enough
coursework. He expressed concern about using a one-size-fits-all
approach that may hold some students back.
CHAIR GREEN pointed out that many students graduate early now. She
explained that if the test is implemented in 2002, the students who
pass the exit exam will be on their way. For those who do not,
excluding special needs students, they must take remedial classes
for each failed exam subject area, maintain 95 percent attendance,
maintain a "C" average and have teacher/principal recommendations.
For special needs students, the same requirements would apply
except that an alternative test could be given and an IEP team
recommendation would be required. For vocational/technical
students the same requirements would apply but a description of
vocational/technical student will need to be put in statute.
In Phase II (beginning in 2004), every student would take the exit
exam and, a diploma of advanced mastery or a certificate with an
endorsement would be granted if all three sections of the exam are
passed. Students could also get the vocational/technical
endorsement which would require meeting the requirements of the
foundational mastery diploma. The diploma of mastery of individual
education plan will probably not make it onto any certificate but
will be a designation for students with learning or other
disabilities. The state board would devise a plan for that to be
put in place. That will be one problem with moving to Phase II.
The diploma of minimum competency would be granted to students who
have attended school and have achieved a minimum level of
competency in educational standards developed by the state board of
education, that is the listing of courses and credits a student
must have. In addition, students would also have to maintain a "C"
average, have a 95 percent attendance record, teacher/principal
recommendations, and remedial coursework in the subject areas of
the exam they failed.
CHAIR GREEN asked participants for comments.
SENATOR WILKEN felt that Chair Green correctly read the
Legislature's desire to not postpone the original exam date. He
asked, regarding the 95 percent attendance record, whether that is
a function of an exit exam or a competency test and whether the
class valedictorian should be denied a diploma because he or she
had a 94 percent attendance record.
CHAIR GREEN said that is not a requirement for a student who passed
the exam and that it is only required for a diploma of minimum
competency.
SENATOR WILKEN questioned whether a student needs to have a 95
percent attendance record if they passed the exam.
CHAIR GREEN said no. She said that is only required for the
diploma of minimum competency. She explained that her proposal is
an attempt to give another means to graduate for a student who is
on task and working to the best of his or better ability and has a
"C" average.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if the student who did not pass the exit exam
but passed areas of weakness, attended school 95 percent of the
time, and maintained a "C" average would get a minimum competency
diploma.
CHAIR GREEN said that is correct.
SENATOR WILKEN expressed concern about the 95 percent attendance
rate.
CHAIR GREEN noted that is an arbitrary number.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if the test will be given in English only.
SENATOR WARD said it must be by law.
SENATOR WILKEN asked Chair Green if she considered offering a
diploma that contained specific endorsements for reading, writing
and arithmetic.
CHAIR GREEN said she is not sure how well the diplomas should be
adorned and how expensive that could be.
SENATOR WILKEN pointed out that as an employer, he asks potential
employees whether they graduated from high school and when, and
whether they have their diplomas in their possession. He said it
wouldn't take him long to figure out how to ask on his employment
application whether and when an applicant graduated, whether the
applicant has a diploma, and what endorsements the applicant has.
He indicated he probably would not hire a person without
endorsements in reading, writing and arithmetic but he felt that is
a simple way to focus on what the Legislature is trying to do.
CHAIR GREEN agreed but maintained that most employers would request
a transcript from the school to find out if the endorsement is on
there.
Number 1807
SENATOR LEMAN stated that on page 2 of Senator Green's proposal,
under Phase II, all students would be required to maintain the "C"
average and 95 percent attendance record and remediation yet
farther down under Phase II those requirements only show up under
item 5.
CHAIR GREEN said she stands corrected. She added that she would
like to hear from people about the impact of student attendance and
whether it is a problem. If it is not a problem statewide, the
Legislature does not have to address it. She felt that students
who remain on task but do not have high grades need to be
recognized for their hard work and effort. She thought that a
student with one unexcused absence per month would have other
problems in their academic life.
SENATOR WILKEN referred to page 3, item 6, regarding the
requirement that the board develop definitions for "vocational,
technical and special needs" students, and asked if a student would
enter high school on a vocational track or a technical track or
whether the student would be classified at the end of the process.
CHAIR GREEN said she could not answer that and it is one of the
things that will be turned over to the state board. She noted
there are several things going on with workforce development;
employability standards were adopted that might be folded into
this. Those standards are for those students who are trying to
prepare for a certain job while in high school, which will be
happening more frequently. Those students would still be required
to take the exam so that the standard is not lower, it is just
different.
Number 1581
SENATOR WARD informed committee members that he is having a bill
drafted that is modeled after the Colorado law. All students that
graduate would get a State of Alaska high school diploma if they
meet the local criteria in their school districts. The face of the
diploma contains spaces for notating whether the student is
proficient in reading, writing, and/or math. He explained that
this concept was suggested by the teachers and principals in the
Kenai area. He commended Senator Green for coming up with some
interesting concepts that may do more. He noted that other states
that chose to require competency tests have run into similar
problems.
CHAIR GREEN said another Senator suggested that Alaska move away
from a test manufactured strictly for Alaska and use a nationally
normed test. She maintained there are problems with that approach
when it comes to a graduation requirement but a nationally normed
test can be used as an assessment to compare students to students.
SENATOR WILKEN felt Alaska could "walk with that and you run a few
years later with this more sophisticated system."
CHAIR GREEN suggested using Senator Ward's bill as a point of
discussion for Saturday's meeting.
SENATOR WARD indicated that he called Elmendorf Air Force Base but
could not get an answer regarding the military high school diploma
and the test required for that diploma.
Number 1387
MR. RICH KRONBERG, NEA-Alaska, stated that he did not want to
comment on the different kinds of diplomas presented in Senator
Green's proposal but he applauded her for raising significant
points contained on page 3 of her proposal. NEA-Alaska members
have articulated those same concerns.
CHAIR GREEN said many people have suggested that she address the
test only but the next step is to establish what is happening
statewide. She acknowledged that she was dumbfounded when she
realized that a transcript is not required by statute.
MR. KRONBERG indicated that the Anchorage School Board has had many
discussions about providing transcripts and the costs involved,
which may be worthy of guidance from the State. He likes the
notion that study materials for the exam should be provided and
that uniform language should be provided to be used as a test
script.
CHAIR GREEN said she talked to several teachers last year who did
not know how to administer the test. She believes that is
important and that the script should be rehearsed, if necessary.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if schools keep records of excused absences.
MR. KRONBERG said as far as he knows, students must have an excuse
for absences. [The remainder of his response was inaudible.]
CHAIR GREEN asked if the range is all over the board.
MR. KRONBERG said each district determines the limit on unexcused
absences.
CHAIR GREEN suggested asking districts to report their attendance
policies.
SENATOR WARD asked if it is true that no one knows in the State of
Alaska whether all seniors have been taught algebra or had access
to it.
CHAIR GREEN replied that algebra would be listed on one's
transcript but most people do not look.
SENATOR WARD asked if a school board could submit information to
the State as to whether or not it offers algebra. He expressed
concern that accessibility to certain courses is a glitch with the
test. He assumed all students were able to take algebra but he is
now being told that there is no way to know whether all schools are
teaching it.
CHAIR GREEN said it is her understanding that neither DOEED or the
state school board can get that information because of the local
control issue. She said that for purposes of requiring an exit
exam that covers certain subjects, the Legislature needs to know
that those subjects are being taught throughout the state. The
only way she knows how to do that is to require schools to report
what courses they are teaching.
SENATOR WARD asked if that question was asked before the test was
created.
CHAIR GREEN said not necessarily because everyone assumes algebra
is required, although it isn't required by all school districts.
Number 2002
SENATOR WILKEN asked for an explanation of the last column in
DOEED's document entitled, "Year 2000 Alaska State Assessment
Results - Mathematics."
MS. BETH NORDLUND, DOEED, explained that the last column compares
the number of students enrolled in grade 11 as of October 1, 2000
to the percent that passed.
SENATOR WILKEN asked about the results of the writing assessment
and whether 44 out of 55 did not pass. He noted almost all students
failed the writing portion and everyone failed the math, which is
not what the committee was told.
CHAIR GREEN asked if he was referring to the district that did not
give the test.
SENATOR LEMAN explained the first column gives the percentage of
students in each district that passed the exam in the Spring and
Fall of 2000.
SENATOR WILKEN said only one school got above 60 if a traditional
grading system was used.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
CHAIR GREEN adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|