Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/10/2001 10:40 AM 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
March 10, 2001
10:40 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chair
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chair
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Gary Wilken
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION QUALIFYING EXAM - PUBLIC TESTIMONY
SENATE BILL NO. 120
"An Act relating to a public school student high school graduation
examination; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 128
"An Act relating to a two-year transition for implementation of the
public high school competency examination as a graduation
requirement; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 129
"An Act relating to a public high school competency examination;
and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 133
"An Act relating to a two-year transition for implementation of the
public high school competency examination and to establishing an
essential skills examination as a high school graduation
requirement; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
See Senate HESS minutes dated 1/27/01, 1/31/01, 2/12/01, 2/14/01,
2/21/01, 2/24/01, 2/26/01, 3/07/01
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Greg Maloney
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that SB 133 will not conflict with
the goals of IDEA 97 or DOEED's assessment methods
Ms. Phyllice Bradner Matson
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to the exit exam. Supports using
standardized tests for grade advancement every year.
Mr. Carl Rose
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 W 11th St.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 133 but believes further work
needs to be done on waivers.
Mr. Ed McLain
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 133 but believes further work
needs to be done on waivers by the department.
Ms. Star Patterson
2826 Totem Drive
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Prefers SB 133 but believes the exam should
be delayed until 2006.
Mr. Richard Mauer
PO Box 1302
Delta Junction, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 133 and suggested reciprocity.
Ms. Patricia Griswold
HC 60 Box 4493
Delta Junction, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Not in support of the exit exam as is.
Ms. Louise Parish
PO Box 1182
Valdez, AK 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 133.
Ms. Joan Bohmann
8242 Eleusis Drive
Anchorage, AK 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the vocational endorsement and
on the use of accommodations.
Ms. Amy Headrick
Disability Law Center
3330 Arctic Blvd., Ste. 103
Anchorage, AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Believes the entire special education
program needs reform.
Ms. Deb Germano
PO Box 1511
Homer, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 133
Ms. MaryJeane Yragui
PO Box 1290
Kenai, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the exam date and revising
the exam.
Mr. Ray Barnes
2561 Beaver Loop
Kenai, AK 99610
POSITION STATEMENT: Favors delaying the exam until 2006 and
allowing accommodations to be used.
Ms. Sharon Nusunginya
47135 E. Poppy Lane
Soldotna, AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the difficulty of the exam
requirement on students with Asperger's Syndrome.
Ms. Carolyn Barnes
2561 Beaver Loop
Kenai, AK 99610
POSITION STATEMENT: Believes the exit exam will not raise
standards for children with disabilities.
Ms. Elizabeth Bacom
PO Box 683
Petersburg, AK 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports several aspects of SB 133.
Ms. Sheri Wikan
PO Box 929
Petersburg, AK 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 133.
Ms. Sally Donaldson
Alaska Association of School Counselors
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the exam and expressed
concern about transient students.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-18, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN LYDA GREEN called the Senate Health, Education & Social
Services Committee meeting to order at 10:40 a.m. Present were
Senators Leman and Ward (via teleconference), Davis, and Chair
Green. Senator Wilken was excused to attend a funeral.
CHAIR GREEN said this issue has generated a lot of legislation. SB
120, introduced by Senator Ward, would require students to take the
test and an endorsement would be shown for those subjects passed on
the diploma. Students who do not pass will have an Alaskan flag
symbol put on their diplomas. SB 128, introduced by Senator Leman,
creates a two-year delay. During the two-year delay, students who
pass all or part of the exam will obtain an endorsement for the
parts passed on their diplomas and transcripts. The Department of
Education and Early Development (DOEED) would then work on the
language for the endorsement. In 2004, students would be required
to pass the exam in order to receive a diploma. She asked Senator
Davis to explain SB 129.
SENATOR DAVIS, sponsor of SB 129, said this bill is very simple.
She supports standards and has been involved in that movement with
the State board of education - she wants that work to continue.
For that reason, she introduced a bill to phase in the exit exam.
The exit exam practice test results show that students did better
in reading and writing than they did in math. SB 129 would require
every student to pass the reading and writing portion of the exit
exam in 2004 to receive a diploma. During the two years between
2002 and 2004, any student who takes the test would receive an
endorsement for the area passed, be it math, reading or writing.
In 2005, students would be required to pass the math portion. She
maintained that it is very important for students to get a high
school diploma. It is required to join the military or get a job.
She believes more money should be put into programs so that school
districts can align their curricula with the test and provide
remediation.
CHAIR GREEN indicated that the committee has been asked to make
provisions for those students with an IEP and/or 504 plan and to
pass on those directions to the state board of education. She
agrees with Senator Davis in that the legislature does not have the
expertise to do that. Chair Green reminded participants that SB
133 is not an appropriation bill; it does not address education
funding. In addition, the committee will not be discussing the
theory of why students should be tested. The committee will be
discussing the four bills before the committee. She asked
participants to confine their comments to those bills. Her goal is
to create a bill that will work until another legislature decides
to change and/or improve it. She noted that any type of exam of
this sort is an evolving thing. Included therefore, are questions
in each test that students will not be held responsible for. Those
questions are designed as a field test. Regardless of what test is
used, the process will always be evolving.
CHAIR GREEN welcomed Senator Taylor.
CHAIR GREEN said that the committee is creating instructions for
the state board of education and DOEED for the parameters of how to
keep on track of requiring a variety of testing assessments that
will take every student to the top of his or her ability.
MR. GREG MALONEY, Director of Special Education, DOEED, stated that
one of the specific components of SB 133 relates to how students
with disabilities, as defined under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act of 97 (IDEA 97), and also Section 504.
He will be reviewing how IDEA 97 relates to statewide assessments
and then relate that to SB 133.
The intent of IDEA 97 is very clear that all students, including
students with disabilities, need to participate in statewide
assessments for several reasons. First, it is looking at
individual student outcomes, so that students with disabilities are
held to the same high standards that students without disabilities
are held to. Second, it will ensure that students with
disabilities are receiving access to the general curriculum - not a
separate program. Third, it will be used to prove instructional
accountability so that students with disabilities are seen as part
of the overall educational enrollment so that the curriculum is
sensitive to, and able to meet, those students' needs. IDEA 97
requires that students with disabilities be included in the
statewide assessment process and that the results of their
participation be considered in looking at improving instruction.
In terms of how a student with a disability participates, the
Individualized Education Program (IEP) team is the primary agent.
The IEP team creates an instructional program for the student.
That instructional program contains the types of services the
student requires in order to be successful and the location of
those services. In addition, the IEP contains the kinds of
accommodations or modifications required by the student to be able
to participate appropriately in school activities.
Currently, a student with a disability can participate in statewide
assessments in three ways. First, the student may participate with
no accommodations. Second, the student may participate with
accommodations. Those accommodations are determined by the IEP
team or the 504 group, based on DOEED's Participation Guidelines.
The third way, which is for a small number of students with
significant disabilities and/or cognitive impairments who are not
working on an academic curriculum, is an alternate assessment.
That assessment is still designed around standards but those
standards have been interpreted at a level meaningful for these
students. The alternative assessment consists of a portfolio
assessment in which products completed by the student are scored.
CHAIR GREEN asked if SB 133 contains adequate language for DOEED
and the state board to assume that is where they are headed,
because it is her intention to provide for the three ways to
participate in a statewide assessment.
MR. MALONEY said that nothing in SB 133 would change the
requirement that students have to participate in the statewide
assessments. SB 133 speaks to students who do not pass the exam,
which implies that they must take it. He noted that because
students with disabilities cannot be discriminated against and
separated out, they would be expected to participate in the
statewide assessments as students without disabilities are.
DOEED's goal is that all students participate. The alternative
assessment is for students for whom the exit exam would not be
appropriate; it is not a test or separate exam. It is a process.
CHAIR GREEN asked if the three methods of taking the statewide
assessment are stock language and standard procedure within DOEED
and the state board.
MR. MALONEY said that is correct and that it is also federal
language. Under IDEA 97, the expectation is that all students will
participate in the same assessment process. The concern about
separating students with disabilities from the larger population,
is that a separate system is being set up. The tension comes when
successfully addressing the students' needs within a system that
encompasses all students.
MR. MALONEY said it is important to note that the IEP team's role,
in terms of the assessments, is not a separate component. It is
tied to the instructional program that the student should be
receiving anyway and the accommodations should have already been
introduced into the student's program. No new accommodations
should be necessary for the assessment. Certainly, the goal is to
have every student pass the exit exam but, under IDEA 97, the goal
is also positive student outcomes and improved accountability at
the district level. The graduation aspect comes afterward.
MR. MALONEY said SB 133 speaks of an alternative assessment, which
differs from DOEED's alternate assessment. For DOEED, the
alternate assessment is a very specific, defined process that would
only pertain to about 1 to 2 percent of students in Alaska.
CHAIR GREEN asked if the language in SB 133 should be changed.
MR. MALONEY replied the bill refers to an alternative assessment so
if that provision is to go to the state board of education to
clarify, that language will be fine. Regarding the alternative
assessment, he understands that a separate test will not be
developed but an alternative process of assessment based on the
test would be developed for the students with disabilities. The
alternative process of assessment would be used when those students
do not pass the exit exam.
SENATOR DAVIS asked if Mr. Maloney was referring to all students or
students with disabilities only. She noted that SB 133 speaks to
those students that do not pass the exit exam, not necessarily
students with disabilities.
MR. MALONEY said he is referring to students with disabilities and
Section 3(d)(1) on page 2, line 31.
SENATOR DAVIS asked if he was speaking to students with
disabilities only.
MR. MALONEY said that is the only thing he feels qualified to talk
about.
CHAIR GREEN informed Senator Davis that other DOEED department
members would speak to the committee next week.
MR. MALONEY repeated that it is important to remember that the
focus is not on a separate process for students with disabilities
but one that recognizes differences in learning styles. Students
with disabilities should be held to high standards but not
penalized for their disabilities.
CHAIR GREEN took public testimony.
Number 1456
MS. PHYLLICE BRADNER MATSON, a parent from Juneau, said her
comments will not relate to the bills because she has not had a
chance to review them. She read the following testimony.
I urge the committee to consider that the exit exam as
outlined in the current legislation is not the best way
for the state to meet its two most important education
goals: one, to guarantee that every student who passed
all the required high school classes receive the diploma
that he or she has earned; and two, to ensure that each
graduate know the basics of reading, writing and math
before receiving that diploma. A better approach would
be to identify those math and English classes that
represent the benchmark skills required for graduation
and substitute the exit exam with standardized final
exams in those classes in every middle school and high
school in Alaska. If a student cannot pass the
standardized final, that child must repeat the class or
take a remedial class until the final exam can be
mastered. This method would not only measure a student's
understanding of the subject, but provide a remedy for
the student to learn the subject before graduation.
Students having learning disabilities and special needs
are most likely to be using the 504 and IEP
accommodations in their classrooms and those students
would be able to take the standardized final test in the
same manner that any other tests are administered under
the guidelines of their program.
Again, I urge this committee to recommend eliminating the
exit exams and instead to institute a policy that demands
that each student truly pass each basic math and English
class before moving on to the next level. It is also
extremely important to recognize that not all graduates
are going on to college. A high school diploma is
essential for young people to secure entry level jobs.
We must be realistic about what level of skills will be
necessary for graduates to lead youthful and productive
lives and not set the bar too high above those levels.
Those students going on to college will have other
measures of college readiness in the form of SATs and
entrance exams. We must not forget our obligation to
provide students who are not college bound with the tools
they will need for a successful life. That includes
fundamental, not necessarily advanced, literacy and math
skills and a viable high school diploma. Thank you.
CHAIR GREEN said most people would agree that students should not
go on to the next level if they have not passed an exam but deep
down we know that is not the case.
MS. BRADNER MATSON said that she is suggesting that instead of
using a standardized exit exam, Alaska should require a
standardized final exam for each of the benchmark classes
determined by DOEED. If the standardized exam can identify the
students that cannot pass that class, that class should be retaken
or remedial work should be completed until the student can pass.
She noted that once a student has passed every single class in high
school, even with a D grade, we are tacitly guaranteeing them that
they have earned a diploma. To tell them that all of the classes
they passed don't mean a thing if they cannot pass the exit exam is
cheating them.
Number 1600
CHAIR GREEN maintained that the Legislature "gets a little
schizophrenic when we get to the local control issue." One of her
concerns with exit exams in general is that if the state comes in,
what is to keep the "feds" from coming in and overlaying the state
exam with another one. She thanked Ms. Bradner Matson for her
comments.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that of the bills introduced on this subject,
all talk about continuing to utilize the diplomas as they have been
in the past and not making victims out of children through creating
this exam. That was never the intent of the Legislature when the
accountability process was enacted. He thanked Ms. Bradner Matson
for her testimony and said it is refreshing to hear her suggestions
because he believes that is the system used when he went to school.
He can remember classmates failing specific subject areas and
having to retake them, maybe through a summer course, and only
advancing when certain requirements were met. There was some
integrity with the system that said that if you don't get past
these things, we can't, in good faith, give you a diploma. He said
he liked the word "tacit." Because a student has sat in a school
for 10 years, there is the tacit implication that the student is
knowledgeable in a given area, which unfortunately is not true.
MS. BRADNER MATSON said if the student has passed the class, the
school has actually told them that. She noted that is why she
suggested standardized finals to remove the possibility that
students will squeak through a class they did not really pass.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked her again and said, "That's solid stuff.
It's not reflected here but I think it is reflected in the fact
that we're not going to be denying those kids those diplomas. The
next question is, how do you reflect what they have done and I
think your suggestion is superior to ours."
CHAIR GREEN said she doesn't think SB 133 supercedes what Ms.
Bradner Matson is talking about. She pointed out that many
districts around Alaska are giving tests that are far more
difficult than the exit exam. Passing those tests may not keep
students from graduating but it shows the districts what the
students know and what areas need improvement. The Legislature
does not want to tell districts they cannot do that. She repeated
that the Legislature has to be very careful about the line between
local control, state oversight, and permission and regulations.
Number 1840
SENATOR DAVIS also thanked Ms. Bradner Matson for her testimony but
noted that things are being done to make sure that students are
learning the materials at grade level. She informed Ms. Bradner
Matson that Alaska schools are administering benchmark exams at
grades 3, 6, and 8. In Anchorage, student profiles are done when
students enter kindergarten. If students do not pass the 3rd grade
benchmark exam, remediation is done. She believes over a period of
years we will be where we need to be in the standards movement.
She said that grades do not mean that much - a child with a D grade
may not have learned less than a child with a B grade. When
students are tested to the material, schools know they have what
they need.
MS. BRADNER MATSON asked why, at that point, when schools have gone
through this full system of assessments from elementary through
high schools, the exit exam would be necessary.
SENATOR DAVIS said that is a good question. She pointed out that
once we get to that level, the exit exam requirement might be taken
off of the books, but when the law was passed in 1997, many people
from the business community testified that many high school
graduates were not trained and ready for the job market.
MS. BRADNER MATSON pointed out that students may learn a lot in
classes and know the material but do not remember that material
several years later. That is one reason that giving the final exam
as the class ends would be a more useful measure of whether the
student understood the material.
CHAIR GREEN thanked Ms. Bradner Matson and asked Mr. Rose to
testify.
MR. CARL ROSE, Executive Director of the Association of Alaska
School Boards (AASB), said that all four pieces of legislation
recognize the need for more time for several reasons: the
defensibility of the test and time for school alignment.
MR. ROSE said SB 120 will allow more time and recognize student
achievement through endorsements. SB 128 goes beyond that and
establishes a sunset date of 2004. SB 133 is the most
comprehensive bill before the committee and captures most of the
testimony given. SB 133 contains some additional components that
have been identified, the first being essential skills. As we talk
about the need to refine measurement tools, the question of
essential skills comes up. When the legislation requiring a
competency exam was being discussed, the focus was on basic skills.
As the performance standards and corresponding measurement
instruments were developed, the help of many experts was
incorporated. As many have testified, the math portion of the test
does not appear to be difficult to the math experts. The question
to be answered regarding essential skills is whether the lack of
specific knowledge would keep a person from getting a diploma. He
believes that under SB 133, the reading, writing, and mathematics
tests will all have to be refined to what is essential.
Regarding military transfers, MR. ROSE said there is no answer. A
student who transfers into this state as a junior has not had the
opportunity to take the benchmark exams and will be at a distinct
disadvantage. A waiver, in that circumstance, would be
appropriate. Furthermore, as that waiver for a military transfer
is an extraordinary circumstance, an appeal process through the
state board of education may be an option. Right now, SB 133 does
not contain an option to request a waiver and an appeal process for
extraordinary circumstances.
CHAIR GREEN asked Mr. Rose if he thinks the language in SB 133
regarding waivers is too broad.
MR. ROSE said he believes the bill should address what the waiver
will entail.
CHAIR GREEN said she would think that a death in the family might
constitute an extraordinary circumstance.
MR. ROSE said that trying to handle those types of definitions
through the committee process can become difficult.
CHAIR GREEN said if the committee's intent is documented, the
committee can watch how the system reacts over time. She noted
that the lack of an appeal process has been the basis for lawsuits
in other states, even when the other aspects of the test seem to
pass muster. She said she is not sure that the waiver process does
not allow for an appeal.
MR. ROSE said an appeal with a process that ensures that a standard
has been met is an important component of the bill. Regarding the
IEP issue, he has seen a response from the Disability Law Center.
He felt there are two options: to give the issue back to DOEED to
come up with a fix; or to come up with something in legislation
that passes muster. He felt many people appreciate having some
direction in the legislation. He advised that if this portion of
the bill causes great consternation, that issue can be handed to
DOEED or the professionals to handle.
CHAIR GREEN said the committee could write a cover letter to
accompany the bill saying that it expects DOEED and the state board
of education to be very critical in their approach toward solving
this problem and to maintain high standards and accountability.
TAPE 01-18, SIDE B
MR. ROSE said in conclusion, seven bills have been offered. All of
them recognize the need for an extension. He believes SB 133 has
incorporated most of the testimony. SB 133 takes the most
comprehensive approach with one caveat: the need for the extension
is so critical that this issue needs to be put behind us. As he
said earlier, the more provisions that are added to the bill, the
more difficult it will be to decipher. If SB 133 becomes so heavy
that it does not pass, there is a good possibility the State will
run into 2002 unprepared. He thanked the committee for all of the
work it has done. He stated support for SB 133.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted Mr. Rose indicated that all of the bills
provide for a transition from two to six years, and that Mr. Rose
thought four years was a likely solution. He asked if the
committee had met to discuss Senator Ward's bill, SB 120.
CHAIR GREEN said anyone can discuss any of the bills.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that SB 120 has the same schematic as SB
133 in that it provides no transition but instead provides for an
endorsement. He agrees that an appeal process is necessary
otherwise one student could cause the whole exam to be thrown out
because the necessary processes were not available. He noted that
"waiver" means several things to him. A waiver could involve an
extraordinary, very unique situation, such as a military transfer.
But, waiving, if interpreted too broadly, could involve waiving
everyone from the test.
He stated, "I also believe that we have to address both sides of
the issue when we come to competency and waiver, and, if in fact,
we're going to waive for someone who has not yet met the
requirements and it's unique, why aren't we waiving the last two or
three years of school if that kid's already passed that test? Why
should we keep that kid sitting around in a classroom bored to
death when he's already met or she's already met every single
qualification for graduation?"
CHAIR GREEN replied, "Because they have not completed the required
number of course credits."
SENATOR TAYLOR said the student should not need the course credits
if the student completed the competency test.
CHAIR GREEN noted that course credits are required under current
statute.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what should be done about the 14 year old who
is capable of working on a PhD. He felt there needs to be a way to
address those unique situations. He commented he would like to
hear the professional community on that issue and expressed concern
that "We are doing everything we can right now, it appears, to
bring this thing down to the lowest common denominator for
competency that we can find and I'd like to know that when we drop
to that low denominator, that maybe we ought to have some kind of
high denominator too that says if you can pass the high one and you
can challenge our courses, you walk out of here early and we'll
give you the next two years tuition we would have paid in high
school to help you out get through college."
CHAIR GREEN said she cannot speak to that, but she thinks that some
schools are addressing those situations within their districts.
She stated it is difficult to draft something in Juneau that works
for all districts in the State.
Number 2200
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Rose how many benchmarks are in use today
and questioned whether a benchmark is a diagnostic tool or whether
it can be used to keep a student from moving on.
MR. ROSE said benchmarks are used as a diagnostic tool to identify
whether a student is at grade level and to determine the student's
areas of need. They are a measure to make sure that students are
progressing. He noted for him, the whole idea of the benchmark
centers around the 3rd grade mark. If students are not at their
benchmark by 3rd grade, a gap starts to develop that makes it
difficult to handle material in later grades.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what is being done when a student is not at
grade level. He maintained that 11th grade students have taken a
lot of benchmark exams but are not at grade level. He asked if
third grade students who are not at grade level are held back.
MR. ROSE replied the reason the test is given in 3rd, 6th, and 8th
grade is that the areas of need can be identified and a student has
several years to get up on step. If a child is not able,
intervention strategies should be put in place.
SENATOR TAYLOR said we aren't doing anything. We're giving them
until grade 6 and at that time everyone throws up their hands and
says it didn't work.
MR. ROSE said that is not what he said.
CHAIR GREEN stated that additional tests are being given to these
students. She added the committee is not having that conversation
today.
Number 2050
MR. ED MCLAIN, Assistant Superintendent of the Kenai Peninsula
Borough School District, said his district has in place a certified
diploma process, which was put in place about one year before the
state began its process. One of the critical pieces of the
district's process was to get the community, business people, board
members and parents to identify what essential skills high school
students should have to lead a successful life. The essential
skills were distinguished as a subset of the full array of
performance standards. The Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
is in support of the full array of performance standards. When the
state began to develop its test, it was a mismatch between trying
to capture and assess the full array of standards. He noted he was
the co-chair of that committee and is the co-chair of the content
review committee. The committee, at that point, were math
specialists and they were looking at the math portion from a math
perspective. They did a good job of testing a full array of math
skills. SB 133 brings attention back to the essential skills.
Regarding Senator Taylor's concern, he said the Kenai Peninsula
Borough School District is recognizing advanced students and has a
program that provides funding for seniors who are ready for college
courses. His district believes that is best taken care of on a
local level because of the multiple opportunity aspect.
MR. MCLAIN commented that he agrees with a lot of Mr. Rose's
testimony. He agrees that the waiver provision needs to be tied
down quickly but that sort of thing gets very detailed, so rather
than include the details in the bill, the details can be given over
to DOEED. He would like an allowance for waivers in the bill
because it is the right thing to do for students, as well as for
the legal defensibility aspect.
Regarding the IEP provision, he believes that successfully used
accommodations should be part and parcel of the educational
programming and not a last minute add-on for testing. His district
believes strongly in the idea of accountability and in a
demonstration of learning.
MR. MCLAIN concluded by saying the Kenai District appreciates the
intent language in the bill as it gives encouragement to local
districts. He offered to answer questions.
MS. STAR PATTERSON, an educator and parent, made the following
comments via teleconference from Fairbanks. She has administered
the HSGQE four times. She believes SB 133 is the most
comprehensive and best piece of legislation before the committee.
She asked the committee to consider that the year 2006 is optimum
because students taking the test now have not had the opportunity
to take the benchmark exams and to learn. The Class of 2006 will
at least have had the benefit of the 6th grade benchmark exam. In
the rural areas, teachers leave every year. Those students will be
the victims.
CHAIR GREEN asked Ms. Patterson if she has seen SB 133.
MS. PATTERSON said she has.
CHAIR GREEN noted that the high school essential skills do not
include algebra and geometry.
MS. PATTERSON said that is good. She asked the committee to look
at the 2006 date. She feels the Governor is correct as the
students who must take the test now have not had the opportunity to
learn. She maintained that the exit exam is extremely intense and
that some students need 8 hours to take it. In the last test round,
out of 42 students, all but four took it very seriously. The test
is rigorous and demanding physically and mentally.
Number 1600
CHAIR GREEN pointed out that the whole purpose of SB 133 is to
align the exam with what students are required to take in school
under the current statute. That is a far different standard from
what might be expected of a college-bound student.
MS. PATTERSON emphasized that the test is good. A few things need
to be adjusted but it is a fair test. The standards are excellent
but the students need the opportunity to learn the material. She
asked that the test not be thrown out but revised and not "dumbed
down."
MR. RICHARD MAUER, representing the Delta-Greeley School District,
and President-elect of the Association of Alaska School Boards
(AASB), stated that SB 133 is an excellent piece of legislation.
It is comprehensive and addresses many of AASB's concerns. He has
worked on the benchmarks, as well as the math portion of the exam,
both on the original committee and the current committee, which is
determining whether the current standards exceed essential skills.
He also served on the school designator committee. One thing he
likes about SB 133 is that testing will be continued. Testing is
essential for the students and the data used from the exam will be
used in the school designator formula. He appreciates the
committee's efforts to leave no child behind through the waiver
process and the alternative assessment. He commented he favors the
language on page 2, line 26, that says the test will not be
administered during a day in session. He cautioned that the
committee may hear concerns that Saturday testing is an unfunded
mandate. He has no problem with that but others may.
CHAIR GREEN noted that it is possible that proctors could give the
test to free up teachers.
MR. MAUER said in his profession he administers testing centers and
he has proctors who do not have to meet the same qualifications.
Mr. Mauer referred to the language on page 3, line 5 that relates
to uniform standards and suggested including a provision to allow
for reciprocity so that students who transfer in from other states
that have passed an exam elsewhere would not have to take Alaska's
exam. He also advocates that endorsements be placed on transcripts
and diplomas and he favors leaving that to local districts.
CHAIR GREEN said that she, Senator Taylor and Senator Davis think
the reciprocity idea is a good one.
MS. PATRICIA GRISWOLD, a mother of eight children from Delta, said
she agrees that if schools used a standard form of testing for each
grade, there would be no need for the HSGQE. She noted the
essential skills exam will make things too easy for our students
and make them feel inferior. In addition, science and history
courses are required for graduation yet those subjects are not
covered in the exit exam at all. She believes if students do not
pass a standard exam each year, they should not move onto the next
grade.
MS. LOUISE PARISH, testifying from Valdez, said she favors making
the exam an essential skills test. The exit exam reading skill
level was at about 7th or 8th grade. She believes with appropriate
remediation, every child should be able to learn the essential
skills. Regarding the waiver process, she is concerned that it
will provide an out for the schools for students with learning
disabilities. She inquired whether writing will be required for
the essential skills test as the bill refers to reading, English
and math. She thinks using a regents diploma for students who want
a greater challenge is a good idea. She prefers using an appeal
process rather than a waiver from DOEED. She fears that waivers
will be granted in place of providing remedial classes. She
expressed concern that under the IEP process, minimums must be met.
CHAIR GREEN reminded Ms. Parish that SB 133 only offers one type of
diploma - no IEP diploma is offered. In addition, she clarified
that she mentioned earlier that neither algebra nor geometry would
be on the essential skills test but if those are determined at some
point to be essential skills, they will be on the exam.
MS. PARISH said she feels an IEP diploma would be unfair to
students.
MS. JOAN BOHMANN, a school psychologist from Anchorage, expressed
concern about putting designations on the diploma for vocational or
technical courses because those designations may limit a student's
options in the future. In addition, she would like to see a
reference to the ability to use accommodations while taking the
exam in the legislation. The function of accommodations under the
IDEA legislation is that the student gets used to the
accommodations and that their appropriateness is evaluated before
utilizing them solely for a test. She appreciates the committee's
efforts.
CHAIR GREEN said the three methods of providing for testing - with
or without accommodations or offering an alternate test, overlay
the entire concept in the bill and will be used by DOEED and the
board when they promulgate regulations for students with
disabilities.
Number 465
MS. AMY HEADRICK, representing the Disability Law Center (DLC),
said she has not had an opportunity to thoroughly review SB 133.
She applauded Mr. Maloney's comments on programming because that,
in essence, is the problem that the DLC has with any of the bills
before the committee. The DLC fully supports exams and standards
and expects every student to meet those standards. In reaching
those standards, the DLC expects every school in Alaska to teach
all students to those standards, except the very few who cannot
meet them. She noted that to keep commenting on various bills is
difficult when they all avoid the issue. She explained that she
has been involved with a case for the last three weeks that has
taken all of her time. She is representing a 7th grader with
emotional disturbances. Since he has been in third grade, he has
been slated to take the exam with appropriate accommodations, such
as an interpreter. As a 7th grader, he is reading at a 2nd grade
level, his English ability is at a 2nd grade level and his math is
at a 3rd grade level. He has received very little education since
last November. The school district is fighting DLC tooth and nail.
DLC cannot even get a program from the district that would educate
this young man and point to his needs. This child's parent has
advocated for him but some have suggested to her that she sign over
custody to DFYS and abandon her son so that he can get the services
he needs. Ms. Headrick said she is stunned by what she has seen
since January. Every department points its finger at another.
CHAIR GREEN asked Ms. Headrick if she heard from any agency people
yesterday.
MS. HEADRICK said she did but she spoke to those people before and
they are not the ones who can help. She stated the problems with
the special education system need to be addressed now. The exam is
not the issue, the education is. Her one comment on the bill is
that the waiver and alternate assessment could give school
districts an out as far as living up to the requirements of the
IDEA.
CHAIR GREEN said she expects DOEED to address that problem through
regulation. She noted that when statistics about how districts are
qualifying students to take an alternate assessment and when
accommodations are allowed are collected, out of sync percentages
can be addressed.
MS. DEB GERMANO, testifying via teleconference from Homer, said
that SB 133 appears to be very comprehensive and all of the pieces
are on the table. She suggested keeping the bill simple and
concise so that it does not offer too many back doors. She
expressed concern about administering the exam and said that
additional staff, such as proctors, will cost money. She is not
sure what the answer to that problem is; the Homer district is
making sure that a lot of good activities are being offered in
classrooms while the exam is being administered. The Homer
district is losing precious professional development time needed to
help districts meet the standards.
TAPE 01-19, SIDE A
MS. MARYJEANNE YRAGUI, from Kenai, said the test needs to be
totally revised. She has talked with parents, students and
teachers. Students have to take one year of algebra but they do
not have to take geometry or a second year of algebra, yet the exit
exam contains questions from both of those subjects. The exit exam
contained a question on the quadratic formula but the practice test
did not contain a similar question so none of the students were
prepared for it. She favors delaying the exam. She believes that
students need to be made more accountable. She questioned whether
the exit exam grade will remain on students' records if the
requirement date is changed.
CHAIR GREEN explained that for the years 2002 and 2003, the only
students who would have any reference on their diplomas or
transcripts are those who passed the test.
MS. YRAGUI asked whether the transcript will contain a letter grade
for the exam or "passed."
CHAIR GREEN said that will be determined by DOEED.
MS. YRAGUI said she is concerned about the students who pass the
test the first time with a low grade. That grade will label the
student.
MR. RAY BARNES, testifying from Homer, said his son is profoundly
deaf and has an interpreter and an IEP. His son is an honor roll
student. He is not looking for waivers, he is looking for a fair
evaluation process. His son is a freshman and the issue of
accommodations for the exit exam is affecting him strongly. He
explained that the interpreter translates the English language into
American Sign Language (ASL). ASL is his son's first language.
Most of the information on tests he takes now is conveyed through
the interpreter. He does not feel the legislature put enough work
into the 1997 legislation. That law put all of the responsibility
on the students. The whole language movement approach failed.
Now, all of a sudden, the students are being made to pay for that.
He agrees with a lot of Mr. McLain's and Mr. Rose's statements. He
has had to fight the school board because the district hired
unqualified interpreters who were not certified. He has been in a
daily battle over his son's education. He is opposed to giving a
student a certificate of attendance after the student has attended
12 years of school. He favors delaying the exam requirement until
2006 to give students the opportunity to take the benchmark exams.
CHAIR GREEN informed Mr. Barnes that none of the bills before the
committee refer to a certificate of attendance.
MS. SHARON NUSUNGINYA, from Soldotna, said she is testifying
because she is concerned about the effect the exam is having on her
15 year old sons. Her boys were diagnosed with Asperger's
Syndrome, which is recognized as a developmental disability.
People with AS have average to above average IQs and usually have
learning disabilities or difficulties in one or two areas. Her
sons are very knowledgeable in natural science, geography, history,
political and military science, grammar and reading, however they
have a math disability, poor reading comprehension, and difficulty
with abstract reasoning and writing. It does not matter how hard
they try, they will not be able to pass the exit exam because the
areas tested are the areas with which they have a disability. Her
sons are fully aware that they will not pass the test and question
the futility of continuing with school when they will not receive a
real diploma. Their strengths will go unrecognized. Children with
AS have a very high anxiety level.
MS. CAROLYN BARNES, from Kenai, said her son is a freshman who will
be expected to take the exit exam next year. Her son is profoundly
deaf and therefore has a language disability. If he were tested in
his natural language (ASL), he could ace any test put before him.
She questioned whether the exit exam is fair and in his best
interest. Taking any test without the aid of an interpreter is
discriminatory. She does not think that this issue is being
addressed. She was told her son will not have an interpreter for
the exit exam. She questioned how a test can be made fair for a
student who can't learn to read through phonics but must memorize
every single word. To expect a deaf student to have the same
vocabulary as a hearing student when their natural language is a
visual language is unrealistic. ASL is not a replacement for the
English language, it is a visual language that does the best it can
to give children language and meaning to their world. It takes a
lot more time. This test will not raise standards for children
with disabilities - it will take away her son's potential. This
will set him up for failure. He works harder than any student she
knows to make the honor roll.
Number 992
MS. ELIZABETH BACOM, President of the Petersburg School Board, said
the process of developing a fair and equitable examination to
determine the competency of graduating high school students is not
an easy task. The original legislation did not provide for
students with special needs and did not allow adequate opportunity
for districts to align their curricula to the new Alaska standards.
SB 133 shows her that the members of the Senate HESS Committee have
listened carefully to the concerns of Alaskans and are ready to put
together legislation that will satisfy everyone's concerns. She
applauds several areas:
· Allowing special needs students other opportunities to
demonstrate their competency;
· Allowing an extra two years for districts to align their
curricula with Alaska state standards;
· Encouraging endorsements on diplomas and celebrating the
educational success of those students in various areas of
their high school career; and
· Requiring the testing to occur outside of regular
instructional time.
There are a couple of areas she would like clarified. She asked if
the language change from "competency testing" to "essential skills
examination" means the test will be revamped or that several
avenues will be available to prove competency. Second, she hopes
there will be a clear process of waiver application and for
handling appeals from parents and educators regarding individual
waiver requests. Her final concern is to have a timely turn around
time from testing to results so that a student who requires
remediation will be able to set a schedule as early as possible.
It is important, for example, that the spring testing results are
provided well in advance of the first day of school in the fall.
She thanked the committee for its work.
CHAIR GREEN thanked Ms. Bacom and said she would get back to her on
the name change to essential skills examination.
MS. BACOM said she is also concerned about students who transfer
into the Petersburg district from within the state. She suggested
having an interpreter for the ESL student when the student is
tested.
MS. SHERI WIKAN, from Petersburg, stated support of SB 133 but
asked for clarification of the same points raised by Ms. Bacom.
Number 1243
MS. SALLY DONALDSON, a school counselor from Juneau and the
President-elect of the Alaska School Counselor Association (ASCA),
stated support for delaying the exam. She appreciated Ms. Bacom's
comment about transient students and said that the fact that
students move frequently is being overlooked and needs to be
considered. She thanked the committee for spending all of the time
and energy it has on this bill.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
CHAIR GREEN stated that no one else was interested in testifying.
She asked participants to call her office with any other concerns
they may have. She then adjourned the meeting at 12:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|