Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/14/2001 01:34 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
March 14, 2001
1:34 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
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Gretchen Guess
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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
SENATE BILL NO. 67
"An Act relating to assisted living homes and to liability for acts
or omissions in the licensing, monitoring, or supervision of
assisted living homes; and providing for an effective date."
BILL POSTPONED TO 3/16/01
SENATE BILL NO. 91
"An Act relating to information and services available to pregnant
women and other persons; and ensuring informed consent before an
abortion may be performed, except in cases of medical emergency."
BILL POSTPONED TO 3/16/01
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 133 - See Senate HESS Committee minutes dated 3/7/01 and
3/10/01.
SB 67 - No previous Senate committee action.
SB 91 - No previous Senate committee action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Hans Neidig
Staff to Senator Green
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the changes made to CSSB 133(HES).
Dr. Ed McLain
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
210 Fidalgo Ave.
Kenai, AK 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports CSSB 133(HES) and requested two
amendments.
Dr. Bruce Johnson
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding CSSB 133(HES).
Mr. Phil Reeves
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding CSSB 133(HES).
Mr. Greg Maloney
Director of Special Education
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding CSSB 133(HES).
Mr. Rich Kronberg
President, NEA-Alaska
114 2nd Street
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports CSSB 133(HES).
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-21, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRWOMAN LYDA GREEN called the Senate Health, Education & Social
Services Committee meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. Present were
Senators Leman, Wilken and Green. CHAIRWOMAN GREEN announced the
committee would take up SB 133 first, and that she had a committee
substitute (CS) prepared. She informed participants that the
committee will meet on Friday, and any bills that are not heard
today due to time constraints will be heard at that time.
SB 133-PUBLIC SCHOOL COMPETENCY EXAM/REPORTS
SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt CSSB 133(HES), Version L, as the
working document of the committee. There being no objection, the
motion carried.
MR. HANS NEIDIG, staff to Chairwoman Green, explained the changes
made to the committee substitute as follows.
· On page 1, line 14, "essential skills" was changed to
"competency" in regard to the examination. That language is
in current statute. That same change was made on page 2, line
4, and in the title of the bill.
· On page 2, line 7, "or receive a waiver from the governing
body" was added. The "governing body" is used in AS 14.60.
010; it applies to school districts and Rural Education
Attendance Areas (REAAs) and will make those bodies the
granters of the waivers.
· On page 2, line 16, language was put back in to address a
concern by a committee member. It reads, "A re-examination
may not be offered more often than once every three months and
must occur within three years after the date the student is no
longer in attendance." That language will clarify how many
times a student may take the examination.
· On page 2, line 24, language was added that reads, "An
examination required under (a) of this section shall be
administered during days approved by the commissioner for in-
service training of teachers under AS 14.03.030." That
language was suggested by the department to meet Chairwoman
Green's desire to administer the exam on in-service days
and/or days in which students are not in session.
· On page 2, line 26, language was added stating that students
will receive an endorsement on their diplomas and transcripts
identifying the areas of the examination passed. Rather than
listing the exam scores on the transcript, the endorsements
will appear on the student's transcript and the diploma.
SENATOR LEMAN said he believes placing the endorsement on the
diploma makes more sense in that it will provide for easy viewing,
but he liked the idea of putting the scores on the transcript and
would like to continue that discussion at another time.
Mr. Neidig continued.
· On page 2, beginning on line 31, the word "successfully" was
added and the word "team" was deleted so that it reads,
"successfully completes an alternative assessment program
required by the student's individualized education program or
required in the education plan developed for the student
under 29 U.S.C. 794;". Those two changes were suggested by
the Department of Education and Early Development (DOEED).
· On page 3, lines 27-29, the following was added, "including
the criteria and procedure under which a governing body uses
the waiver to grant a diploma to a student." Section 4 deals
with giving the board the ability to carry forth its duties.
This language will allow the board to stipulate and develop
the regulations and procedures around which the waivers will
be given by the governing bodies.
· On page 3, line 31, and in other places where appropriate,
the date was changed to February in order to capture those
students who might graduate in January.
· On page 4, lines 18-20, the language was added, "A competency
examination shall be administered during days approved by the
commissioner for in-service training days." This is meant to
mirror other language having to do with when the exams could
be given.
· On page 4, lines 23-24, language was added by the drafter,
"Individualized education program is a program described
under AS 14.30.278" for the purpose of making the definition
tighter.
· On page 4, line 27 through page 5, line 1, language was added
at DOEED's request to facilitate development of the
transition regulations.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN noted that all committee members were present.
She then asked Dr. McLain to address the committee.
DR. ED MCLAIN, Assistant Superintendent for the Kenai Peninsula
Borough School District, informed the committee he served on the
original math content review committee and is on the current
committee. He is also a member of the technical review committee
advisory board on the high school graduation qualifying and
benchmark exams. He asked the committee to look at page 2, line
24, and asked that the word "shall" be changed to "may" so that
schools be allowed, rather than required, to administer the test on
in-service days for the reasons that very small schools will need
that flexibility and in-service training is very important.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if a school wanted to give the test on an
in-service day, the school could request permission to have that
in-service day designated as a test day.
DR. MCLAIN said there may be issues from DOEED's perspective in
terms of security of the test and what day it is administered.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the bill did not make any mention of in-
service days, and that was left to the districts, whether a
district could request of DOEED that it give the test on an in-
service day.
DR. BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of DOEED, said yes because
DOEED does not control the individual calendars of school
districts. Those calendars are submitted to DOEED but DOEED's
concern is that they meet the minimum requirements of 170 days of
instruction and up to 10 in-service days. Additional days beyond
that are of no concern to DOEED. As it stands today, there is
nothing to prevent a district from scheduling an in-service day on
the testing dates.
SENATOR LEMAN asked, regarding security, if enough versions of the
exam are available so that the exam can be administered on
different days.
DR. JOHNSON said DOEED has identified six days per year on which
the exam can be given. There is only a single version of the exam
at this time. The most cost-effective way to do this is to use a
single version during each administration of the test. That helps
with the scoring and administration.
SENATOR LEMAN expressed concern that if certain school districts
and schools want some flexibility, it may not work on a statewide
basis to administer the exam on the same day.
DR. JOHNSON said there is nothing in current law to prevent a
district from holding an in-service day or holding a regular day of
instruction when this test us given. Most districts have not used
the in-service concept but it is being talked about as the
logistics of the test administration become more problematic. He
suggested that in the larger schools, when the vast majority of
teachers will be engaged in in-service, the certified support staff
could be assigned to proctor the exam.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if that would be possible if it is not
addressed in this legislation.
DR. JOHNSON said it would.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the exam is being administered on the same
day in all school districts at this time.
DR. JOHNSON said that is correct.
DR. MCLAIN continued his testimony. The same change (change shall
to may) would need to be made on page 4, line 19. On page 2, lines
17-18, he asked that the language, "and must occur within three
years after the date the student is no longer in attendance" be
deleted because it might limit what happens to a young adult who
wants to return to school to get a high school diploma.
DR. MCLAIN said regarding waivers, DOEED will be setting the
conditions and criteria under page 2, lines 26-29. Regarding
accountability of schools, current regulations make it possible for
school districts to report the number of students who graduate with
and without modifications and the number of students who use an
alternative assessment or get a waiver. Any anomalies will show up
on that report so that if suddenly a huge number of students
receive waivers in a particular district, DOEED could investigate.
The Kenai district appreciates the inclusion of the waiver
provision, not as a loophole but as a necessary safety valve.
On the issue of changing the name of the exam, DR. MCLAIN said he
is very comfortable with whatever language the committee wishes to
use. The change refocuses the exam to a specific subset of the
full performance standards. He prefers that route.
Number 1330
SENATOR WILKEN thanked Dr. McLain for his participation in this
project. He then expressed concern that some parents of children
who are not likely to pass the exam may try to manipulate school
districts by requesting waivers. He noted his wife was on a school
board for six years and that school board increased its meeting
time every other week to deal with disciplinary problems. He said
he does not want to set in place an additional burden for school
boards to where they have to increase meeting hours regularly to
deal with waiver requests that are manipulative. He asked Dr.
McLain if he is aware of any other states that have used waivers
and whether they have been successful.
DR. MCLAIN said when he referred to the need for a safety valve, he
did not mean that districts should be provided with a paved
superhighway. The current legislation calls for the parameters to
be developed by DOEED and he believes that will be done in a
healthy and thoughtful way to assure that waivers don't become a
misused tool. On the flip side, providing for no waiver at all
would be equally as problematic because there will be students who
transfer in at the end of high school. It is his understanding
that waivers or an appeal process are common throughout the states
and he is not aware of any state that does not provide for some
allowance. He repeated that DOEED would be able to see if the
waivers were being abused through the school report card system.
He pointed out the Kenai district has a process that only brings
the few disciplinary problems that cannot be resolved by the
administration before the school board. The district has reduced
those numbers and he believes with practice and training, that same
process could occur with waivers.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if what amounts to a de facto waiver is built
in because students can attempt to take the test 11 times.
DR. MCLAIN said the scenario that came before the technical review
committee was the military transfer student. He does not believe
that type of student will return 11 times to take the exam. He
does not envision the student who continually fails the exam as
being the primary seeker of a waiver. He urged that the parameters
for a waiver be tightly controlled in regulation rather than
through legislation.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN commented that when the legislature gets very
specific in legislation the opposite of what was intended often
happens because the one thing the legislature failed to mention
becomes the exception and cannot be considered. She asked what
procedure a district would use to grant a waiver and whether DOEED
will require in regulation that a document be on file to justify
every waiver.
DR. JOHNSON said he thinks it is fair to assume the state board of
education will consider a paper trail for the purpose of
accountability when it develops the regulations. He noted, in
answer to Senator Wilken's question, other states do have a waiver
process for extraordinary circumstances and DOEED will try to learn
from them but Alaska's law will be the tightest. He anticipates
this conversation taking place over a 12 to 18 month time period by
the board.
SENATOR WILKEN asked Dr. McLain if he is comfortable with the
special education component of the legislation.
DR. MCLAIN said the special education staff in his district are
very comfortable with the language in CSSB 133(HES). He pointed
out, in response to Senator Leman's comment about putting test
scores on transcripts or diplomas, he believes, if that is the
case, students will want to retake the test to get a higher score
and that will create cost and management issues. He advised the
committee that the transcript will contain the classes and grades
of the student so he asked that a pass-fail notation for the exam
be used.
Number 1861
SENATOR DAVIS asked a representative from DOEED to tell her of a
few states that grant waivers and whether each district will decide
if a waiver should be granted.
DR. JOHNSON said each district will be responsible for applying the
regulations that are developed by the state board to see whether or
not the student qualifies for a waiver.
SENATOR DAVIS asked what criteria he anticipates the regulations to
use and whether DOEED will publish draft regulations for public
comment.
DR. JOHNSON said the regulatory process will be used.
SENATOR DAVIS asked if DOEED will grant final approval of the
waivers or whether the districts will.
DR. JOHNSON said the districts will determine whether students will
get a waiver based on the parameters of the regulation and the
school report card can be refined so that the numbers of students
who are granted a waiver will be shown. He noted the state board
may want each district to submit a report to DOEED as a means of
accountability.
SENATOR DAVIS asked Dr. Johnson if he anticipates that DOEED will
grant final approval for waivers.
DR. JOHNSON said he does not, and that would be a nightmare for
DOEED.
SENATOR DAVIS asked for clarification of the pass/fail score.
DR. JOHNSON replied that any score above the cut score will be
considered a passing score. The score will not be scaled.
SENATOR WARD commented that Senator Wilken brought up the fact that
some parents may try to manipulate the system on behalf of their
children who are at risk of not graduating because they have not
passed the exam, and some parents will hire an attorney, but he
noted there are students at the other end of the spectrum who do
not have anyone to advocate for them.
DR. JOHNSON said he is sure the state board will consider that
scenario. He believes the waiver boundaries will have to be
applied fairly across all children, regardless of family affluence.
SENATOR WARD said he wanted to make sure DOEED was aware of that
possibility.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN noted that Representative Guess had joined the
committee.
Number 2025
SENATOR DAVIS asked DOEED to speak to allowing districts to give
the test on an in-service day because she does not believe most
districts will want to do that.
DR. JOHNSON said DOEED was responding to the fact that the state
board only has control over 180 days and 10 of those can be
approved by the commissioner as in-service days. Chairwoman Green
was hoping the exam could be given outside of the 170 instructional
days and within the 10 in-service days or beyond those 10 days.
DOEED believes those students taking the test could attend school
on an in-service day to take the exam and that certificated and
support staff could serve as test proctors. He pointed out the
logistics of administering the test are becoming very complex and a
solution has to be found. Another possibility would be to have a
minimum school day so that all students taking the test arrive at
8:00 a.m. and the other students arrive at 11:00 a.m. He added if
the test was given on a Saturday, districts would have to provide
bus transportation and hire proctors so a cost would be involved
but that may be the most cost-effective approach in the long run.
SENATOR DAVIS felt that school districts will appreciate having the
flexibility to decide when to administer the test. She said she
believes it is important that school districts get more money so
that they can budget for buses or another location outside of the
school.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Mr. Reeves to address the language on page
2, lines 24 to 25, and on page 4, lines 18 to 20.
MR. PHIL REEVES, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
said no such language is in existing statute. He suggested
deleting the first sentence after subsection (c) on page 2 so that
it does not discuss the administration. Right now the test is
being administered without such language.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said the sentence, "An examination required under
(a) of this section shall be administered during days approved by
the commissioner for in-service training of teachers under AS
14.03.030." She asked Dr. Johnson if this topic has been discussed
thoroughly enough so that the state board and DOEED would know that
there is great latitude and great expectation on behalf of DOEED
and the board to encourage local districts to be a little more
creative.
TAPE 01-21, SIDE B
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said the purpose is to prevent great disruption in
the schools and to figure out alternatives within the correct time
frame.
SENATOR DAVIS moved to delete the language referred to by Senator
Green [Amendment 1].
SENATOR WILKEN asked for clarification because he thought Dr.
Johnson said this test has to be given on a specific date.
DR. JOHNSON said there is no provision in current statute and that
is the way DOEED has been doing business. The state board
establishes those dates in the fall and the spring. The board
believes it has the authority to do so. If a district wants to
build its calendar around those dates in order to offer in-service
on that date, he believes the commissioner would approve that.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if the state board will continue to provide
specific dates on which the test can be given.
DR. JOHNSON said it will.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN clarified that the amendment will delete the
language on page 2, line 24 through line 26, and on page 4,
beginning at the end of line 18 that reads, "A competency
examination may not be administered during a day in session."
[Amendment 1]
SENATOR WARD objected and asked if Amendment 1 will free the
administration up to set a date and then work in conjunction with
all school districts.
[Dr. Johnson nodded yes.]
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN interjected to inform the audience that the
committee will not be able to get to SB 67 and SB 91 today. She
noted those bills would be heard on Friday.
SENATOR WARD removed his objection therefore Amendment 1 was
adopted.
DR. JOHNSON clarified that Senator Ward "hit the nail on the head."
The state board and the department would establish the testing
dates. DOEED also approves the calendar so districts can decide
whether to have an instructional or in-service day on those testing
dates.
SENATOR WARD said it would also not rule out the possibility that
DOEED will come back to the legislature and request additional
funding so that districts can administer the tests on Saturdays.
DR. JOHNSON said he believes as DOEED gains some experience it will
come back with suggestions on how best to do this.
SENATOR WILKEN questioned whether there would be any circumstances
in which a person who lacked proficiency in the English language
could pass the test without provisions.
DR. JOHNSON said that is a question the state board will take up as
part of the waiver discussion.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if a lack of proficiency and the ability to
communicate in English may be reason for a waiver.
DR. JOHNSON said he cannot speak for the board but he is certain it
will consider whether or not a student who does not speak the
English language should be denied a diploma in Alaska.
SENATOR WILKEN suggested the committee consider that option and
that they are making that available if the committee doesn't do
something about that. He then asked if a waiver would apply only
at the high school level or whether it would apply at the benchmark
level.
DR. JOHNSON said a waiver would apply only at the high school
level. The benchmark exams are mandatory.
SENATOR DAVIS asked that a representative from DOEED explain the
special education component of the legislation to the committee.
Number 2143
MR. GREG MALONEY, Director of Special Education, DOEED, said
nothing in SB 133 is inconsistent with the federal requirements for
special education services. The Individual with Disabilities
Education Act as amended in 1997 (IDEA 97) contains provisions for
students with disabilities to participate meaningfully in statewide
assessments. The goal is to have those students, as much as
possible, participate in the regular assessments. Under Alaska's
current system, students could participate in one of three ways:
taking the regular assessment without accommodations; taking the
regular assessment with accommodations; or taking an alternate
assessment. The alternate assessment is for a relatively small
percentage of students who have significant cognitive impairments.
The alternate assessment is a portfolio assessment based on things
the student can or cannot do as determined by alternate standards.
MR. MALONEY said under CSSB 133(HES), students would still take the
test, but it is only after the student does not pass the test that
the IEP team would have the option of looking at an alternative or
different way of assessing the student's progress. That could be a
portfolio assessment, a review of the IEP goals, or other ways as
determined by the IEP team. He anticipates the state board will be
involved in developing the guidelines under which those kinds of
assessments would be developed. The goal of IDEA 97 is not so much
how a student performs on the test but to make sure the student
receives instructional programming that is tied to standards, that
holds the student to high standards, and allows the student access
to the general curriculum.
Regarding accommodations, MR. MALONEY said the question would be
what the student needs to allow the student to have access to and
make progress on the general curriculum. Under IDEA 97, there are
no specific requirements regarding a student with a disability and
graduation but there are requirements that DOEED has to maintain to
assure that students with disabilities do participate in statewide
assessments. At a minimum, DOEED has to report to the federal
government the number of students with disabilities who
participate, the performance of students with disabilities on these
regular assessments, and the graduation rate of those students.
One of the concerns is whether SB 133 will affect the numbers of
students determined eligible for special education. DOEED
currently monitors that anyway. DOEED's goal is not to have more
students identified but to have instructional programs able to
handle larger groups of students, thereby making special education
unnecessary for a larger group of students.
Number 1970
SENATOR DAVIS asked if, under CSSB 133(HES), students could use the
same accommodations they use under their IEP plan when they take
the test.
MR. MALONEY said the students could still take the test with or
without accommodations and if the student did not pass, the IEP
team would have the prerogative to determine a different way of
assessing, which may include using a calculator.
SENATOR DAVIS said that bothers her. She asked whether the student
can take the test the first time with the accommodations that are
given to the student with the IEP. She expressed concern about
setting special education students up for failure by allowing them
to use accommodations only after they have failed the test.
MR. MALONEY clarified that under the current system, students have
the opportunity to have all of the accommodations that are
contained in CSSB 133(HES) for their participation so that a
student with a disability would have the option, as determined by
the IEP team, to take the test with as many appropriate
accommodations as possible. Some accommodations are not listed in
CSSB 133(HES); they are considered to be modifications, such as use
of a calculator for the math test.
SENATOR DAVIS suggested adding the modifications to the
legislation.
DR. JOHNSON said it would be the committee's choice as to whether
to broaden the accommodations to include modifications. The
current thinking behind CSSB 133(HES) is to give students an
opportunity with approved accommodations that are outlined by the
state. If the student cannot pass the test that way, the IEP team
can look at other aids that may be necessary to assist that child
given the child's specific disability. Regarding whether special
education students will be set up for failure, Dr. Johnson said
there are probably some students with disabilities that don't fall
into the alternate assessment category, the best example being non-
readers. If a reader is appointed for that student, there is a
possibility the student could answer the comprehension questions
and get a score determined by the IEP team to be appropriate for
that individual child. He believes it can work the way it is right
now without damaging students. The goal is to have every child
with a disability challenge the test with approved accommodations
and if they can't achieve a passing score, then give them other
opportunities through additional accommodations that would be
approved on an individual basis.
SENATOR WILKEN referred to language on page 7 that reads, "All IEP
meeting members must understand that alternative assessments do not
lead to a high school diploma." He asked if that means that the
two percent of students that would have an alternative assessment
will not receive a diploma.
MR. MALONEY said that is correct under the current system. The
only students under the current system to receive a diploma would
be those who pass all three components of the exam.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if a person could tell from looking at a
diploma whether a student passed the competency test with
accommodations.
MR. MALONEY said no, those accommodations are allowed because they
do not change the validity or reliability of the exam. They allow
the disability to not penalize the student unfairly.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if there would be anything on any diploma that
would indicate some different level of learning or achievement,
other than the three endorsements.
MR. MALONEY said under the bill, it would depend on how the results
of the test are marked. For example, if the IEP team determined a
different process for a student to receive a diploma, then that
student would not have passed through the traditional methods the
reading, writing and math components of the exam. At that point,
it would be determined how the endorsements are noted on the
diploma. He pointed out that confidentiality is another issue. It
cannot be clear from the diploma that students are in special
education. He does not see anything under CSSB 133(HES) that talks
about a change in how a student with a disability or a modified
assessment would be represented, but to his understanding, the
student would have the diploma without the endorsements added to
it.
Number 1659
DR. MCLAIN asked Chairwoman Green to consider deleting the language
on page 2, line 18, that reads, "and must occur within three years
after the date the student is no longer in attendance."
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked committee members if maintaining the
sentence, "A reexamination must not be offered more often than once
every three months" would be satisfactory because it would give the
district room to allow a returning adult to take the test.
DR. JOHNSON said he thinks that is workable but that says a 27 year
old could come back and challenge the test. He said he sees no
reason to deny a person that opportunity and that it makes good
sense from a state perspective.
DR. MCLAIN added the student would still have to meet other
district requirements so there would be some quality control.
SENATOR WILKEN moved to delete the words "and must occur within
three years after the date the pupil is no longer in attendance" on
page 2, lines 18 and 19 [Amendment 2].
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN announced that with no objection, Amendment 2 was
adopted.
MR. RICH KRONBERG, President of NEA-Alaska, thanked the committee
and commented on two aspects of CSSB 133(HES). Regarding the use
of in-service days, NEA-Alaska recognizes that the six days of
testing definitely impact instructional time. NEA-Alaska also
recognizes that in-service days are very valuable as they provide
an opportunity for professional development. The key issue is who
can proctor the test. If the test must be proctored by
certificated staff, then the use of in-service days is more
problematic. He suggested that changes be made to regulations to
allow classified staff or others to proctor the tests. The second
issue of concern is the granting of waivers. NEA-Alaska supports
that provision and it supports the concept that the state board and
DOEED will have to adopt guidelines to promote uniformity and
accountability. NEA-Alaska believes in addition to reporting
requirements in the school report card, it would be advisable to
require districts to submit to DOEED a written explanation each and
every time they grant a waiver.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said the issue of who can proctor the test is
worth further investigation.
SENATOR LEMAN asked why the phrase "high school student" is used on
page 6 yet "secondary student" is used elsewhere throughout the
bill.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said that in statute, Section 14.03.060, refers to
elementary, junior high and secondary schools. Section 14.03.075
refers to secondary pupil competency testing. She noted it
distinguishes between the elementary grade students and secondary
students and those terms were used to conform to current titles.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN thanked all participants and announced that CSSB
133(HES) will be first on the agenda on Friday. She then adjourned
the meeting at 2:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|