02/08/2006 01:30 PM Senate HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB252 | |
| SB235 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 251 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 252 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 235 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 8, 2006
2:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Fred Dyson, Chair
Senator Gary Wilken, Vice Chair
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 252
"An Act relating to the definition of 'child abuse and neglect'
for child protection purposes; and providing for an effective
date."
MOVED SB 252 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 235
"An Act relating to a public school performance incentive
program; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 251
"An Act relating to immunization for meningitis of postsecondary
students residing on campus."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 252
SHORT TITLE: DEFINITION OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/30/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/06 (S) HES, JUD
02/08/06 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 235
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL PERFORMANCE BONUSES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/13/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/13/06 (S) HES, FIN
02/01/06 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/01/06 (S) -- Rescheduled to 02/03/06 --
02/03/06 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/03/06 (S) -- Rescheduled from 02/01/06 --
02/08/06 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Joanne Gibbens, Program Administrator
Office of Children's Services
Department of Health and Social Services
PO Box 110630
Juneau, AK 99811-0630
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 252 and answered questions.
Stacie Kraly, Chief Assistant Attorney General -
Statewide Section Supervisor
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 252.
Roger Sampson, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 235 and answered questions.
Les Morse, Director
Assessment and Accountability
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 235.
Michael Dickens, Ph.D., Superintendent
Skagway City Schools
PO Box 497
Skagway, AK 99840-0497
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the incentive program in SB 235.
Tom Harvey, Executive Director
NEA-Alaska
4100 Spenard Road
Anchorage, AK 99517
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 235.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR FRED DYSON called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 2:12:12 PM.
Present were Senators Kim Elton, Gary Wilken, Donnie Olson and
Chair Fred Dyson. Senator Lyda Green arrived during the course
of the meeting.
SB 252-DEFINITION OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
CHAIR DYSON announced SB 252 to be up for discussion.
2:13:56 PM
JOANNE GIBBENS, Program Administrator, Office of Children's
Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
introduced herself and Stacie Kraly of the Department of Law.
Ms. Gibbens explained that the intent of SB 252 is simply to
comply with federal law. In 2003, the Keeping Children and
Families Safe Act amended a federal law known as CAPTA, the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. An amendment to that
federal law now requires states to have in place a process to
investigate, provide services and look into cases where health
care providers have reported issues to child protective services
regarding illegal substance abuse and its effect on children.
She said this bill therefore ensures that health care
professionals report to the child protective service agency any
infants affected by abuse of a controlled substance or by
withdrawal from prenatal exposure to a controlled substance.
Other parts of the federal law require that OCS develop a plan
of care and so forth. All requirements in the federal amendment
are things OCS does already, including receiving reports on a
regular basis from hospital personnel if, for example, a baby is
born who generates a concern about cocaine or marijuana
exposure. The key piece of the legislation is putting into
statute the requirement that health care providers make those
reports.
2:16:05 PM
SENATOR ELTON referred to an e-mail from the Alaska Primary Care
Association expressing concern that the bill may discourage some
people from going to a community health clinic.
MS. GIBBENS acknowledged that people who fear being reported
might not go to a health care provider for prenatal care.
However, this bill, and the federal intent, is to ensure that
it's the health care providers involved in the delivery or care
of an infant who'll make that report. She indicated for OCS
it's "safety first": if there is concern about an infant's
health, the hope is that it's reported so necessary services can
be provided.
She discounted the notion that OCS would be standing at the
doorway, waiting for the mother to give birth. She noted that
hospitals and health care providers have their own protocols for
determining when a situation has reached a level where the state
should be involved, which is why OCS receives calls now and
responds to them. Although not an expert in substance abuse
itself, she emphasized that the bill is limited to the health
care providers who have the expertise to judge whether there is
harm to an infant.
2:19:19 PM
SENATOR ELTON expressed surprise that there wasn't already a
statutory requirement because of requirements for reporting
instances of abuse. He asked whether perhaps the bill is needed
because some people in the medical field aren't reporting now.
MS. GIBBENS responded that she doesn't believe current child
protection statutes specifically mention the use or effect of
illegal or controlled substances on infants, including prenatal
exposure or withdrawal; she deferred to Ms. Kraly for further
detail. Ms. Gibbens said she'd consulted with a number of OCS
offices in preparing for her testimony, and unanimously across
the state those calls are being received. Although it's not
specifically in law now, health care providers see it as their
obligation to call so that OCS can be there to make an
assessment, ensure the children are safe and perhaps get the
mothers into treatment. Thus she didn't anticipate a large
increase in calls due to this bill.
2:21:12 PM
CHAIR DYSON offered his belief that when a parent is abusing
illegal drugs, under current statute the child is identified as
a child in need of aid. He asked Ms. Kraly whether detection of
cocaine in an infant might precipitate the mother's arrest.
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor, Human Services Section, Civil Division,
Department of Law (DOL), pointed out that she doesn't practice
criminal law. She then opined that the referral would probably
be made if a toxicology report showed the presence of a
controlled substance in both the baby and the mother. There'd
be a report of harm and also a referral to a law enforcement
agency in order to determine whether charges would be brought;
those are discretionary functions of the district attorneys in
the areas they cover. She acknowledged the possibility, though
she wasn't sure how often it happened.
CHAIR DYSON referred to Senator Elton's concern and highlighted
that providers want to get care to the right people and not
scare off those who need it most. He asked what happens if
prenatal care, including amniocentesis, raises a strong
possibility of cocaine use before the child is born.
2:23:35 PM
MS. KRALY responded that DOL is getting calls such as reports of
harm relating to a mother's consuming controlled substances
during a pregnancy. From a jurisdictional standpoint, neither
OCS nor DOL has authority over an unborn child. From a program
standpoint, however, the family is referred to OCS, [DOL] takes
the report of harm, there is an assessment and there is an
effort to provide services and work with the family prior to the
child's birth in order to ameliorate difficulties or issues
arising in the home.
2:24:48 PM
CHAIR DYSON noted that Senator Green had joined the meeting at
approximately 2:15 p.m.
SENATOR GREEN referred to page 1, line 9, and asked whether it
is grammatically correct.
MS. KRALY agreed it is a clumsy sentence. She indicated DOL is
working on an amendment to a companion bill in the House with
the chair of the House Health, Education and Social Services
Standing Committee to make it more readable.
SENATOR ELTON observed that the bill is narrowly written, only
applying to a health care provider involved in the delivery or
care of an infant. It excludes the rest of the medical
community, who also may be aware of circumstances.
MS. GIBBENS related her understanding that this bill basically
repeats, verbatim, what the federal law requires; she surmised
it is due to the level of expertise of the health care providers
who are at the delivery or who provide care to the baby. She
noted, however, that all health care professionals are mandated
reporters for child abuse and neglect in Alaska.
2:27:47 PM
SENATOR ELTON requested that someone get back to him to explain
why the bill is so narrow. He voiced concern about the ability
of a medical professional to report if that professional doesn't
fit the criteria but notices a problem.
CHAIR DYSON asked whether anyone else wished to testify. He
surmised that, in addition to bringing the statutes in line with
current practice and federal requirements, this bill would
affect federal funding.
MS. GIBBENS or MS. KRALY concurred. In response to Senator
Green, she said depending on how the language is finessed in the
House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee,
she'd propose that the Judiciary committee conform the language.
2:28:51 PM
SENATOR GREEN moved to report SB 252 from committee with a zero
fiscal note and a note to ask the Judiciary committee to look at
conforming language. Without objection, SB 252 was reported
from the Senate Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee.
SB 235-SCHOOL PERFORMANCE BONUSES
CHAIR DYSON announced SB 235 to be up for consideration.
2:30:18 PM
ROGER SAMPSON, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), presented the public school performance
incentive program in SB 235, saying it is designed to maximize,
intensify and dramatically increase achievement in Alaska.
Lauding its innovation, he said it's based on a number of other
states' experiences. It aims to create an environment in which
a school, as a whole, can focus on the individual needs of
students and increase student achievement beyond one year's
worth of growth. Based on growth, not a predetermined target,
it includes all staff regardless of teaching certificates and
thus includes secretaries and custodians, for example, as well
as the administration of the building, such as the principal,
vice principal and counselors.
CHAIR DYSON offered his belief that it wouldn't include the
administration of a district.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON clarified that it specifically excludes
superintendents. He said this program uses annual school-based
assessments conducted each spring and developed around the
student-performance standards in reading, writing and
mathematics, as well as the Grade Level Expectations (GLEs) that
further define the standards.
2:32:22 PM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON discussed recognition of outstanding
performance and strategies used by a school as a whole - not
asking teachers and employees to work harder necessarily, but
providing an incentive to work differently and smarter, looking
at results. This bill aims to stimulate the educational
community to look at innovative practices and successful
principles, such as this [bonus program], from the private
sector. Noting that one strategy won't work for all 500 or so
Alaskan schools, he emphasized capturing the longevity and
expertise that exists in both the certified and noncertified
staff in many communities.
2:34:15 PM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON called this a no-risk program for the State
of Alaska. The compensation has been determined ahead of time;
if desired results aren't achieved, there is no cost to the
state. It will help increase the number and preparedness of
students leaving school ready to enter the workforce, he opined,
and will help make the state competitive in recruiting teachers
nationwide and then retaining them. He said this model is about
collaboration, effective instruction and using data to drive
what is done for the individual needs of kids. He discussed
spreading the responsibility for helping students attain
proficiency in reading, writing and mathematics.
2:35:52 PM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON explained that most states don't measure
growth among students, but look at predetermined targets. Under
this program, he asserted, students of all abilities will
continue to grow, with clear targets for each individual
student. The bill also provides a tool to evaluate the
effectiveness and performance of Alaska's schools. He
emphasized the desire to engage every student and to meet the
needs of those students and evaluate whether there is a return
on the investment in education. He surmised that measuring
growth would positively affect the dropout and graduation rates.
The one-on-one attention and having their needs met will change
students' motivation to stay in school, and will change what
they do once they leave school.
2:38:08 PM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON touched on how to measure growth to see
whether the incentive has been earned by a particular school.
He presented a scenario that compares how Student A did in a
given year, compared with a previous year. He mentioned looking
at different ways to group the students, whether by ethnicity,
socioeconomic status or another means, to make sure nobody is
left behind when looking at whether the school showed the growth
necessary to earn the incentive.
He turned to how this differs from the federal No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB), which looks at a group of kids who come into
the third grade, compared with those from a previous year.
While that appears to work well statistically in large schools,
Commissioner Sampson said it's problematic in small schools,
which are numerous in Alaska, and for transient populations that
move within a state. Measuring individual growth also provides
information to parents, allowing them more meaningful engagement
with teachers, principals and others who work at the school.
2:40:01 PM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON turned to page 7 of a handout in committee
packets, a "value table" that ties into the core of the
legislation. He mentioned working in great detail with
psychometricians and statisticians to ensure the fields are
level among schools, whether large or small, urban or rural,
containing high- or low-performing students, having high or low
populations of students with disabilities and so forth. He
expressed the desire to eliminate any disadvantage to being in a
school with a certain population. Acknowledging that people
want to move to different schools already, he emphasized that
the value table was designed carefully to allow all schools and
staffs to have an "even, fair chance at the targets."
2:42:53 PM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON addressed the next component in the
handout, a "computing index" that takes an example of a small
Alaskan school and uses performance data to articulate clear
statistical gains. He said the crux of the program is to move
individual students to a higher performance level, no matter
what the beginning level was.
2:46:05 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked why a student who slides backwards would get
any points.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON responded that a score of 100 represents
one year's worth of growth, the expected amount; a student who
goes backwards would get less than 100. He acknowledged more
credit is given for growth at certain points. For example,
there has been a judgment that getting to proficiency is
important. Thus the only place that credit would be given is if
a student advanced and then moved back to "proficient"; that
student would still receive credit for one year's worth of
growth. The rationale comes from the psychometricians, who say
advanced students, when at the very top level of any system,
often fluctuate between advanced and proficient. While a school
isn't penalized for that phenomenon, it also isn't given any
credit for it.
SENATOR ELTON asked why more points are given for going from
proficient to advanced, compared with points taken away when the
reverse occurs.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON answered that moving the first time from
proficient to advanced is a true sign of growth, whereas
bouncing back and forth or regressing from advanced to
proficient is a phenomenon that may not necessarily be
controlled by the quality of instruction.
SENATOR ELTON said that accounts for the first time the student
moves forward, but noted that 30 points are given for advancing,
but 10 points are deducted for going back.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON deferred to Mr. Morse.
2:50:35 PM
LES MORSE, Director, Assessment and Accountability, Department
of Education and Early Development, answered that if a student
moves from proficient to advanced, most likely some instruction
has affected that. For a number of students who go from
advanced to proficient, it is just because the student is moving
toward the center.
SENATOR WILKEN referred to the value table, asking what
components are measured and how they are weighted.
MR. MORSE answered that in terms of testing, it would be done
using standards-based assessments for mathematics and for
language arts, which is a combination of reading and writing.
SENATOR WILKEN asked whether a school's results are based solely
on test scores.
MR. MORSE said yes, under this program.
SENATOR WILKEN asked about attendance and other measurables.
MR. MORSE emphasized that this program just looks at growth.
Other components are measured when making accountability
decisions with regard to schools.
2:53:51 PM
SENATOR WILKEN asked how often the new test would be
administered.
MR. MORSE answered that it has been administered once; it will
be administered again in the spring.
SENATOR WILKEN asked whether it would be wise to measure more
often in order to have the variations even out over time, since
the test is new.
MR. MORSE agreed it is a new test, but said it is a valid
measure. He acknowledged the importance of doing reliability
and validity studies. While rewards would be based this year
relative to the previous year, long-term trends also would be
looked at to ensure that the value chart is established
appropriately. Thus there might be some need to adjust the
value chart through regulation. However, judgments this year
should be made relative to the previous year; as more years are
used, more students are lost with regard to the ability to
measure their performance, since some might not have been in
Alaska two years previously, for instance.
2:55:52 PM
SENATOR WILKEN questioned the validity of the first test given,
which had mechanical problems that affected student performance.
Although very much in favor of the concept, he suggested there
is risk to the state if what is implemented is detrimental to
the efforts of those trying to move ahead. He expressed concern
that people would lose confidence in the baseline against which
to measure performance.
2:57:17 PM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON said he shared that concern. He indicated
DEED had taken extensive measures, after the first test last
spring, to try to analyze the impact of some of the material
errors, but had seen no evidence "from a variety of sources"
that indicated there would be a significant impact on how well
the students did. He noted there would be a second year [of
testing] this coming May, from which there'd be comparison and
establishment of a baseline. Employees at schools would first
be impacted the following year, at which time there'd be three
years of data. He expressed confidence that each year [the
department] would gain a better understanding of the situation.
He agreed that looking at multiple years is the best approach.
When looking at whether other models had been successful, he
reported, the attempt was to take the best characteristics and
eliminate the weaknesses. They'd looked at a multi-year concept
in order to gain reliability; however, because of the mobility
of some of the students and employees, there was a fear that
some of the incentive would be lost if this were measured over
multiple years.
2:59:19 PM
CHAIR DYSON recalled discussion, perhaps in another committee,
about three different kinds of tests going on nationally. He
asked Mr. Morse to relate what he'd discussed with Wes [Keller,
staff to Chair Dyson].
MR. MORSE reported that Mr. Keller had raised an issue of
yardsticks to measure the assessment. There were three
different independent studies of the yardstick being used, by
out-of-state experts and people who work in the state but who
hadn't been involved in development of the assessment program.
Mr. Morse noted that, for the different measures used to assess
students, those don't really interact with one another for the
purposes of this proposed program, other than when looking at
the validity of a program.
CHAIR DYSON referred to Senator Wilken's earlier question. He
related his understanding that although other kinds of
assessments are being done, the department is going to only use
one assessment for purposes of this incentive program.
MR. MORSE agreed, clarifying that the one assessment is based on
Alaska's standards that teachers use. The other assessments are
used to validate DEED's current program and to compare how the
students do in the other programs versus this program.
CHAIR DYSON asked what "other programs" means.
MR. MORSE replied that there is a "norm reference test" given to
two grade levels; students are looked at with regard to how they
rank, which this past year had a very high - over 90 percent -
correlation. That's one tool. A statewide assessment is also
given; it doesn't provide results by individual student, but
shows how the state is doing relative to other states. Those
are then looked at to see how students are doing on them
compared with how they're doing on this assessment to ensure
it's a valid tool and that students are performing similarly.
3:03:28 PM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON clarified that only one assessment
instrument, given to all students in grades three through ten,
would be used for this incentive program.
CHAIR DYSON offered his understanding that some other assessment
instruments are given to some students in order to validate what
is being done with all students.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON affirmed that.
3:05:31 PM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON, in response to Senator Elton, explained
that the [incentive program] only looks at the previous year and
the current year to determine growth. In response to Chair
Dyson, he clarified that there would be no advantage in having
all high-performing students in a school.
CHAIR DYSON remarked that he'd been talking to parents in one of
the only elementary schools in his district that met the
requirements of the federal NCLB Act; apparently, a large number
of students have now transferred into that school. He suggested
in two or three years those new, motivated students could start
affecting the performance at the school.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON mentioned calculating adequate yearly
progress (AYP). With this proposed incentive program, he said,
he didn't believe it would affect any school if higher-
performance or transfer students came in. This program intends
to look at each student, regardless of low, medium or high
performance.
3:08:27 PM
CHAIR DYSON commented that there is a wonderful principal at the
school he'd mentioned, and teachers with vision for the
students, producing the very kind of environment he imagined
Commissioner Sampson to be seeking. He said parents are "voting
with their feet" to get their children into that school.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON said Alaska has schools that are doing
things differently, looking at individual needs of kids, using
data to drive their instruction, engaging students and spreading
that responsibility - they are showing true growth. Agreeing
the desire is to replicate that, he said the intent of SB 235 is
to encourage others, through monetary compensation and
recognition, to find out why there is success at the school
Chair Dyson had described, for example. He mentioned using
different types of resources - mainly data - to meet the needs
of the students in order to accelerate growth.
3:09:54 PM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON turned to page 10 of the computing index in
the handout. He explained that computing the values for each
student from the previous year to the current year gives the
scores in the points column; adding that and then dividing by
the number of tested students provides a school index score.
Page 11 shows four identified performance levels. It was found
that multiple levels seem to provide incentive in the process.
A school index score of 103 shows a strong growth level, with
other levels labeled high, excellent and outstanding. Page 12
shows compensation given for each level of performance for both
certificated and noncertificated employees. The trick with any
incentive program is to find the threshold at which the goal is
obtainable without being a giveaway, he added.
He informed members that many states are looking at ways to
increase student achievement through performance. North
Carolina, which has seen strong results and has been working at
this for more than a decade, is the one Alaska is most closely
modeled after, although even that program "pits one against the
other," he said. He reiterated that the desire is to take what
is best and incorporate it.
3:12:40 PM
SENATOR ELTON referred to Texas and asked whether tying growth
index levels to a point system might create an incentive to get
rid of non-performing students.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON reported having looked hard at such a
possibility; he doesn't believe that will be the result. If a
student is in the system for a full academic year and doesn't
achieve, the penalty is severe. A school cannot focus on one or
two performance areas and still hit a compensation level. For
example, a school couldn't take just the kids who are right
below the "proficient" level and get them up to that level.
Statistically, all of the performing groups would have to be
addressed.
SENATOR ELTON inquired about possibly assigning a score of minus
20 if someone drops out, thus penalizing the school.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON clarified that efforts have been to
establish components over which the school has control.
Although some might argue that there is control over students
who may drop out, he wouldn't want to see school staff being
penalized for something over which they didn't have control,
such as violence in the home.
3:15:50 PM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON turned to page 14, why other models fail,
and noted that up to 20 years of experience had been looked at.
Reasons for failure included: the program wasn't based on
growth, so a school with low-performing students was at a
disadvantage; targets were unrealistic; there were conflicts
among staff, and some had to lose for others to win; the
programs excluded administrators; there wasn't reliability in
"the instrument"; compensation wasn't sufficient to change
behavior; or whoever was sponsoring the program didn't have
sufficient commitment. Thus in creating Alaska's model, those
components were considered.
He concluded by saying a baseline will be established from this
year's results. Costs will vary every year because it is
unknown how many schools will meet the target. He surmised,
however, that if more schools meet the target than anticipated
in the fiscal note, everyone will be happy to deal with that
problem.
3:18:19 PM
CHAIR DYSON observed that there'd be no fiscal impact the first
year.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON concurred, pointing out that the first
payout would be in June of 2007.
CHAIR DYSON noted it is like putting in place a contract with
the teachers. If the legislature refused to fund the rewards in
the "out" years, it would be breaking faith with the people
who'd given of themselves to increase growth for the students.
It requires a good-faith commitment. He asked how long North
Carolina has been doing this.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON said since 1996, to his belief.
CHAIR DYSON asked about data that quantifies savings there,
since those students might require less remedial work for
college or have a smaller impact on the social support system.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON answered that there is some data from North
Carolina, which has seen an increase in student achievement
since the program began. He didn't have the data with him,
however.
3:20:44 PM
SENATOR WILKEN referred to an overview given by Commissioner
Sampson. He remarked that if everyone isn't confident in what
happens, this will fall apart quickly and require a decade to
put back together. Noting that he had to depart, he said next
time he'd like to talk about plans to "sell" the program and get
people to appreciate it.
3:23:00 PM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON agreed with the concern about the "small
target" and said he didn't want to miss this opportunity.
CHAIR DYSON opened public testimony to two testifiers.
MICHAEL DICKENS, Ph.D., Superintendent, Skagway City Schools,
thanked Commissioner Sampson for the innovative program. Noting
problems over the years with teachers' salaries and changes to
the retirement system, he complimented Senators Wilken and Green
for trying to meet those concerns. He said the bottom line is
that teachers and the people in the building make education
worthwhile and effective for students. Talking about
difficulties when recruiting teachers outside Alaska,
Dr. Dickens surmised this incentive program would help. He
highlighted that this program gets all employees in the school
going in the same direction. Expressing great support for the
program, he pointed out that even in high-performing districts
this will require motivation, and it won't penalize teachers
whose students have traditionally performed well.
3:29:12 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked whether there might be an unintended
consequence of pressure on other parts of the school that aren't
being tested, such as foreign languages.
3:30:39 PM
DR. DICKENS replied that he'd thought about it. He mentioned
positive outcomes in his school district from a Foreign Language
Acquisition Program (FLAP) grant. He said he'd been looking at
postdoctoral work on brain research and discovered many aspects
to engaging a student in learning. Important types of learning
occur when students are exposed to art, music and foreign
language, or when doing scientific lab work, for instance; he
mentioned drama and sports activities as well, and looking at
what keeps students in school and motivated. He suggested the
real advantage of this type of program is that it expands who
benefits.
3:33:55 PM
TOM HARVEY, Executive Director, NEA-Alaska, informed members
that he would provide written comments. He pointed out that
Commissioner Sampson met with 350 delegates around the state
this past weekend, presenting this proposal and receiving
significant feedback; Mr. Harvey would try to provide a
compilation of that feedback. Commending Commissioner Sampson
for his research and for trying to avoid the pitfalls of plans
that failed, Mr. Harvey cautioned that booby traps doubtless
remain, including hormonal influences and outside influences
that change how a student performs on a test.
He agreed with Senator Wilken about hitting the target and not
destroying confidence. North Carolina's system took several
years to develop, and the present executive director of the
National Education Association (NEA), John Wilson, was director
of the North Carolina Association of Educators when then-
Governor Jim Hunt started the program; for several years, the
association and North Carolina state government came together to
develop that plan. The present federal funding system requires
that the state association participate in developing the plan,
Mr. Harvey said, an opportunity he'd welcome.
He suggested adequately funding the base services of the
educational program. He highlighted the planning and
implementing of innovative strategy, saying it was achievable in
the Chugiak School District because of its large grant; he
proposed looking at that type of program, using funds from the
base student allocation, to improve student growth and
achievement.
CHAIR DYSON informed Mr. Harvey that his written comments would
be distributed after they were received.
3:38:27 PM
SENATOR ELTON remarked that it seems there is a belief that
Alaska's schools aren't getting good results because there is no
incentive program. He said some of the hardest working and most
underappreciated people in Alaska are those working in the
schools.
3:40:15 PM
CHAIR DYSON requested that members relate questions or concerns
to him or Commissioner Sampson as soon as possible. He noted
that many members also sit on the Senate Finance Committee and
thus will see this legislation again.
SENATOR ELTON clarified that his concern is about others
affected by the bill, including teachers and parents. He asked
that those people, who likely would be more comfortable talking
about the concepts to the current committee, be given that
opportunity.
CHAIR DYSON held SB 235 in committee.
CHAIR DYSON adjourned the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting at 3:42:45 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|