Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/24/2001 10:32 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
February 24, 2001
10:32 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chair
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chair (via teleconference)
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Bettye Davis (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION QUALIFYING EXAM
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
See minutes dated 1/27/01, 1/31/01, 2/12/01, 2/14/01 and 2/21/01.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Darroll Hargraves
Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
326 4th, Suite 404
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the implementation of the
HSGQE
Dr. Ed McLain
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
144 North Binkley St.
Soldotna, AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the Kenai Peninsula Borough School
District's approach to standards and the HSGQE
Mr. Charlie Epperson
Aleutians East Borough School District
PO Box 349
Sand Point, AK 99661
POSITION STATEMENT: Doesn't like the test and thinks that
standards can be met without making students take a test.
Mr. Carl Rose
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 W 11th St.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Took no position on the HESS Committee's
proposal.
Mr. Jerry Dixon
PO Box 1058
Seward, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports the HESS Committee's proposal but
expressed concern about lack of funding for schools.
Ms. Jan Chatto
PO Box 3206
Kodiak, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports the HESS Committee's proposal but
commented on the needs of special needs students and teenagers in
general.
Ms. Barb Morris
PO Box 874254
Wasilla, AK 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports differentiated diplomas; opposed to
using the HSGQE as the end-all.
Ms. Tammy Smith
4201 York Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Is concerned that differentiated diplomas
would restrict a person later in life.
Mr. Michael Jones
PO Box 1393
Nome, AK 99762
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports delaying the implementation of the
HSGQE but opposed to the HSGQE in general.
Ms. Sharon Swope
Superintendent & Director of Special Education
Nome Public Schools
PO Box 131
Nome, AK 99762
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports the HESS Committee's proposal.
Ms. Janette Peterson
Valdez High School
PO Box 2617
Valdez, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to C average requirement and
attendance requirement.
Ms. Nancy Burley
North Slope Borough School District
PO Box 555
Barrow, AK 99723
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern about special education
students regarding graduation requirements.
Ms. Catherine Winkler
PO Box 10
Wainwright, AK 99782
POSITION STATEMENT: Does not support standardized tests to
measure of a person's abilities.
Ms. Mary Wegner
203 Jeff Davis St.
Sitka, AK 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Outlined her concerns with the HESS
Committee's proposal.
Ms. Millie Ryan
Governor's Council on Disabilities
and Special Education
PO Box 240249
Anchorage, AK 99524-0249
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports the HESS Committee's proposal as a
starting point, made recommendations.
Ms. Judy Kearns-Steffen
1101 Halibut Point Road
Sitka, AK 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports a phase-in approach, opposed to too
many levels of diplomas. Made suggestions regarding special
education students.
Ms. Connie Bensler
Anchorage Principals' Association
11000 Birch Road
Anchorage, AK 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports a phased-in approach. Discussed
her concerns with the phases in the HESS Committee's proposal.
Mr. Guy Okada
Anchorage School District Special Education
2909 W 88th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed his view of the pros and cons of
the HESS Committee's proposal.
Mr. Steve Cathers
Valdez City Schools
PO Box 307
Valdez, AK 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports the HESS Committee's proposal but
it needs a waiver option.
Mr. Wes Knapp
Aleutians East Island Borough School District
PO Box 349
Sand Point, AK 99661
POSITION STATEMENT: The HSGQE is not a standards-based
assessment. Expressed concern about an increase in the drop out
rate.
Ms. Robyn Rehmann
Anchorage School District Special Education
4800 DeBarr
Anchorage, AK 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Recommends that a wider variety of
assessments be available to demonstrate competency.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-13, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRWOMAN LYDA GREEN called the Senate Health, Education & Social
Services Committee meeting to order at 10:32 a.m. Present were
Senators Wilken, Ward and Green and Senators Davis and Leman were
participating via teleconference.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN announced that delaying the date for the High
School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE) is not being discussed by
the committee. The committee is focusing on finding a different
way to report back on the results of the test and what those
results will mean to students. She asked participants to direct
their comments to the proposal provided by the committee. She
noted the committee is not going to discuss whether the HSGQE is
right or wrong. The question before the committee is if it were to
remake and retool the test for use to help students, teachers,
administrators and the Department of Education and Early
Development (DOEED), what kind of a test would it be.
Number 176
MR. DARROLL HARGRAVES, Executive Director of the Alaska Council of
School Administrators (ACSA), said that no position has been taken
on this issue by any of ACSA's organizations. However, individuals
have been alerted and will be testifying before the committee
today. He read the following testimony.
First let me say that I represent the principals and
superintendents of the state. They believe in standards,
quality schools and graduation diplomas that represent
excellence and academic achievement by graduates.
School administrators have expressed with statements and
resolutions the belief that a delay would make it
possible for school districts to accomplish an alignment
of the curriculum that is required for students to be
successful.
We have seen some good come from the efforts to require
the exit exam. Administrators tell me that students and
parents began to pay more attention, as it became known
that the exit exam was on the way. There are some
problems surfacing that were not expected when the effort
was initiated. I am confident, Senator Green, that's why
you put the present proposal before us for consideration.
These problems have caused consideration of a delay in
the implementation of the exam.
These problems were the very same problems Indiana and
other states have encountered and some of them have
revised the way they approach the issuance of diplomas.
It is apparent the state policy makers in Alaska today
have read the future and they believe, like Indiana, that
costly lawsuits are appearing on the horizon. I have
talked with the leaders in Indiana who believe that it
was the threat of legal action that propelled the
consideration and acceptance of the diploma they adopted.
But putting all of that aside, the legal bit and
everything else - the policy making, I think that we
should only look at these things in light of what is best
for students. After it is all said and done, what is it
that is best for the student?
I would present to you that there are those diploma
options. We could just simply keep what we have in the
state now and proceed on. We could go to a diploma that
denotes academic or vocational. That's a type of
tracking diploma that was used in the '50s and '60s.
Over the past three decades we've come to be enlightened
to the point that no child should be considered
differently, that everybody should get the same thing and
the conclusion to that is that we prepare every student
academically to go to the University or college. Perhaps
it is time to revisit a thought like that. We could
adopt the Indiana model, or some revised model of it and
that's what you'll be hearing a lot about today from our
school administrators.
There's another consideration that I've given some
thought to and I've tracked down that it is a type of
option that's held in one or two other states, and has
been in the past. For example, we could consider two
diploma options - one that reflected the state
requirement that includes the exit exam and one that
reflects local requirements, a state diploma or a local
school diploma. A school diploma could be simply the
minimal requirements to graduate, pretty much as you
would have now. But for those students that wanted and
needed to be challenged, and the parents and families who
are behind them, you could have the inclusion of that
exit exam and have a state endorsement or state diploma
at that point.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN noted that Senator Leman was participating offnet.
SENATOR LEMAN commented that the HSGQE has been beneficial as far
as getting everyone focused on accountability but the actual
implementation of the exam is where the challenges lie. He noted
that his proposal delays the implementation of the exam requirement
for a few years for that reason.
DR. ED MCLAIN, Assistant Superintendent of the Kenai Peninsula
Borough School District, informed committee members that he was co-
chair of the original math standards committee, which began in the
1990s and co-chair of the math content review of the renewal
committee. He has been involved in the standards and assessment
effort for quite awhile. In addition, he has been on the tech
review committee since its inception.
DR. MCLAIN thanked Chairwoman Green for her leadership and
proposal. He informed the committee that the Kenai Peninsula
Borough School District passed a policy supporting a certified
diploma one year prior to the state's adoption of similar
legislation. The district is committed to the idea that students
should be able to demonstrate some level of proficiency to
graduate. Additionally, the district has levels of achievement:
basic, proficient and advanced. The foundational [basic] level
focuses on those things a person should be able to do to function
at an introductory level in society. The proficiency level focuses
on what is ideal for a student to be able to do upon graduation.
The state's math, reading and writing standards reflect those
larger competencies. The advanced level is quite advanced - he
provided models of that level to the committee.
DR. MCLAIN cautioned that some of the details in the proposals are
best worked out by districts, in particular the issue of attendance
and what should be included for the proficient and advanced level
diplomas. Districts want to provide students with multiple
opportunities and formats but those things are done more
appropriately in classrooms where teachers have the flexibility to
observe students over time.
Number 757
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said she already thought about turning the
responsibility for attendance and the "C" average grade requirement
over to the districts by requiring districts to make a decision on
those requirements. She pointed out that some districts have not
addressed those issues, which is problematic. She indicated that
school boards in small districts may be reluctant to take on those
issues because of local criticism but will have to if they are
required to do so. She noted that her proposal does not address
what classes are to be taught.
DR. MCLAIN replied that in a package that he submitted to the
committee on February 9, he laid out a diagram. The diagram makes
a distinction between the targeted and taught curriculum. There
are a variety of things the Kenai district believes should be the
goal of all students and the goal of its standard curriculum.
However, if a student does not achieve that level, the district
would not deny a diploma if a student is unable to do that. The
Kenai district believes the question is: what is essential for a
student to know to be able to participate in our society? The
district asked community leaders, teachers and business people that
question. That is a process that DOEED is now moving toward. It
is not so much a lowering of the standards but instead it is
focusing on them. He believes the HESS Committee's proposal
addresses that question as it speaks to a core curriculum.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the diploma of foundational mastery on
page 2 of the proposal is what he is referring to.
DR. MCLAIN said it appears to be very similar, although he has not
seen any details. He noted that the Kenai district spent a lot of
time describing what the foundational skills will look like. The
Kenai district first looked at what the foundational skills should
be and then looked at the performance standards to match them with
the measures.
DR. MCLAIN informed the committee that the Kenai district
recommends that the state focus its primary emphasis on the
assessment at the essential level and let the districts sort out
what is defined as above and beyond.
Regarding students with an IEP, the Kenai district special
education department looked at that issue and made the following
suggestions.
· Given that the HSGQE focuses on essential skills, students
with disabilities should be expected to pass the exam or an
alternative assessment to receive a high school diploma.
· All students who successfully complete the HSGQE or an
alternate assessment and meet other district requirements will
receive a diploma. This differs from the current proposal
which would not grant a diploma to students who take the
alternate assessment.
· A student's IEP or 504 team would adhere to all applicable
federal and state laws and regulations when making decisions
relative to that student's participation in the HSGQE.
· Three basic pathways should be available to students with
disabilities regarding the exam. First, students could
participate without modifications or accommodations. Second,
students could participate with modifications or
accommodations. Third, students could participate in an
alternative assessment.
· When a decision by the team is made for a student to
participate in a regular assessment with accommodations or
modifications, those accommodations or modifications should be
specified on the IEP or 504 plan. The IEP or 504 plan should
document the reason for their use.
· Accommodations or modifications identified for students should
be those that lessen the effect of the student's disability.
· When no accommodations or modifications can compensate for a
student's disability on a particular part of the HSGQE, the
student may be exempted from that particular part and the IEP
should state that no accommodations or modifications would
compensate.
DR. MCLAIN said the district feels the accommodations or exemption
should be documented on the IEP because it believes the state will
be able to track, from school report cards, patterns where
unusually high numbers of students are being awarded diplomas that
did not take part of the exam or had accommodations. The IEP
documentation will be able to provide answers. IEPs are
individualized, therefore rather than try to write a law that would
cover all of the unique details, the district recommends simply
recognizing that the IEP team needs to be involved and that
documentation must be provided. He continued giving the Kenai
district's recommendations for students with disabilities.
· Accommodations and modifications should not give a student
with a disability an unfair advantage, compromise test
security or artificially raise the test score for that
student. However, adherence to the standard test
administration rules or procedures should not be the
determining factor when deciding the appropriate
accommodations or modifications for a student.
DR. MCLAIN pointed out the district was thinking of a deaf child
when it wrote that recommendation. He offered to send his comments
to the committee in written form.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN thanked Dr. McLain.
SENATOR WARD commended the Kenai district's special education team
for its well-thought out recommendations. He noted that he had a
nephew who needed special education services. His nephew decided he
wanted to join the Merchant Marines, which demanded a higher grade
point average than his nephew was expected to achieve under his
IEP. His nephew was able to achieve the higher grade point
average. He questioned when an IEP team decides a student is not
capable of passing the HSGQE, whether no test would be issued or
whether a simpler test would be issued.
DR. MCLAIN said he and the district believe that the very nature of
an IEP team means that professionals and parents are involved and
decide what is the best for that particular student. There may be
times when the team may decide that an alternative assessment is
appropriate. Some people fear that opens the door for some
students to "get away" with not demonstrating their abilities to
the fullest.
SENATOR WARD said he agrees with the approach of bringing the IEP
team into the exam picture.
DR. MCLAIN said in his 29 years in education, he has seen many
students surpass what others expect of them. He noted there are
students with good work habits who demonstrate hard work efforts -
skills that are valued by society. He commented, "For him not to
be able to check off that he's received a diploma, we think it just
fails the good kid test, if you will."
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN announced that Senator Davis was participating via
teleconference.
MR. CHARLIE EPPERSON, the principal of False Pass School, expressed
concern that the primary focus of the meeting today is to gather
input from educators around the state who are preparing students to
take the HSGQE. The main questions seem to be who should be
required to take the test and what should be the effective date of
the requirement to pass the test. Both questions are the wrong
questions to be asking. The original intent behind enacting the
legislation that requires passing the HSGQE to earn a diploma was
to require accountability of public education. He recommended an
online article entitled, The Setting Standards Movement and Its
Evil Twin, by Scott Thompson, Assistant Director of the Panasonic
Foundation. Mr. Thompson argues against high stakes testing. Mr.
Thompson says we need to distinguish between high stakes
standardized-test based reform and authentic standards-based
reform. The distinguishing factor between the two is their
respective influence on the instructional core of schooling and of
equity issues. When progress is judged by a single indicator, the
common effect is to narrow curriculum and reduce instruction to
test prepping. It is possible to require all students to meet a
rigorous set of standards in order to graduate from high school
without using a single test as the means of determining whether
those standards have been met. We should be interested in students
who can produce high quality work rather than students who have
mastered the ability to take standardized tests. It is the former
who will be rewarded in their personal lives after graduation when
their test taking skills will no longer be relevant. He pointed
out in 1994 and 1995 the state board of education adopted voluntary
standards in 10 core subject areas. The HSGQE addresses three
areas. He suggested that students would be better served if
districts are required to adopt and teach mastery in those 10
areas. A one page test in each area could be used to determine the
student's level of mastery. He cautioned that this should not be
an unfunded mandate as it may require a lot of remediation work.
Number 1883
MR. CARL ROSE, Executive Director of the Association of Alaska
School Boards (AASB), said the AASB supports standards and the
HSGQE. The AASB would like to set the standards high and refine
the assessment so that we know what a basic and essential skill is,
and put a sunset clause in the bill. AASB has passed a resolution
asking for an extension date of the consequences of the exit exam
until 2004. In phase 2, potential endorsements would be recognized
on diplomas with a sunset date to 2004. That will give districts
the time they need to refine the assessment so that basic and
essential skills are defined.
Alaska is behind in student achievement. The HESS Committee's bill
provides for a second phase but the 95 percent attendance rate
provision is the type of issue that the state tried to move away
from when it adopted a standards-based approach. If there is a way
to talk about how to give local school districts more discretion,
that goal would merit discussion. Most people are suspicious of
grade inflation. If it is standards that we want, we need to hold
the line on that and make sure that every child has an opportunity.
MR. ROSE said he listened with great interest to Dr. McLain.
Everything Dr. McLain suggested is accomplishable but whether it
can be done with a piece of legislation is of concern. Once again,
with the timeline for the diploma, this is a political football
that the legislature may want to give back to the professionals.
He suggested the legislature state what it wants but allow the
state board of education and DOEED to come up with the product by
2004.
CHAIR GREEN said the more this issue is discussed, the more likely
it is that the committee will turn many of those decisions over to
the state board of education. The issue the committee has to
deliberate, however, is that many legislators do not want to delay
the implementation date. What she thinks will work is to continue
to require the test, but to make the distinction that the test
alone will not keep anyone from graduating, and a passing grade
will be acknowledged, and to lower the test score or change the
test so that only essential skills are required. Regarding
attendance and some level of proficiency, she feels it is best to
require that the districts address attendance but to let the
districts do so in whatever manner they choose. Her thinking
behind following the Indiana statutes was to give that student who
could not pass the test but attended, took all required courses and
maintained a C average an opportunity to obtain a diploma. She
reminded Mr. Rose that the proposal is only a suggestion.
MR. ROSE said he appreciates her comments. He is concerned that if
we provide a pathway of mediocrity, some parents will come forward
with a lesser expectation. The point of the standards and exit
exam is to build an on-ramp for excellence. Maybe not all children
will be able to take and pass the exam, but they will learn more
than they would on a pathway of mediocrity. He believes this issue
must be resolved within the next two months or we will not be able
to avoid the 2002 deadline but we must resist the urge to fail on
the side of urgency. The endorsement approach with a sunset clause
in 2004 will provide a way to move forward, continue to give the
exam, recognize excellence, and give the people who need to a
chance to revisit some of the snags in the current plan.
Number 2281
MR. JERRY DIXON, the building and area representative for NEA in
Seward, said he is speaking as a parent on his own behalf. He
supports the HESS Committee's proposal. He likes the idea of
offering different levels of graduation requirements. He also
likes the idea of phasing this approach in. His major concern is
that teachers will be blamed when students do not qualify for a
diploma. State funding has been cut by 30 percent by the foundation
formula that went into effect in 1991. Recently, eight of his
colleagues have taken jobs outside of Alaska because of better pay.
While he supports the HESS Committee's proposal, he is concerned
that districts will have trouble finding the caliber of educators
they need.
SENATOR LEMAN pointed out that a major revision of the foundation
formula took place three years ago and increased education funding
by $26 million.
TAPE 01-13, SIDE B
MS. JAN CHATTO, a teacher at Kodiak High School, said she is
testifying on her own behalf. This is her 20th year teaching in
the Kodiak School District. She teaches 6th grade and is currently
the director of an alternative program in the Kodiak High School.
She has also taught special education. Her daughter is a graduate
of Kodiak High School and the University of California and received
a Masters Degree from the University of Alaska Southeast. Her
daughter has a learning disability. She wonders if her daughter
would have had the opportunity to continue her education under the
current testing scheme. The University of California had no
problem allowing her daughter to use her compensatory skills to
work around her disability and work with her strengths. That is
one of the main problems she sees with the current test situation.
We all have strengths and weaknesses and as adults we learn to play
to our strengths. This test would stop many students from ever
developing their strengths. She is pleased with the HESS
Committee's proposal.
MS. CHATTO expressed concern about the effect testing will have if
students get discouraged and drop out. A larger number of drop
outs will create a societal problem. She asked if we are prepared
to offer those students vocational training. She pointed out in
Europe, students are tested for college entry. Those who do not
score high enough are offered a sophisticated choice of vocational
programs. She noted the only solution she has heard to his problem
is that students can take the test again and receive remedial help.
She doesn't know if that is good enough.
MS. CHATTO said that she is also concerned about the accuracy of
testing to determine a student's ability to succeed. One of the
characteristics of teenagers is extreme emotions. She has found it
difficult to determine a student's true ability if extreme emotions
get in the way. She has often found that she cannot teach a
concept until she helps a student overcome an unrelated emotional
hurdle. The exit exam will be one more emotional hurdle that many
young people are not prepared to deal with. She questioned whether
the test will reflect a student's true academic ability or who can
maintain a lower emotional response to the testing.
Number 2254
MS. BARB MORRIS, speaking on behalf of the Mat-Su Education
Association, stated support for offering different types of
diplomas so that the district is more able to meet the needs and
abilities of all students. Standards and accountability are
important for our education system. However, developing divergent
skills and interests in students is also important. As a resource
teacher for 20 years, she has taught many intelligent students who
would not have passed portions of the exit exam. They have,
however, gone on to college, apprenticeships, vocational schools,
or other job training and are successful citizens. The test should
be used as one more tool, not the end-all.
MS. TAMMY SMITH, a 3rd grade teacher and parent from Fairbanks,
said she only planned to testify on delaying the exam to a certain
year. She looked at the HESS Committee's proposal and noticed that
it would offer five different diplomas. She is not sure how she
feels about that approach and whether it "splits hairs." The
levels have the potential to determine the direction of a student's
life for years to come. She questions whether teenagers are able
to make those kinds of decisions. Students may choose a technical
diploma but decide to go to college later on, which may be
difficult because they are not considered to have the level of
mastery necessary. She cautioned that this approach could inhibit
potential growth later on.
MS. SMITH asked why the name of teachers who teach each course in
high schools must be submitted to DOEED. She pointed out that
younger, inexperienced teachers often do not get to select the
classes they teach. She favors delaying the exit exam requirement
to 2006. As a 3rd grade teacher, she gave the benchmark exam last
year. She has found that the material she is teaching has not
changed, but the methods she uses has. Current high school
students have not had that same benefit. She asked legislators to
look at what is happening in states in which the exit exam is
critical to the life of students and the drop out rates across the
nation. She asked legislators to not move too quickly on this
issue and to listen to the experts in the field: the teachers and
administrators.
CHAIR GREEN explained that item number 7 on page 3 of the proposal
applies to high school courses only. Currently no report is given
to either DOEED or the state board of education of what courses are
being offered in school districts at any one time. DOEED needs to
know whether courses are being taught by a teacher or through
correspondence or a distance learning program. The fear is that
core courses are not being taught in our high schools and if that
is the case, that must be changed. DOEED first needs the
information to determine whether that is the case.
Number 1989
MR. MICHAEL JONES, a teacher at the alternative high school in
Nome, said his first impulse is to ask that the committee continue
to discuss the role of the HSGQE and consider abandoning the exam
entirely. Too much is at stake and enough time, money, energy and
research have gone into the creation and implementation of this
exam. Many questions are unanswered regarding this exam - it would
be irresponsible to not postpone the effective date to 2006. It is
unfair to ask current high school students to wait and just be
patient while everyone else figures it out. In the attempt to
regain or maintain the accountability of schools, teachers and
students, it is the students who will first feel any negative
effects. He asked whether authentic and reasonable alternatives to
this exam are being considered. No two students learn the same way
or express what they learn the same way. As teachers are asked,
urged and required to develop alternatives and authentic means of
assessing learning, it seems absurd to place such importance on a
high stakes pencil and paper test. He applauds the HESS
Committee's proposal in that it shows some thinking regarding
alternatives. Senator Green's statement regarding the exam as
recorded in this week's Anchorage Daily News is correct: at this
point just postponing the exam will not solve the problem. He
fears that the multi-tiered diploma system proposed by the HESS
Committee could create a type of caste system among Alaska high
school graduates.
MR. JONES believes the following questions should be considered in
the HESS Committee's proposal.
· How will these diploma alternatives be functionally different
or the same?
· How will the late bloomer, the student who is disinterested in
high school although capable, be affected later when pursuing
his or her academic career?
· How does this help the student?
If the test continues to be required for a student to receive a
diploma, the test needs to be adjusted. Real means of assessing
student knowledge should be developed - not alternative and
potentially unequal diplomas. He asked the Senate to consider
delaying the testing until an appropriate plan is created.
Number 1839
MS. SHARON SWOPE, Director of Special Education and the interim
superintendent for the Nome Public School District, stated support
for the HESS Committee's differentiated diploma system. The Nome
District advocates clearly for higher standards-based education for
all students, and supports the HSGQE requirement, but it sincerely
asks that access to the diploma system be expanded to include all
students. The current system will ensure that a large number of
students will fail the exam, the consequences of which are no
diploma. The system in place disenfranchises large groups of
students, such as special education, special needs, ESL, and high
risk students. The passing scores will have to be lowered to avoid
denying those students a diploma. The consequence of that approach
is a lower value of the diploma. The Nome District believes those
alternatives are not in the best interest of students. It
advocates for the consideration of the differentiated diploma
system as proposed in the HESS Committee's proposal.
MS. SWOPE said that the HESS Committee's proposal enfranchises all
of the students that would currently be excluded. It needs
development and specificity but the Nome district supports the
model in concept. It allows the much needed time to collect the
appropriate data and determine the validity of the test. It also
allows districts time to address litigious issues before them.
This model allows the districts to establish their own specific
requirements for graduation and allows for local control of each
community. This proposal also allows that DOEED articulate and
focus on the needed resources to implement remediation.
CHAIR GREEN asked Ms. Swope if the Nome district has an attendance
requirement.
MS. SWOPE said it does.
CHAIR GREEN asked if it has anything that refers to a grade point
average.
MS. SWOPE replied the Nome district is currently in the midst of a
rather significant education reform. The district is operating
right now on the Carnegie system but it is moving toward asking for
a waiver of that so that it can use a performance and standards
based system that will have levels. When that transition is
complete, grades will be of less importance and more emphasis will
be place on meeting performance and standards criteria.
CHAIR GREEN asked what the attendance requirement is in the Nome
district.
MS. SWOPE said that students are permitted no more than 10 absences
per year. Students who are absent more than that go before an
attendance committee to discuss the reasons.
Number 1626
MS. JANETTE PETERSON, Special Education Director and School
Psychologist at the Valdez School District, informed the committee
that Idaho implemented the C average requirement and 90 percent
attendance policy in the 1980s and dropped them because it did not
work. One of her concerns about the C average requirement is that
it is not quantifiable; it is simply a measurement of what one
student does in one teacher's classroom on a particular day. She
believes we need to look at a system that is standards-based. She
agrees with the approach suggested by Ms. Swope. The state needs
to find some type of alternative to the attendance and grade
requirements. She noted that Mr. Charlie Epperson's testimony
reflects everything she feels about the test. She is concerned
that 10 standards have been identified by the state board as
important yet only three of them are included on the HSGQE. She is
also concerned about students who have outstanding skills in
reading and writing but do not have outstanding skills in math and
that those students may be denied the opportunity to contribute to
society because of poor math skills. She believes there is a way
to emphasize what those students can contribute rather than what
they can't. She also expressed concern that summer school classes
or remedial classes are not offered in districts around the state.
CHAIR GREEN informed teleconference participants that a draft of
her proposal was available on the Alaska Legislature's Majority
website at www.akrepublicans.org under her name.
Number 1355
MS. NANCY BURLEY, Special Education Coordinator of the North Slope
Borough School District, informed the committee that she has 29
years experience as a special education teacher, administrator and
diagnostician. She maintained that IDEA 97 clearly requires that
school districts provide a free and appropriate public education
designed to develop independent living skills and employment skills
for children with disabilities aged 3 through 21. The fundamental
issue that the HSGQE presents to the special education student
population is that of its appropriateness. The second mandate of
PL 94-142, since its inception in 1975, has called upon a team
approach in the design of the child's education program. The
function of this team is critical to the success of the special
education student as these teams are charged with the
responsibility of identifying the unique needs and preferences of
the child in setting up an appropriate educational program as
determined by the child's whole school outcome. The HSGQE takes
away the decision making obligation of the IEP team. This is
contradictory to the mandate of federal law and is a totally
discriminatory practice for disabled children. It seems inherently
unfair to expect disabled children to meet the same standards as
their peers. Congress in its wisdom early on recognized that
disabled children must be held to individualized standards. No
single measure is ever adequate to determine eligibility for
programs for special needs students. By making the HSGQE the
measure of success, we are setting our special education students
up for failure. Drop out rates will increase if children realize a
high school diploma is unobtainable. The outcome will be that
children with disabilities will exit school and be unprepared for
the world of work, lacking the basic skills necessary for
independent living. Any and all decisions regarding eligibility,
placement and programs are made by the IEP team. It is clearly the
obligation of the IEP team to develop educational programs designed
to promote student success. It is her opinion that the IEP team
should decide if the HSGQE, or some other instrument, is an
appropriate assessment instrument to determine if the child is
prepared to effectively make the transition from school to work.
MS. BURLEY said the North Slope Borough School District could
support different diplomas but she expressed caution about using
the term "IEP completion certificate" as that could be construed as
a breach of confidentiality.
CHAIR GREEN asked Ms. Burley if the North Slope Borough School
District currently has different diplomas.
MS. BURLEY said every child receives the same diploma.
CHAIR GREEN noted that many districts use different diplomas,
particularly for those students who are severely developmentally
disabled.
MS. CATHY WINKLER, a teacher in Wainwright, said she considers
herself an advocate for children with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS).
She has not seen the HESS Committee's proposal but the testimony
that she has heard gives her hope. She expressed concern that
standardized tests do not show the abilities of the student who
cannot divide on paper but can take a snow machine apart and repair
it without replacement parts. She stated that she hopes if she
ever had to crash land in a plane she would be lucky enough to
encounter the student with that knowledge rather than one who could
only pass the HSGQE. She noted that many FAS children go
undiagnosed and that teachers must learn on-the-job about the needs
of those students. There is no Master's program specializing in
FAS/FAE anywhere for regular education teachers. She questioned why
a student cannot be certified for each area of the exam passed.
Ms. Winkler also questioned what she should tell students who do
not qualify for special education who will never pass the math test
but have overcome amazing setbacks in life. She also noted that
three of her students committed suicide in the past year and
questioned how anyone could survive another child's suicide. She
expressed concern that educators might build children up to believe
that life is full of possibilities only to tell them they failed.
CHAIR GREEN said she would rotate among the teleconference sites to
take testimony.
Number 877
MS. MARY WAGNER, Sitka School District Special Education Director,
said she is concerned about the lack of options being offered to
students. In her opinion, the whole point of high standards is to
give meaning to a high school diploma, however we have to balance
this need with appropriate educational opportunities that will meet
the needs and goals of all learners. In order to do that, we need
to implement some kind of accountability system that will allow
students of differing abilities to achieve their goals. People not
involved in the education community do not realize the broad
spectrum of learners in the schools. We need a system that
motivates all students to achieve to their highest potential
without stigmatizing them or taking away their dignity. A high
stakes exam that only allows a certain percentage of students to
receive a diploma has failed. She thanks Senator Green for
starting the discussion on options, however there are some problems
with her proposal. First, a diploma that identifies students as
being in special education violates federal law. We simply cannot
have a special education diploma. In addition, the education
community is not allowed to share with the general public that a
person is or has been in special education. Second, what does a C
grade mean? The whole point of a standards-based curriculum is to
do away with potentially arbitrary grades and instead to focus on
mastery of specific skills. The Sitka school district is working
toward a district wide standards-based report card. This criteria
of a letter grade seems contrary to the whole standards movement in
Alaska. Third, what about students who move out of Alaska? The
categories established in the HESS Committee's proposal will have
no meaning to somebody outside of Alaska. Fourth, as a point of
clarification, she is assuming that the exit exam scores listed on
the transcript will be the highest scores earned by the student.
One possible option to the HESS Committee's proposal would be to
have an honors diploma for students who achieve passing scores on
all three portions of the exam. All other students who could meet
the school graduation requirement would then earn a diploma. This
would focus on the positive rather than the negative and would be
easier for schools to manage. As an educator she is asking
legislators to consider this as a viable option. Students in
elementary and middle grades have had the benefit of intervention
strategies early on, unlike the current high school students. In
addition, she encourages legislators to continue the work on
developing appropriate exams and accommodations for the learning
disabled and developmentally disabled populations.
CHAIR GREEN informed Ms. Wagner that Senator Ward has drafted a
bill that will do what she suggested. That bill provides for an
endorsement on the diploma for the student who exhibits proficiency
in mathematics, reading and/or writing. The student who is not
eligible for endorsement would have a different type of symbol.
The committee will discuss that proposal once it is formally
introduced.
Number 624
MS. MILLIE RYAN, the acting executive director of the Governor's
Council on Disabilities and Special Education, said the Council has
been very concerned about the impact of the exam on students with
disabilities. The Council has submitted some preliminary
recommendations to the committee. The Council believes the
proposal on the table is a good starting point but it offers the
following things to think about. First, in terms of remediation,
we need to ensure that there are a variety of remediation courses
and approaches available. If students are taught the same way
they've always been taught, they may not benefit from that
remediation. Second, the Council would like to see an expansion of
the number of endorsements that are available to students on their
diplomas. For example, a student who can pass one portion but not
the others should receive an endorsement for the subject passed.
Third, the Council asks the committee to consider employability
standards and an endorsement for students who meet those standards.
That will let employers know that the student will come to work
with a good attitude, will work well with people, and has
demonstrated work skills. The state has developed employability
standards but it is the Council's impression that those standards
have not been implemented to any great degree and particularly not
for children who are receiving special education.
MS. RYAN said if there is a vocational-technical endorsement, we
need to ensure that students receiving special education services
have equal access to those classes. Many students with
disabilities can excel in vocational-technical classes and graduate
with skills to offer employers but they need access to those
classes. Regarding allowable accommodations, those that are
allowable are not necessarily being made available to students when
they take their examinations. The Council recommends that until
there is a very solid method for determining what is allowable, and
that a broad group of stakeholders have determined a good
accommodation policy, the accommodations that are generally allowed
in life and in the world of work be allowable, such as calculators
and spell checkers. The Council would like to see a group convened
to look at accommodations. The Council would be happy to convene a
group to do that.
CHAIR GREEN said a group from Career Pathways will be giving a
presentation to the committee on the employability standards issue
on March 7. She assumes that information will be forwarded to
DOEED and the state school board and they will integrate those
standards. She pointed out that her proposal uses the term voc-
tech but that the term employability standards would be better.
She asked if the Governor's Council will be called in on the
accommodations portion if the employability standards issue goes to
the state board of education.
MS. RYAN said she would hope so.
Number 270
MS. JUDY KEARNS-STEFFEN, a special education teacher in Sitka,
stated support for phasing in implementation of the HSGQE. She
would like to see educators on the committee to talk about the
phases. She believes the proposal contains too many levels.
Rather than offering an advanced mastery or foundational mastery
diploma, perhaps grades and transcripts can be put on the diploma.
For IEP or 504 students, the diploma might state that modifications
were made or that the students took an alternative assessment.
MS. CONNIE BENSLER, President of the Anchorage Principals'
Association, said her comments are her own. She reviewed the HESS
Committee's proposal. She supports high standards in education and
accountability for school districts but she hopes no one uses
performance on the standardized test as the measure of a well
educated student. There are many other components of a student's
education that better indicate whether a student is well educated.
She definitely favors phasing in the test. However, she does have
concerns about the phased-in approach. Under phase one, the
students who do not pass the test are most likely to be the
students who have difficulties across the board in school. If
those students are locked into having to do certain things like
attend school 95 percent of the time and maintain a C average, we
may be decreasing their ability to function in the current
education program. She spent many years as a high school
administrator and a number of students who were going to college on
athletic scholarships had to deal with NCAA rules and approval of
courses. It was an absolute nightmare trying to get a lot of
courses that are new, different, remedial, optional - just slightly
different from core courses, approved by NCAA. If we add that
difficulty to the already rigorous 22.5 credits required to
graduate, some of the students may be pushed to the 20 year old bar
and will be too old to continue in school.
MS. BENSLER said phasing in the endorsement that is attached to
each diploma causes her some concern, particularly about tracking:
college prep endorsement versus foundational endorsement versus
vocational-technical endorsement. Technology is such a huge part
of her high school's curriculum across the board, it would be
difficult to separate students who are technologically competent
and at a master level from those students on a college prep track.
CHAIR GREEN explained that neither is mutually exclusive - a
student could have multiple endorsements.
MS. BENSLER said the other thing that worries her about that
particular part of this proposal is that under each mastery level,
the board is expected to develop the appropriate curriculum. She
is all for state standards but it scares her when a state developed
curriculum is discussed. In Anchorage alone, each high school is
so unique that even though the district has standards, only four of
the same courses are taught in each high school. The rest of the
course offerings are student driven. For example, if 90 students
request advanced placement chemistry, then the principal must
provide 3 classes of AP chemistry. If only five students want to
take that class, it probably will not be offered.
MS. BENSLER said she likes the idea of a differentiated diploma and
agrees with Ms. Wegner that allowing schools to offer an honors
diploma and regular diploma would be simple, clean and would not
micromanage schools. She said the Anchorage district loses 6
instructional days per school year when it administers the test
because it is given to 10th, 11th, and 12th graders.
CHAIR GREEN said she thought Ms. Bensler would like this proposal
as it requires the test to be given on an in-service day.
MS. BENSLER said the problem with that is in-service days are so
precious and necessary for staff development.
CHAIR GREEN noted that many people have expressed concern about
one-third of the student population who are disenfranchised and
without leadership while the exam is being administered.
MS. BENSLER said maybe the school year needs to be extended. She
is concerned that the bottom line of a good school is a great
teaching staff, which requires staff development time. She also
expressed concern about the item in the proposal that would require
school districts to submit a list of courses taught to DOEED. As
the curriculum principal at Service High School, she had to prepare
such a list for the NCAA. That list is a very fluid document that
changes from semester to semester, based on what students want to
take. If the proposal is referring to core courses, that is
different. The names of teachers teaching each course changes as
well. Teachers will feel paranoid about that requirement as well.
She noted that many high schools are offering creative programs to
get out of the box of seat time and traditional delivery systems so
she is concerned about that requirement.
CHAIR GREEN repeated that her proposal is just three pages of words
and is a starting point. She noted that there is a very real
problem in Alaska when DOEED and the state school board cannot
determine what courses are being offered in the state. We have to
have that information to substantiate that the courses that will
qualify students to take a standardized exam are being taught. She
suggested that schools could send their schedules from their
registrars. That requirement is not meant to be invasive or
regulatory.
MS. WENSLER indicated that listing what is being taught is very
different from listing what is being offered. Schools offer a lot
of courses but don't always teach everything offered.
CHAIR GREEN stated that requirement is not meant to be difficult;
it is for informational purposes only.
Number 757
MR. GUY OKADA, principal of Dimond High School, informed the
committee that right now, 75 Dimond juniors are working with
teachers for five hours today to prepare themselves for their third
try to pass the test. In the last two weeks, over 200 hours have
been expended to prepare and organize for the exit exam. On
Tuesday, about one-half of Dimond students will be taking the test.
He likes the uniform standards reporting information on
transcripts. We need to have a statewide database and a way to
track those students because Dimond has a 25 percent mobility rate
which equates to about 500 students per school year. Many of them
come from villages and Dimond must seek out individually which
tests they have passed. He also likes the suggestion to administer
tests on non-school days. Dimond just cannot afford to give up any
more in-service days. Dimond is trying to offer new courses and
remedial courses and other things to help students pass the test
but teachers need time to work on these things. To take away
anymore in-service days will impact the quality of education.
MR. OKADA said he also supports uniform pre-exam study materials,
as well as uniform language for administering the exam. Addressing
students who transfer from in state and out of state is critical.
He has three concerns with this proposal. The first phase is so
immediate that he does not see how it can be implemented in time.
Second, he fears we are moving toward a tracking system for our
students. Dimond High School and four of the others in Anchorage
are working toward creating smaller learning communities. These
include opportunities for students to meet in smaller groups in a
large high school of 2,000 students. He is afraid that this will
derail those efforts. Also, the proposal calls for some new
courses, which takes away from local control.
CHAIR GREEN said she has seen curriculum meetings occurring at
hotels in Anchorage on weekends that are organized by DOEED,
however the participants are teachers. She thought that is what
the proposal refers to, rather than what textbooks schools should
use, etc. She does not think the state board of education has any
desire to dictate curriculum. She favors trying to maintain local
control, but some districts are not offering what needs to be
offered. She was surprised to learn there is no mention of the
transcript in statute. Personally she would rather see the
transcript become the vehicle that carries the information about
the student rather than the diploma. It is the transcript that
follows students to college and to the employer.
MR. OKADA said he is also concerned about the requirements of the
IEP team, counselors, administrators or teachers. About 250
juniors at Dimond have not passed the math portion of the exam.
Writing recommendations for those students will create a tremendous
workload. He thinks differentiated diplomas are a good idea but
the workload will have to be simplified or resources will have to
be provided to schools to handle the demand. He asked the
committee to look at the timeline more carefully, to fully fund
whatever is mandated, and to leave curriculum development to local
school districts. He urged committee members to solicit the
opinions of practitioners on this issue.
CHAIR GREEN said that a solution somewhere in between requiring
passage of the exit exam to receive a diploma and her proposal
would probably be suitable.
Number 1295
MR. STEVE CATHERS, Valdez City School District Superintendent, told
committee members he is testifying on his own behalf. He is also
President-elect of the Alaska Association of School Administrators
(AASA). He supports standards and the qualifying exam. There have
been significant changes in student seriousness and in classroom
content and methods because of high stakes testing and statewide
standards. The challenge before us now is to continue in the
direction of school improvement and avoid technical pitfalls that
might derail us in our forward momentum. Regarding the Indiana
plan, proposed by Senator Green, he supports it in general. It
offers a critical opportunity for fairness to students who have
legitimate reasons for not passing the qualifying exam. It is not
the only possible solution to mounting problems with implementing
the exam next year, it would address the most serious problems.
MR. CATHERS stated that anyone who says no students will be
discriminated against under the current law is oversimplifying both
the education and legal rights issues. The notion that the current
system will fix itself, if we proceed blindly, is wrong.
Constituents in his district are braced to suit the state and the
district over special education issues now. He and Mr. Hargraves
audio-conferenced yesterday with the executive director of the
Indiana Association of School Administrators Roger Thornton about
problems they experienced with their implementation of Senator
Green's provisions. His opinion is that Indiana has implemented
high stakes testing smoothly because of the waiver option in their
law. It should be noted that many of the provisions in the HESS
Committee's proposal, according to Mr. Thornton, were not in the
original Indiana bill, but were developed as regulation by the
Indiana Department of Education. He indicated the Indiana bill
only required there be a waiver option for certain reasons,
including special education and vocational education.
MR. CATHER stated that critics of the HESS Committee's proposal
will say it lowers standards and relies on subjective measure -
student grades. His first reaction was the same. However, after
speaking with Mr. Thornton and considering the plan further, he
feels it is a creative and meritorious idea which shows insight
into educational realities. The plan does not offer a waiver
indiscriminately. It is specific in its requirements. The grade
and attendance requirements are only two criteria and if a teacher
and an administrator recommendation is needed, there is every
opportunity to screen out students who are not good candidates.
Grades, while subjective, are much more reliable than many believe.
There is a stronger correlation between high school grades and
college success than there is between test scores and college
success. Grading practices have also changed over the last ten
years. Teachers now must document and objectify grades more than
ever because of successful suits about sloppy grading. He
suggested that if grades and attendance are to be used as a waiver,
they should be phased in so that they only apply to 11th and 12th
grades next year, 10th, 11th and 12th grades the following years,
and all four years of high school the following year. Without
that, he foresees some due process challenges tying up many
districts in the state.
MR. CATHER said another significant feature of the bill is that it
requires remediation in every case. That is commendable and speaks
to the intent of the qualifying exam directly. In some cases,
alternative assessments are required. To not allow that practice,
at least in certain circumstances, begs a legal challenge.
Remediation efforts must be promoted statewide, regardless of the
direction the legislature takes on the qualifying exam issue. To
tackle the question of the correct way to improve our schools,
there is no silver bullet. All districts, DOEED and the
legislature must work together to improve education in the state
through a multitude of efforts. He offers the record of Unalaska
City Schools of one of many examples in the state of significant
improvement and high achievement. The board and staff at Unalaska
City School District has taken many energetic and bold steps during
the last five years to make student achievement its top priority.
The result for Unalaska has been enviable benchmark and qualifying
exam scores and being named this fall as one of the top 100
districts in the nation by an independent research group as
published in Offspring Magazine. Unalaska was the only Alaska
district to receive this honor.
MR. CATHERS explained that Unalaska was able to achieve its goal by
a combination of hard work, staff commitment, effective staff
development, curriculum development and alignment, close
supervision of staff, a strong student discipline system, and
targeted remediation. Though it was painful at times, a number of
mediocre teachers were not retained over several years time. The
willingness by the board to not retain teachers who were the best
was a factor for Unalaska. He also believes it enhanced the status
of all good teachers. A strong commitment to remediation was made
five years ago and summer school was implemented. Other remedial
activities, such as weekend exit exam boot camp, were offered with
a targeted skills approach also. It is not easy for a small
district to fund this kind of program. It must be done at the
expense of other programs.
MR. CATHERS told the committee that school improvement will happen
without strong school leadership. He urged them to support school
leaders who work largely in isolation from collegial support and
often for less daily pay than those they supervise. He fears with
the administrator shortage that looms in Alaska, all quality
schools efforts will fail if that is not addressed.
CHAIR GREEN said that she hadn't heard about the shortage of school
administrators.
MR. CATHER offered to send her articles.
CHAIR GREEN asked Mr. Wes Knapp to testify.
MR. WES KNAPP, Aleutian East Island Borough School District, told
committee members that he spent 40 years in education, 30 of them
in New York where the Regents exam is required. The New York
Regents Exam's 70 year history was called into question about 10
years ago and the school diploma system has been phased out and
replaced with one test that all students must now pass. In Alaska,
if we do not address the special needs students we will be
disenfranchising special needs students who, even after meeting IEP
goals, will be told if they don't pass the same test as others,
they will not get a diploma. Students will become discouraged and
the drop out rate will increase. If special education students
meet the goals defined for them by their IEP, they should not be
denied graduation. Although he supports standards, he suggests
that requiring a paper and pencil test given on a specific date is
not a standards-based instrument. Students who receive standards-
based instruction should be tested when educators feel they have
reached a target or goal, not a specific day prescribed by someone
in Juneau. He applauds the efforts to address the needs of special
education students, and other students as well. The test
requirements and diploma issue needs more time and deliberation; we
should not attempt to implement something that is flawed or not
well thought out. More time is needed to study this issue. The
HSGQE is based on a norm-based testing model, rather than a
standards-based test. He encouraged legislators to solicit more
input from educators and to examine the possibility of different
types of diplomas. While some states may have phased out that
approach, the fact that that approach lasted as long as it did
requires that we give it more thought.
Number 1790
MS. ROBYN REHMANN, Director of Anchorage School District Special
Education, stated that this issue is vitally important to all of
the students in our state. If done properly, the proposal for
standards and the exit exam will certainly raise the abilities of
all of our students. Districts, schools and teachers are currently
examining their curricula, how students learn, and raising outcomes
for all children. The proposal for differentiated diplomas is an
important one. She is hesitant to accept it, however, because she
is concerned it could cause a significant backlash in terms of
tracking students based on performance. It could limit students in
terms of potential and ability. She is also concerned about the
required remediation classes and the impact that could have on
students who do have disabilities that are able to compensate and
move to a higher level of instruction. If those students are
trapped in a series of remedial courses, they will be severely
penalized.
MS. REHMANN said she is very interested in the proposal put forth
by the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, which is to offer a
basic foundational diploma with endorsements for each portion of
the exit exam passed. She highly encourages the committee to
support federal law, where students on IEPs and 504 plans are
included in all statewide assessments - looking at a wider variety
of accommodations and modifications available to those students,
that are related to their IEPs. She asked committee members to
look at expanding opportunities for students to demonstrate
competency and opportunities for alternate assessments. She asked
legislators to not limit or label students in any way and instead
to work with educators and students to ensure success of all
students.
MR. Darrol Hargraves once again thanked the committee for the time
it has spent on this issue.
There being no further testimony, CHAIR GREEN noted that Mr. John
Lilibet (ph) of the Governing Board of Alaska School Counselors
Association submitted written testimony in support of the delay of
the implementation of the HSGQE until 2006.
CHAIR GREEN then adjourned the meeting at 12:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|