Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
02/29/2008 08:00 AM Senate SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB285 | |
| a M E N D M E N T 1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
February 29, 2008
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Bettye Davis
Senator Donald Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Gary Wilken
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 285
"An Act relating to the power and duties of the Department of
Education and Early Development for improving instructional
practices in school districts; and providing for an effective
date."
MOVED CSSB 285(SED) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 285
SHORT TITLE: STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL DISTRICT
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STEVENS
02/19/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/08 (S) SED, FIN
02/27/08 (S) SED AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/27/08 (S) Heard & Held
02/27/08 (S) MINUTE(SED)
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM LAMKIN
Staff to Senator Stevens
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a committee substitute (CS) for SB
285 labeled 25-LS1522\C.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Cautiously supported CSSB 285(SED).
MARY FRANCIS
Executive Director
Council of School Administrators
Juneau AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSSB 285(SED).
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
Juneau AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 285(SED).
NEIL SLOTNICK, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSSB 285(SED).
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR GARY STEVENS called the Senate Special Committee on
Education meeting to order at 8:06:33 AM. Present at call to
order were Senators Bettye Davis, Donald Olson, Charlie Huggins,
and Gary Stevens.
SB 285-STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL DISTRICT
8:06:33 AM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced consideration of SB 285.
TIM LAMKIN, staff to Senator Stevens, presented a committee
substitute (CS) for SB 285 labeled 25-LS1522\C.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS moved to adopt CSSB 285, version C, for
discussion purposes. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
MR. LAMKIN explained the main difference in the CS is that on
page 3, line 25, of the original bill it said "in the
instructional practices" and that was deleted in the CS. That
phrase was initially put in by the drafter for grammatical
purposes, but it had consequences the Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED) did not support. It would limit the
department's ability to intervene and make personnel decisions
and withhold funds, which was the primary thrust of the bill.
The CS reflects more closely what the department originally
submitted.
MR. LAMKIN explained that Amendment 1 was put forth in the
spirit of communication and the fact that with this proposed law
the legislature is delegating more authority to the DEED. So if
the perception is that the legislature is granting too much
power to the DEED or that this would somehow diminish local
control of school districts, this amendment would at least
require the department to notify the legislature before
exercising these new intervention powers.
25-LS1522\C.1
Bullock/Mischel
7/11/09
^A M E N D M E N T 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR STEVENS
TO: CSSB 285( ), Draft Version "C"
Page 3, line 26, following "(15)":
Insert ";
(17) notify the legislative committees
having jurisdiction over education before intervening
in a school district under AS 14.07.030(14) or
withholding public school funding under
AS 14.07.030(15)"
8:10:08 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS moved to adopt Amendment 1. There being no
objection, the motion carried.
8:10:33 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards, said in "Moore versus the State of Alaska" the
plaintiffs asked a question, but they weren't prepared for the
response. They drew into focus the poor performance of students
in some school districts. He said the association has offered
its assistance to the DEED to work with school districts on
governance training, but he still has a couple of concerns. He
wouldn't oppose the bill today, because it has a place in what
next step beyond the "No Child Left Behind," and comes before
the last step of reconstitution and complete take-over by the
state, which the state doesn't want to do to any school
district. Mr. Rose informed them that 90 percent of the school
districts fare well under local control, but some of them do
have low student performance and could use some assistance.
MR. ROSE continued that Western Washington State had a
professor, Dan Stufflebean, who articulated four principles of
evaluation: feasibility (can it be accomplished), utility (is
it easily understood and implemented), accuracy (will what is
proposed be accurate), and propriety (is it appropriate for the
city it is in). He said the department would look at some
proposals, but he was mainly concerned about accuracy and
propriety as well as utility.
Alaska once had state-operated schools; but it moved away from
that to local control because lawmakers wanted people to be able
to go to locally-elected officials to voice their concerns about
the public education system. He said that has worked for the
most part; but the state is still faced with low performance
school districts and, under the Constitution, it is the state's
responsibility to provide assistance. While he doesn't oppose
this bill, he doesn't want to see the state move closer to
reconstitution or a complete takeover of school districts.
MR. ROSE stated that the judge charged the state in the Moore
case to see some movement within one year, but didn't tell them
what she wanted to see happen. So he recommended that they take
the same position in this bill and tell the department what the
legislature wants to see done; but don't tell them how to do it.
Have the department promulgate regulations and review them for
abuse or extenuating circumstances. The judge said the state
needs to show some interest in low performance school districts
and this may be the most appropriate way. However, he cautioned
them to consider who would be accountable if something like this
is done and the initiatives are not appropriate or accurate,
because school board members can be recalled, but the department
can't. He concluded by saying, "We'll do everything as a school
board association to assist in any way that we can. Once again -
feasibility, utility, accuracy and appropriateness, I think, are
important."
8:15:36 AM
CHAIR STEVENS said he thought what happens if the department
fails is a key issue and he asked if districts in general are
accepting of this change.
MR. ROSE replied that the affected districts are not going to be
in favor of it. Those districts face extreme conditions like
differences in language, culture and distance; they are not
connected by roads. There are difficulties that even the
department is going to have to face, he said, but it is a matter
of interpretation in terms of what ought to be done. He thought
they would welcome the assistance, but not the heavy-handed way
this is being done. However, in some ways it is very necessary
and if they can ensure that the regulations are not being abused
the legislature has some responsibilities and the judge is
commanding them.
He said when they look at the department's capabilities to deal
with something like this, it will have to go to contractors and
consultants. When you do that with people who have retired from
the system and are in state, the cost are manageable; but if
they start bringing contractors in from outside the state it
will cost a lot more. He admonished them to remember that they
are withholding foundation dollars for these initiatives and
that so that would concern him.
CHAIR STEVENS asked when he expected the department to return
control to the districts.
MR. ROSE replied when the department meets the targets that are
laid out, control could return to the school districts. He
didn't know how long that would take. It is a huge challenge
and these issues are being dealt with in not just rural Alaska,
but in some larger school districts with the Native population.
SENATOR HUGGINS agreed with Mr. Rose. He said the committee was
given a list of 6 districts for intervention and another list of
16 districts that were labeled "look closely at" and he thought
the key to their approach should be to communicate actions with
that group so it could get out of the closely looked at category
and never go to the intervention group. He thought a
chronological list that created an expectation... if A doesn't
happen, B will happen... would work so nobody would be surprised
and everybody would understand what the next step would be.
People might be motivated to help themselves before that next
step.
MR. ROSE responded that Senator Huggins was really talking about
consequences and sometimes people have a tough time with those,
but they do bring results. He asked people to look at this
intervention plan not as a punitive action, but rather a plan of
improvement.
SENATOR OLSON asked if any of the school districts that don't
like it have come up with alternatives. Are other alternatives
out there that might be more acceptable?
MR. ROSE replied that most of these school districts have
embarked on the initiatives. In the case of Northwest Arctic,
they had a curriculum review that showed them their areas of
improvement and they were working hard to get there; but they
face some real difficulties. He said:
If this bill helps them get where they need to go,
great. My only concern is that it's not viewed as
punitive and that the costs, if exorbitant, could
affect their foundation funds and I don't know exactly
how that would affect each one of them. But I do know
they're trying.
SENATOR HUGGINS said the state already has a mentoring program
that is widely accepted and makes significant contributions in
most cases. He thought maybe a similar model might be workable
because people would view it as assisting proactively.
MR. ROSE replied that the mentoring program is one component
that would help at the instructional level, but what is being
drawn into focus is more than just personnel. The amendment they
just adopted causes the department to go into a school district
not just because of its instructional programs, but to do a full
assessment and help them come up with a plan to address the
problems.
8:24:32 AM
MARY FRANCIS, Executive Director, Council of School
Administrators, said she asked her members what they thought but
hasn't heard much yet. Her membership would be coming to town in
a couple of weeks and could fully vet this issue with the
superintendents and other district administrators at that time.
8:26:37 AM
CHAIR STEVENS said he appreciated that because they were
concerned about not hearing from the districts. The real problem
they are facing is that this appears to be a must-have piece of
legislation that needs to move through the legislature in 45
days. He would be loath to hold the bill for another two weeks;
so he encouraged her to keep commenting through the whole
process.
MS. FRANCIS said the words "coaching" and "mentoring" have come
up in reference to the fiscal note - the concept of coaching or
mentoring for the districts or administrators that are not in
compliance. She cautioned against the use of that word because
the department's existing coaching and mentoring programs are
not to be judgmental or evaluative; so she suggested they use a
different word for the kind of assistance that is provided. She
also wanted to know how withholding funds would actually promote
student achievement and said, "That is a fairly heavy hammer
that is included in this bill."
She suggested that if the administrator association had the
opportunity to put together a support committee of practitioners
in-the-field who are from the same cultural region, "essentially
police our own..." as a critical intervention step, that would
go a long way toward acceptance of the final conclusion. She
pointed out that at this point, all of the intervention is from
the department; and as a former superintendent, she knows people
are more likely to listen to their peers a whole lot more
effectively.
8:30:41 AM
CHAIR STEVENS asked Mr. Jeans to address the steps that lead to
intervention.
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), said the
department has draft regulations that were taken to the state
board of education in March that actually lay out each of those
steps. He said the focus here is on increasing student
achievement. The department doesn't need to intervene when a
school is heading in the right direction, but the judge made it
very clear that it's the legislature's responsibility to
intervene in those schools that are not showing progress or, as
in some cases, are slipping backwards.
So, for its regulations, the department first looked at whether
a school was making adequate yearly progress (AYP); if 50
percent of a school's students were scoring proficient in
reading, writing and math, they knew they didn't have to
intervene. But then it starts getting trickier because they have
to dig a little deeper into the data at an individual school
level. If the department sees progress in school achievement it
will back off; if it doesn't, it will help the school develop an
improvement plan and use school coaches to make sure the plan is
being followed.
MR. JEANS said currently they are directing school districts to
use Title 1 funds to hire the coaches before the department even
approves their grant applications. But that puts the coaches in
an awkward position because they are employees of the district
doing work for the DEED. He claimed that hiring coaches is the
only reason for withholding money from the foundation program.
He pointed out that their fiscal note they did include funds in
a contractual line to hire coaches so they won't have to dip
into the districts' foundation funds. He thought it was
important for the department to have that authority if more
schools are found to need intervention.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked at what point in the process the
department accesses Title 1 funds for coaching.
MR. JEANS replied that is happening right now when districts
apply for their Title 1 funds on an annual basis.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked if he meant that is in the six school
districts they've intervened in.
MR. JEANS answered yes.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked what happens with the 16 schools they are
looking closely at.
MR. JEANS answered those schools are making progress. They still
have to submit school improvement plans, but they are not at the
point of hiring district coaches to make sure the plans are
being implemented.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked how they know these schools are following
their plan.
8:35:47 AM
MR. JEANS replied that's why they believe they need the district
or school coaches. He emphasized that the statute may appear
heavy-handed, but their intent is to work with the school
district administration and board in developing the school
improvement plan. They have developed many tools for school
districts to use in educating and assessing children and help
them meet the state performance standards. The department will
not accept just any school improvement plan unless they think it
will make a difference. When the plan is in place, it must be
monitored; that's what this legislation is intended to do.
SENATOR DAVIS said she doesn't agree that this legislation needs
to be rushed through the process and asked what makes it
necessary for them to move so fast on it. She said she
appreciated the fact that they need a plan of action, but to
move it within a week, without the input they need from the
districts, the teachers, the administrators and everyone
concerned is not realistic. She viewed the department's
withholding foundation funds as an unfunded mandate; the
districts are already in trouble and they need the money. If
anybody is going to step up to the plate for money it should be
the legislature.
She said she wants the legislature to see the plan that the
department intends to take before the Board of Education, even
though they are not going to vote on it. Legislators want to be
able to see if the department is moving in the right direction
and perhaps add some comments, not wait until it gets to the
Board of Education and it is too late to speak to it. She
reiterated, what makes this a "must have" piece of legislation
for this session?
CHAIR STEVENS said the crucial question is timeliness and asked
what happens if the legislature does not act this session.
NEIL SLOTNICK, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
(DOL), representing the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED). He said the court was very clear; she gave
the state one year to come back to her and show it had responded
to her instructions to increase the oversight in school
districts. He asked the judge if he could show her what the DEED
is doing now, but she said "No." She wanted the legislature to
be aware of her findings and what the state was doing; and she
wanted to see the legislative response.
CHAIR STEVENS asked what steps the court might take if the state
doesn't take action.
MR. SLOTNICK replied that he didn't want to speculate, but it's
very clear she has the authority to enter an injunction and
order the DEED to take certain actions regarding increasing
oversight of education and regarding how the exit exam could be
applied.
SENATOR DAVIS asked him to explain the judge's stand on the exit
exam.
MR. SLOTNICK answered that the court made a finding that, with
the quality of the existing educational oversight in districts
that are not showing high performance, if the state cannot use
the exit exam to deny children in some districts a diploma, she
would have the authority to enter an injunction that would
essential create a two-tier system - because some districts
would have an exit exam and others wouldn't. As a policy matter,
that would be a very difficult situation.
CHAIR STEVENS said "must have" were his words because the
results of ignoring it could be pretty draconian. He asked Mr.
Jeans what can happen if the legislature ignores the judge's
ruling.
MR. JEANS replied that the judge made it very clear that when
the department doesn't see high student achievement or
increasing student achievement, local control must give way.
This piece of legislation makes it very clear that if a school
district can't demonstrate that children are improving (not
necessarily that they've met the high standard) then the state
has the job to step in and provide that guidance. Right now
school districts are saying this is a local control state and
the department can't tell them what to do. However, the court's
made the state's obligation to put its very best effort forward
very clear. He said the department would work with districts to
improve performance, but it wasn't going to direct instruction
at the school level. Some schools were showing improvements.
MR. JEANS explained that the department is not withholding Title
1 funds, but rather directing districts on how to spend them.
However, the contractors are employees of the district and he
thinks they need to make future school coaches employees of the
department.
SENATOR DAVIS said she still thinks this is an unfunded mandate
and the low performing schools need the Title 1 monies. The
legislature should address that, not the department. She also
knows the judge wants to see more than just this legislation
before she will close this case out. With regard to the exit
exam, she said the legislature can take care that issue, because
the legislature put it in place and if it isn't working they can
repeal it.
8:47:35 AM
MR. JEANS said he has heard the word "takeover" many times and
he does not believe the judge directed the State of Alaska to
take over any school districts. She directed the State of Alaska
to put forth its best effort. The DEED may not be successful,
but it has to be able to demonstrate to the court that it has
put forth its best effort, which is what this legislation is
intended to do.
CHAIR STEVENS said he thinks it would be the department's
intention to return control to the district as soon as possible.
MR. JEANS said he didn't see this as the department taking
control, but rather as the legislature directing school
districts to accept guidance and direction from the Department
of Education. "We absolutely intend to work collaboratively with
the school district administration, with the school board, with
the individual school principals, in implementing the school
improvement plan."
SENATOR DAVIS said the legislature could provide that in a joint
resolution so districts will understand the direction the
legislature is taking.
CHAIR STEVENS asked Mr. Jeans to speak to what the half million
dollars in the fiscal note will be used for.
MR. JEANS replied that the fiscal note would establish a new
school improvement office within the commissioner's office. They
would work with the district and school level coaches and work
with the school districts in developing their school and
district improvement plans. It would also allow $215,000 for
contracts. This is the money the department would use first
before dipping into district funds. He said he doesn't know if
it is enough, but they could always come back and ask for more
if it isn't.
8:50:11 AM at ease 8:51:27 AM
CHAIR STEVENS called the meeting back to order at 8:51:27 AM. He
said if there is no objection, they can have a letter of intent
drawn up stating that the department regulations and
intervention procedures will be reviewed next year and that
could catch up with the bill.
SENATOR OLSON said he has a concern about the mandate in the
State Constitution to provide public education to students and
the legislature's obligation to fund it. He asked Mr. Slotnick
if this problem might come back to bite them; if it might
infringe on some of the administrative powers.
MR. SLOTNICK responded that he is not sure he understands the
question. The court has drawn into question the issue of local
control, which has been the basis of education in this state
since statehood except for a brief period in rural Alaska when
the state operated schools. Frankly, he said, the way he sees
this playing out is that the state already has an accountability
system that the legislature adopted in 1998; he thinks this
legislation and the court's decision go hand in glove with where
this legislature has already been headed - which is to have both
state accountability and local control.
SENATOR OLSON asked if he sees a problem with supervision by the
legislature as opposed to the Department of Education.
MR. SLOTNICK replied that he does not see that being an issue;
it's always been clear as governmental processes are implemented
in this state, that the legislature delegates that authority to
the DEED to do its oversight duties and the court hasn't said
otherwise.
8:55:53 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS moved to report CSSB 285(SED) from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
There being no objection, the motion carried.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
chair Stevens adjourned the meeting at 8:56:13 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|