Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
02/27/2008 08:00 AM Senate SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB285 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
February 27, 2008
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bettye Davis
Senator Donald Olson
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."
HEARD AND HELD
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
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM LAMKIN, Staff to Senator Stevens
Staff to Senator Stevens
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 285 on behalf of the sponsor.
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education & Early Development
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided supporting information on SB 285.
NEIL SLOTNICK, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Labor and State Affairs Section
Department of Law
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions related to SB 285.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR GARY STEVENS called the Senate Special Committee on
Education meeting to order at 8:00:40 AM. Present at the call to
order were Senators Gary Stevens and Charlie Huggins.
SB 285-STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL DISTRICT
CHAIR STEVENS announced the consideration of SB 285.
8:01:11 AM
TIM LAMKIN, staff to Senator Stevens, introduced SB 285 on
behalf of the sponsor. He explained that the bill is in response
to Moore, et al. v. State of Alaska. It is an effort to
demonstrate that the legislature is taking steps to remedy its
perceived failure to adequately oversee underperforming school
districts and schools in the state. To provide background he
read the following excerpts from the Moore case into the record:
9. …this Court also finds that the Education Clause
requires the State to take ultimate responsibility for
insuring that each child in this state is accorded a
meaningful opportunity to achieve proficiency in
reading, writing, math, and science -
476. The evidence at trial clearly established that
considerably greater oversight by the State over the
education of Alaska's children, at least at the
state's most seriously underperforming schools, is
critically needed.
41. In order to achieve compliance with the Education
Clause's requirement to maintain a system of public
schools, the State must do, at a minimum, two things.
First, it must establish clear standards for school
districts that are necessary for the district to
retain full local control. … Second, the State must
exercise considerably more oversight and provide
considerably more assistance and direction to those
schools that are identified as failing to meet the
State's constitutional obligation, in a concerted
effort to remedy the situation.
8:03:02 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), introduced
himself and Mr. Slotnick, the department's attorney. DEED
believes this bill sends a clear message to school districts,
school boards, and school administrations that the Educational
Clause places responsibility on the legislature rather than the
local school board to establish and maintain public schools in
the state. Obviously, when the local school board is doing its
job DEED wants to allow that to happen. But this bill removes
any question about where the obligation lies. The administration
supports the bill, but it does have an amendment coming to fix
language on page 1.
CHAIR STEVENS advised that the committee will not pass the bill
today because only he and Senator Huggins are present. He'd like
to get as much information as possible today and then deal with
the bill when the full committee comes together. He asked Mr.
Slotnick if he had any opening remarks.
8:05:06 AM
NEIL SLOTNICK, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, Labor and State Affairs Section, Department of Law
(DOL), said he is available to answer questions.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if the intent of this legislation gives
authority that is lacking under the current system.
MR. JEANS replied the real purpose is to look beyond the
district down to the level of individual schools. He noted that
in some districts where DEED intervened there has been some
"pushback." Some local school boards questioned whether the
state has the authority to direct how money is spent or how
personnel decisions are made. He reminded the committee that
when DEED intervened in the Yupiit School District, two schools
promptly complied with the department's directions and in one
school the principal was less cooperative. SB 285 would allow
DEED, in similar circumstances, to direct the district to remove
the uncooperative person. "It's a strong hammer but it sends the
message and I believe that school districts will understand they
have to cooperate with the department of education; it's not an
option."
MR. SLOTNICK added that the judge found the best approach might
be for the legislature to consider according DEED more authority
to direct a school district to allocate more of its resources
into the classroom. Judge Gleeson said:
The exact nature of these additional efforts should be
for the State in the first instance to determine. But
this Court finds that the efforts taken as of trial,
particularly with respect to the Yupiit School
District, are constitutionally inadequate.
Her recommendation came from testimony by Commissioner Sampson
who was recognizing that as of the date of trial, DEED had, to
the best of its ability, implemented the accountability system
that the legislature adopted in 1998. But it's time to put more
teeth in the accountability system, he said. DEED is only asking
for authority to use district funds to hire contract personnel;
there's no intention to create more infrastructure. The idea is
to do what the judge said and direct additional resources into
the classroom. "That's the point of this authority that we're
asking for," he said.
8:08:46 AM
CHAIR STEVENS commented that when he was a school board
president, one of the guiding principles was local control of
education. He asked if he's hearing that school districts don't
need to worry; this isn't a power grab by DEED. The department
will only intervene in egregious situations where the school
district has failed to provide students with the education they
need.
MR. SAMPSON replied that is the department's intent and it is
reflected in the intent language in the bill. Where there is
evidence that local control is working, where a higher
percentage of students are proficient or growing toward
proficiency, then DEED will back off. Under its current
authority DEED could have intervened in more school districts
than it has. For example, in the Bering Strait District some
schools are not showing high performance and that could have
been sufficient justification to intervene. But the department
looked at the elements and saw good leadership, growth in
achievement, as well as use of data in the classroom and
determined that local control was doing better than DEED could
do from Juneau. In contrast, in another school district DEED saw
that resources were not being directed into the classroom; the
districts were buying new curriculum in an effort to correct
problems. What they needed to do was use the data they had, use
continual assessment and feedback and get the teachers to talk
to each other. DEED sent a team into that district to help them
direct more resources into the classroom through those means. As
Mr. Jeans said, there was pushback in some districts. In some
instances the first thing the district did was consult their
lawyer and they received the advice that they could mount a
challenge to stop DEED. That hasn't happened. "We've already
spent over $1 million on one lawsuit; we don't want another
one," he said.
8:12:37 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if districts are still required to
allocate 70 percent of their funding to classrooms and if that
figure is tracked.
MR. JEANS replied it is tracked and 22 or 23 school districts
didn't meet the 70 percent requirement this year.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked where the schools that had interventions
fell on the scale.
MR. JEANS replied he would get the answer.
SENATOR HUGGINS described it as a fundamental question.
MR. JEANS relayed that he has a problem with the 70 percent
requirement because it's based on statewide averages. For
example, the Lower Kuskokwim School District has operation and
maintenance expenses that are over 25 percent of their budget.
They'll never be able to spend 70 percent on instructional
programs unless a tremendous amount of money is infused into
that district to offset those costs. In Alaska the system for
accountability is the assessment system. He doesn't consider the
70/30 allocation to be an accountability system.
SENATOR HUGGINS said he agrees and perhaps the 70/30 provision
should be reviewed. With regard to assessments, he said that
some say they're helpful and others say they're a distracting
waste of time. It appears that you ran into one of those schools
of thought, he said.
MR. JEANS replied he finds the entire concept of assessments
very interesting. Even people who disagree with standards-based
assessments use some sort of assessment tool in their individual
classrooms.
8:16:30 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS said part of the problem may be that some
teachers set the list of indicators aside. "Then we never take
the next step of how we address those individual indicators we
have on kids in classrooms."
MR. JEANS agreed partially. When DEED intervenes it goes into
schools to help teachers understand the assessment system and
how it's aligned with grade-level expectations. DEED has online
assessments to ensure that teachers are doing weekly student
assessments and that's available to every teacher who wants to
use it. But when DEED intervenes, the teachers are required to
use the online assessment. "We believe that there's better
instruction going on and we can actually see increased student
achievement because of it," he said.
SENATOR HUGGINS suggested a stepped process so people are
informed about what actions may be coming about. Also, the
legislature has to be informed since it is responsible. He
acknowledged that he had been unaware of the interventions.
8:19:09 AM
MR. JEANS explained that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) lays out
the process the department must go through in evaluating school
districts. Similar steps are used in evaluating individual
schools, he said. "It shouldn't be new to school districts." He
encouraged the committee to review the PowerPoint that Les Morse
delivered to the to the NCLB winter conference. Through the
lawsuit the judge made it very clear that it is the
legislature's responsibility to operate and maintain; it is not
the responsibility of the local school board. "Where students
are not being afforded an opportunity to learn, the state
absolutely has an obligation to step in," he said.
SENATOR HUGGINS said he hopes that this will be a cooperative
process so that districts can take some ownership going forward.
MR. JEANS responded the intent is to work cooperatively through
local school district administrations to develop an improvement
plan that will lead to increased student achievement. There is
no intention for DEED to step into the local school and start
directing the principal on how to run his or her school.
SENATOR HUGGINS said he hopes there will be feedback from the 6
school districts that had interventions and the 16 school
districts that DEED is looking at closely.
8:21:35 AM
CHAIR STEVENS observed that when he was school board president
he assumed that local school boards control their districts, but
he isn't sure where that notion came from. He questioned where
that rule abides in law and how pervasive it is.
MR. SLOTNICK replied the court has always recognized the
overriding concept of local control. State legislatures put it
into statute and courts recognize that local control results in
a tremendous buy-in into education on the local level. That's
ingrained in this country's educational system, but it's not in
the constitution. Prior to 1977 Alaska experimented with a
state-run system in rural areas but it wasn't successful. A
study indicated that after going to local control in rural
districts there was significant improvement over 20 years. Now
we're seeing that some of those school districts need help to
progress to the next level, he said.
8:24:11 AM
CHAIR STEVENS asked what repercussions might be expected if the
legislature doesn't comply with Judge Gleason's recommendations.
MR. SLOTNICK replied he would defend the current system as being
consistent with the constitution, but if the legislature does
nothing the judge might very well take action in the area of
finances. That could be an expansion of the 70/30 rule or it
could entail more accounting rules. It would be well-meaning but
not necessarily effective. "What we're advocating is actual
intervention in the classroom with professionals with …
something that gets directly to the students as opposed to
working through the accountants and the business managers." The
judge also spoke of a statewide curriculum, which is a different
direction than facilitating local control so it can do a better
job.
MR. SLOTNICK said he also worries about the exit exam. The judge
made a finding that in school districts that are out of
compliance with the Education Clause, the exit exam can't be
implemented. But those are the districts that need the exit exam
more than any others, he said.
MR. SLOTNICK stressed that it's important that the legislature
clearly articulate what it wants from the education system. If
it determines that an approach other than SB 285 would be
consistent with the constitution, then DOL will defend that; but
this bill does follow from the accountability system that the
legislature adopted in 1998. "It seems clear to me that in order
to fully implement that system, we do need more authority. But
it made sense to hold off giving us more authority until we
showed that we're able to do what you asked us to do in '98."
8:28:15 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked what the reaction would be if Chair
Stevens were to send the judge a letter saying that she has the
legislature's attention and the districts will receive an extra
$2 million.
MR. JEANS replied he doesn't believe that would do any good
because the judge found that the system is adequately funded.
What she said is that based on the accountability system, some
schools have very low performing students and the state is
obliged to put forth its best effort to help those schools
increase student achievement.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if schools in the Bush offer as good an
education as those in urban areas.
MR. JEANS offered his belief that regardless of where children
reside, if they believe in the educational system and it's what
they want, then it is theirs to take. What a student gets from
the school depends on the individuals, their families, and the
support they get as they move through the system.
8:31:05 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS said his point is that cultural standards differ
depending on the area.
MR. JEANS agreed that cultural differences do impact where
students end up at the end of their educational career.
8:32:28 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS said he isn't looking for an answer but he
wonders whether that ought to be a factor in what the state
does.
CHAIR STEVENS related a story about a boy who went through high
school in Old Harbor on Kodiak Island and went on the get his
PhD in anthropology. Recently he received the $1 million
McArthur Foundation award, which shows that some people will
rise through whatever system they are part of and become an
enormous success. He asked if there was anything else to bring
before the committee.
MR. JEANS said that the following statement from the decision
drives home why SB 285 is before the committee.
If a school, despite adequate funding, is failing to
accord a child with a constitutionally adequate
education - such as failing to give that child a
meaningful opportunity to acquire proficiency in the
State's own performance standards - then the concept
of local control must give way because that school is
not being maintained as required by the Education
Clause.
At ease from 8:34:09 AM to 8:36:37 AM.
CHAIR STEVENS thanked Mr. Jeans and Mr. Slotnick. He said that
the school board association and individual school boards will
have an opportunity to speak to this legislation on Saturday at
9:00 am. At that time there will be a committee substitute (CS).
SB 285 was held in committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Stevens adjourned the meeting at 8:37:51 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|