SCR 1-CIVICS EDUCATION TASK FORCE  [Contains discussion of HB 89.]  8:03:59 AM CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1(EDC), Relating to a legislative task force on civics education. 8:04:04 AM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for CSSCR1(EDC), labeled 29-LS0237\I, Glover, 3/11/16, as the working document. Without objection Version I was before the committee. 8:04:52 AM TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State Legislature, presented the CS, with the incorporated changes and notations of the requesting member, which read: Change 1: Page 1, Line 8, following "knowledge," INSERT: "based on an understanding of the values of our founders that are revealed in our founding documents," Intent: Requested by [Chair Keller], to give specific reference to the U.S. founding documents. Change 2: Page 2, Lines 1, following "help": DELETE: "ensure that schools" INSERT: "encourage schools to" Page 2, Line 2, following "for all students": DELETE: "through" INSERT: "in such a way so as to compliment" Intent: Representative Seaton requested this to clarify that the task force would not be adopting new state standards for civics education. Change 3: Page 2, Line 14-20, following (4): INSERT: "(5) Evaluate the merits of and implementation requirements for requiring high school seniors to take and satisfactorily pass the civics portion of the naturalization test used by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services under 8 U.S.C. 1446(b) as a contingency of graduating from high school; (6) Review the merits of and consider ways to best implement the Federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), as it pertains to civics education in Alaska;" Result: Adds two subsections to the duties of the task force. Intent: Incorporates the goal behind HB 89, and considers new federal policy in the field of civics education under ESSA. Change 4: Page 3, Lines 8-9: DELETE: "one member of the National Education Association [(NEA)] who is a" INSERT: "one current or retired high school teacher with significant teaching experience in civics or social studies education in the state" Intent: Chair's request to remove explicit reference to the NEA. 8:09:41 AM CHAIR KELLER expressed support for the bill and gratification for inclusion of the specific language inserted on his request. He stressed the importance for including the reference, and paraphrased the proposed language from page 1, line 8, which read: ... develop civics knowledge based on an understanding of the values of the nation's founders as revealed in the nation's founding documents, including knowledge of our system of government and how it works, ... 8:10:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE COLVER turned to the fiscal note, and asked whether civic groups, or other non-profits organizations, have been solicited to cover the costs of the task force. MR. LAMKIN indicated the frugality incorporated into the fiscal note and that costs will be borne by members of the task force. The fiscal note was previously zeroed out, he reported. 8:12:23 AM The committee took an at-ease from 8:12 a.m. to 8:13 a.m. 8:13:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE COLVER moved to report the CS for CSSCR 1(EDC), labeled 29-LS0237\I, Glover, 3/11/16, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes. 8:14:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion, and upon receiving clarification that the motion was on Version I, removed his objection. CHAIR KELLER without further objection HCS for CSSCR 1(EDC) was reported from the House Education Standing Committee. HB 156-SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES; FED. LAW  [Contains discussion of SCR 1]  9:22:25 AM CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 156 "An Act relating to compliance with federal education laws; relating to public school accountability; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee, adopted as a work draft on 3/30/15, was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 156, Version 29-LS0566\I, Glover, 3/28/15.] 9:22:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 156, labeled 29-LS0566\Y, Glover, 3/11/16, as the working document. Without objection Version Y was before the committee. 9:23:08 AM The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:23 a.m. 9:23:40 AM CHAIR KELLER described the changes proposed in Version Y beginning with Sec. 1, page 1, lines 7-13, and continuing on page 2, lines 1-6, which read as follows: *Section 1. AS 14.03.120(f) is amended to read: (f) By January 15 of each year, beginning in 2001, the department shall provide to the governor and make available to the public and the legislature a report on the performance of public schools in this state. The report must be entitled "Alaska's Public Schools: A Report Card to the Public." The report must include (1) comprehensive information on each public school compiled, collected, and reported under (d) and (e) of this section for the prior school year; (2) a summary of the information described in (1) of this subsection; the summary must be prepared in a manner that allows school performance to be measured against established state education standards; and (3) for a report due by or after January 15, 2005, the most recent performance designation under AS 14.03.123 received by each public school and by the  state public school system. CHAIR KELLER explained that the inserted language is intended to generate a report on the entire school system. 9:26:18 AM CHAIR KELLER turned to page 2, lines 17-19, which read as follows: (2) a comparison of the state public school system to  public schools in other states, including a comparison  of student participation in standards based  assessments and student performance on the  assessments; CHAIR KELLER explained that this language directs the State Board of Education to compare the performance of Alaska's students with that of students across the nation. 9:27:04 AM CHAIR KELLER continued on page 2, lines [24]-29, which read as follows: (5) [(4)] additional measures that may be progressively implemented by the commissioner to assist schools or districts to improve performance in accordance with this section; [AND WITH FEDERAL LAW; TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL LAW,] the additional measures may be unique to a certain school or district if that school or district receives federal funding that is not available to all schools or districts in the state. CHAIR KELLER said the removal of this language is to conform with a change made later in the bill, and indicated that he would refer back to this section, when the other modification is noted. 9:28:05 AM CHAIR KELLER turned to Sec. 4, page 3, lines 6-9, which read: The improvement plan must, to the extent possible,  include measures that increase local control of  education and parental choice and that do not require  a direct increase in state or federal funding for the  school or district. CHAIR KELLER said this is a response to the new federal regulations being instituted under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and to provide local accountability. 9:29:15 AM CHAIR KELLER continued with Sec. 5, page 3, lines [11]-14, which read: (e) The department shall establish a program of special recognition for those public schools that receive a high performance designation, based on the  accountability system under (f) of this section, that  demonstrates an improvement over the school's  performance designation for 15 the previous year. CHAIR KELLER said this is the aspect of the bill that requires the state to establish a system of special recognition for the schools that receive a high performance designation. The recognition will be based on improvement, rather than status quo. A school maintaining the standard, for many years, will be incentivized to improve beyond the bar, he said, and there is always room for improvement. 9:30:10 AM CHAIR KELLER remained on page 3, lines 18-19, to indicate the deleted Sec. 6 language, which read: (1) [IMPLEMENT 20 U.S.C. 6301 - 7941 (ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965), AS AMENDED; CHAIR KELLER emphasized the importance of this change, as it serves to remove the federal code, including ESSA, and ensures district control. The interpretation of the language being deleted, may be construed in a manner that would inhibit the state legislature from establishing policy, as well as district involvement in the process. He pointed out that the EED attorneys do not consider this deletion to be a significant change or threat. 9:31:54 AM CHAIR KELLER continued with Sec. 6, page 3, lines 23-25, which read: (A) measures of student performance on standards-based assessments in language arts and mathematics; the  assessments must be selected with the input of  teachers and school administrators and minimize  disruption to classroom instruction;  (B) measures of student improvement and academic  achievement; and CHAIR KELLER said this language assures that the measures of achievement are based on student improvement and actual performance. 9:32:22 AM CHAIR KELLER moved to Sec. 7, page 4, lines [5-10], which read: (2) study the conditions and needs of the public schools of the state, adopt or recommend plans, administer and evaluate grants to improve school performance awarded under AS 14.03.125, and adopt regulations for the improvement of the public schools; the department may consult with the University of  Alaska to develop secondary education requirements to  improve student achievement in college preparatory  courses; CHAIR KELLER said the inserted language is intended to insure that EED works in concert with the University of Alaska to improve student achievement and provide appropriate preparatory courses. 9:32:48 AM CHAIR KELLER turned to Sec. 7, page 5, lines [16-20], which read: (12) provide educational opportunities in the areas of vocational education and training, and basic education to individuals over 16 years of age who are no longer attending school; the department may consult with  businesses and labor unions to develop a program to  prepare students for apprenticeships or internships  that will lead to employment opportunities; CHAIR KELLER explained that the insertion here is to address businesses and labor union collaboration for the same purpose as the language inserted in the previously reviewed paragraph (2). 9:33:08 AM CHAIR KELLER pointed out page 6, line 5, and the reference change, inserting AS 14.03.123(f)(1)(A) and removing [AS 14.03.123(f)(2)(A)]. He said this relates to the inclusion and consideration of the classroom teachers and local districts. 9:33:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND returned to page 2, lines 17-19, to express support for the added paragraph and ask for further elaboration on the proposed language. CHAIR KELLER replied that it changes the accountability segment of law. He anticipates that the comparisons will be made via assessments such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The assessments will not be named in the bill as it will be up to the board to make those determinations, he said, and added that it may also consider the inclusion of international standards. 9:35:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ directed attention to page 2, lines 1-3, which read: (2) a summary of the information described in (1) of this subsection; the summary must be prepared in a manner that allows school performance to be measured against established state education standards; and REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ suggested amending this to include "and national education standards," to remain consistent with the page 2, lines 17-19 language [paragraph (2)]. 9:36:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked if the CS contains opt-out provisions for parents who object to testing. 9:37:22 AM CHAIR KELLER directed attention to Sec. 8, page 6, lines 13-31, and continuing on page 7, lines 1-3, which read: * Sec. 8. AS 14.07 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 14.07.175. Development of statewide  assessment plan; review of education laws and  regulations. (a) Notwithstanding AS 14.03.078, 14.03.120, 14.03.123, 14.03.300, 14.03.310, AS 14.07.020, 14.07.030, 14.07.165, or a provision of federal law to the contrary, the department may not require a school district or school to administer a statewide standards-based assessment after July 1, 2016, and before July 1, 2018. The department and the board shall create a plan for working with school districts to develop or select statewide assessments that are approved by school districts. The plan must provide for the first administration the assessments not later than the school year that begins in 2020. (b) The department shall review state education laws and regulations to identify unnecessary laws or regulations and areas where the laws or regulations may be changed to provide school districts with greater control over public education policy in light of the enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act, P.L. 114-95. (c) On or before January 1, 2018, the department shall submit a report to the senate secretary and chief clerk of the house of representatives and notify the legislature that the report is available. The report must describe (1) the final plan for developing or selecting statewide assessments as 3 required under (a) of this section; and (2) recommendations for changes in laws or regulations as required under (b) of this section. (d) In this section, "school district" has the meaning given in AS 14.30.350. CHAIR KELLER termed this to be the most important section of the bill, and said notwithstanding the existing statutes that apply to assessment and performance standards, this section establishes that EED may not require a school district to administer a standard based test assessment, after July 1, 2017. The language is not stated as an opt-out provision, but it creates a timeframe when tests will no longer be required. The current reauthorization of NCLB to ESSA will take some time to assimilate, and the bill provides the time-out to accomplish that task. The assumption is that the commissioner of education will be in conversation and negotiation with the U.S. Department of Education to ensure that federal funding remains secure. This is a reasonable action, he opined, and reported that California has paved the way with similar, successful, negotiations. Further, he stated his belief that the bill provides an important tool for the governor/commissioner for negotiation purposes and provide adequate time for the state to review Title 14 and establish clearly defined accountability and assessment requirements and standards. 9:41:05 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:41 a.m. to 9:43 a.m. 9:43:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked whether a legal opinion is forthcoming. CHAIR KELLER responded that an earlier version is under legal review, and comments, thus far, indicate that federal funds may be at risk, but the constitutionality is not under question. 9:45:36 AM DR. SUSAN MCCAULEY PhD, Interim Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development (EED), turned to page 2, lines 17-19, and said the ability for Alaska to accomplish the stated comparison requirements would depend on two situations. First, the ability to leverage results of like assessments that are administered by both Alaska and other states. Or the board would need to determine other factors that constitute a sufficient comparison of Alaska's state system to that of other states; such as graduation rates. Alaska currently utilizes a unique, custom designed, assessment: the Alaska Measures of Progress (AMP). The proposed language suggests that AMP will be replaced and an alternative assessment adopted which would align with that of other states. However, other than the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), there is no other uniform assessment administered by all of the states. Every state is free to choose assessments, and some do as Alaska did, and administer unique assessments. 9:48:55 AM CHAIR KELLER passed the gavel to Vice Chair Vazquez. 9:49:01 AM CHAIR KELLER said the intent of the bill is to require an assessment comparison, but not to mandate a specific type of test for the state. In the past NAEP has been specified, but has received resistance. He acknowledged that the proposed language may need to be clarified. 9:49:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked for elaboration on NAEP. COMMISSIONER MCCAULEY offered that NAEP is also referred to as the Nation's assessment, as it's the only assessment required by the federal government. The test is administered to a sampling of students, in two grade levels, and national comparisons are drawn from the statistics. 9:50:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if it is possible to administer the NAEP to every child in the state. COMMISSIONER MCCAULEY stated her understanding that the sampling system used is a prescribed and exclusive methodology and she offered to confirm her statement. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND opined that NAEP is a thorough, grade specific, assessment, and the results have continued to prove useful. 9:54:02 AM COMMISSIONER MCCAULEY moved to Sec. 8, page 6, lines 13-31, and continuing on page 7, lines 1-3, to address the timeframe and proposed deadline. Currently, the state is under contract with the Achievement and Assessment Institute (AAI) [University of Kansas] to deliver and administer AMP. It was decided in February [2016], that the department would issue a request for proposal (RFP) to replace the AMP assessment. Federal and state law requires that an annual assessment be administered to all students in grades 3-8 as well as all high school levels. She said completing the proposal process by next spring constitutes a "tall order," and described the steps involved, which include: issuing the proposal, receiving and reviewing responses, selecting viable proposals, and formulating a new assessment. Whether the assessment chosen is custom designed, or off the shelf, she said aspects will need to be tailored to include elements that pertain specifically to Alaska. Checks and balances will need to be considered in the areas of cultural bias and sensitivity of items given the unique demographics of the state. The job must be done right, she stressed, and doing it fast, although possible, may compromise the outcome. Thus, the challenge is doing it right, as well as fast, at the same time. There may be an opportunity, and some wiggle room, she conjectured and directed attention to page 6, lines 15-17, which read: Notwithstanding AS 14.03.078, 14.03.120, 14.03.123, 14.03.300, 14.03.310, AS 14.07.020, 14,07.030, 14.07.165, or a provision of federal law to the contrary, the department may not ... COMMISSIONER MCCAULEY opined that it would be beneficial to negotiate an understanding of state requirements, with the U.S. Department of Education; given the reauthorization transition. The ESSA law is very different than NCLB, and an enormous transition is occurring throughout the field of education on a national level. Alaska has already begun the transition and the confluence might provide room for negotiation by establishing what the federal government will minimally require by the spring of 2017. She opined that it's improbable that the U.S. Department of Education would grant a two year reprieve from administering a statewide assessment. Additionally, the state may question the wisdom in not collecting assessment data on the students for a period of two years. However, quality is a concern, and to have all of the conditions previously stated, met by the spring of 2017, will make that a difficult period, she underscored. 9:59:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE COLVER cautioned that rushing to prepare an assessment may not prove beneficial, and the superintendents need to be heard. The elements of the bill address reform that is necessary, he opined, and a hiatus would be appropriate. He agreed that being prepared with a new regimen by spring of 2017 may not be plausible. He then referred to the CS page 6, line 17 to point out the term "may" and opined that "shall" could be more appropriate in this section. 10:02:44 AM POSIE BOGGS, Alaskans for Reading Proficiency, offered comments on SCR1 and HB 156, from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: I'm involved now in six advocacy groups focused on reading proficiency for Alaskan children for example Literate Nation Alaska and the Alaska Branch of the International Dyslexia Association. I would like to testify on SCR 1 and HB 156. First, I would simply like The Civics Education Task Force to know a couple of little details that I think are important to their work. I would like them to know the grade level reading required for the United States original or founding documents. The Declaration of Independence requires a 12th grade reading ability, the Federalist papers require an 18th grade, college graduation reading ability, and the Constitution of the United States requires a 17th grade reading ability. Given that only 30% of Alaskan students graduate high school able to read at the 12th grade level, I think we have a little bit of a problem. School districts are not meeting the needs of our students. Second, I would like to testify on HB 156. However, my testimony can also be related to HB 102. You just heard from a mother on HB 102 and the effects of low reading proficiency on mental health. In HB 156, I'm very much in support of item number five, line 6 in page 2 [CS for HB 156, 29-LS0566\I, Glover, 3/28/15, previously adopted 3/30/15]. That states the methodology used to assign the state public school system of performance designation that compares the state public school system to public school systems in other states and countries. I believe that this the most important drivers that can in proof Alaska's dismal reading proficiency levels. Rep. Keller thank you very much for supporting matching the rigor of National standards because we can do it. I would further recommend that on page 3, line 23 be changed to assess English language arts that reports reading proficiency as a unique and separate result. What the heck is English Language Arts anyway is the question asked by parents. However, on page 2 line 16 where it gives preference to measures that increase local control. I have some concerns. My main concern is that reading instruction is scientifically evidenced but our teachers and their own educators often do not have this knowledge because the research about reading occurs outside of education. Many do not even know that it exists. If we continue to leave reading instruction up to local control this means that a school or district or school board can continue choosing to ignore and discount scientific evidence from over 35 National Institutes of Health reading research centers for over 40 years. If we do allow schools, districts, and school boards to continue current practices, Alaskan children are doomed to ridiculously low reading proficiency levels. I want the legislature to make a plan to uphold their responsibility per the Moore Case to ensure our children are proficient readers. My masters is in Educational diagnostics and Section 8 taking a break is a good idea however, in the mean time I would also recommend that there are quick standardized reading assessment tools that schools and districts could give to students that would provide a very accurate reading proficiency score so that parents know while this transition period happens. They are low cost and group administered. 10:09:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ returned the gavel to Chair Keller.