Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
02/13/2015 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Eed on the Elementary & Secondary Education Act and the School Rating System Alaska School Performance Index (aspi) | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 13, 2015
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Colver
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Liz Vazquez
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: EED ON THE ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT
(ESEA) AND THE SCHOOL RATING SYSTEM ALASKA SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
INDEX (ASPI)
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 30
"An Act requiring school districts to develop and require
completion of a history of American constitutionalism curriculum
segment; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented the overview on the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Alaska School
Performance Index (ASPI).
SUSAN MCCAULEY PhD, Director
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented the overview on the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Alaska School
Performance Index (ASPI).
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:03 AM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives Keller, Seaton,
Colver, Drummond, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Reinbold were present at
the call to order.
^OVERVIEW: EED ON THE ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT AND
THE SCHOOL RATING SYSTEM ALASKA SCHOOL PERFORMANCE INDEX (ASPI)
OVERVIEW: EED ON THE ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT AND
THE SCHOOL RATING SYSTEM ALASKA SCHOOL PERFORMANCE INDEX (ASPI)
8:01:16 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the only order of business would be
an overview from the Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) and the Alaska School Performance Index (ASPI).
8:04:32 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), directed attention to the committee handout,
titled "House Education Committee, Elementary and Secondary
Education ACT (ESEA), School Rating System - Alaska School
Performance Index (ASPI)," page 2, labeled "Drivers of Public
Education in Alaska," to state that, under the Alaska
Constitution, the directive is to establish and maintain a
system of public schools, while Alaska Statute directs the
agency actions for ensuring students are successful in their
school and work. Thus, it is incumbent on the state that four
key functions occur: fund; provide oversight and support; set
standards; and assess students towards proficiency on those
standards. To accomplish these tasks, $1.5 in billion state
funds are allocated to EED, and another $232 million is received
from the federal government. The federal funds specifically
support children of populations that may be at risk, for reasons
such as poverty, transiency, homelessness, and language
barriers. He emphasized that EED is not the beneficiary of
these funds. The department receives and facilitates the
distribution, to ensure that the most vulnerable students
receive an equal opportunity for a quality education. The $232
million in federal fund receipts require the state to provide
1.4 percent in matching funds, thus, for every $100.00 from the
federal government, Alaska matches it with $1.40. In order to
receive, distribute, and account for the federal funds, EED is
allowed to retain 2-3 percent of the funding for staffing needs.
The department is driven by the state constitution and
legislative requirements, he underscored, and said:
With federal funding we expand our opportunities to
meet the needs of [children] but it doesn't change how
we do our work. It doesn't change the structure of
our department it doesn't change our vision of what we
do.
8:09:10 AM
SUSAN MCCAULEY PhD, Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), continued
with the presentation and described the ESEA as a measure passed
in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on
Poverty." It was designed to provide supplementary funding for
elementary and secondary education, providing each child a fair
and equal opportunity for attaining academic achievement. Most
recently the measure was reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB). As mentioned by the commissioner, she
said these funds are directed to specific groups of students who
otherwise would be at a disadvantage to receive the opportunity
for an equal education, due to the variables in their lives.
Directing attention to page 5, of the committee handout, she
compared the nine major points of the NCLB requirements, with
the NCLB Waiver allowances. The first requirement, for adequate
yearly progress (AYP), was replaced by the more flexible Alaska
school performance index (ASPI). The AYP metric was the NCLB
driver for school accountability. Under the waiver, EED was
able to design and implement ASPI, designed specifically to
address Alaska's students. The second change was to adjust the
annual measurable objective (AMO) targets from what was required
under NCLB: a standardized trajectory for all schools to meet
the goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2014. The national
baseline for proficiency skills in reading, science and
mathematics, were established in 2001-2002. Under the waiver,
the department retained AMO objectives, but established goals
set on a school-by-school basis, utilizing baseline data from
each school. The expectation is that under the state AMO
objectives, schools will reduce by half the percent of non-
performing students over a six year period. The trajectory for
each school is based on unique data from that school. The NCLB
mandate was questioned and found untenable, as the 2014 deadline
approached. With no differentiation in school accountability
systems, it became apparent that, at some point, no school would
make AYP under the national blanket approach. The public was
confused by this flawed requirement. The original intent of
increasing school accountability and providing directions for
improvement were lost. The waiver has allowed the state to
adopt a meaningful, star rating system that does allow for
differentiation of achievement levels by subject, student, and
school. She reported that the past year's school rankings by
achievement were: 75 five star, 190 four star, 149 three star,
52 two star, and 27 one star. The star ranking is very
different from saying 98-99 percent of Alaska's schools have not
met AYP, she stressed, and parents have found the star system
understandable and meaningful.
8:16:37 AM
DR. MCCAULEY continued with the fourth NCLB requirement for
comparison, and said that school performance was based solely on
proficiency; a pass/fail model. She explained how a student
would need to have earned a score of 300, on the state wide
assessment to be scored proficient. Thus, a student who
improved their assessment score from 298 to 301, would be scored
as having met proficiency in the AYP system. However, a student
improving from 167 to 299 would not receive proficiency credit;
even though it represents a much larger gain in student
achievement the 300 mark requirement remains unmet. The waiver
allows consideration for both proficiency and growth.
Proficiency is still necessary but 40 percent of the metric is
based on a student's academic growth over seven levels. The
fifth point for comparison, she said, is that there has been no
means to recognize schools that show excellent growth; only
achievement or non-achievement of AYP. The waiver provides two
categories for "rewards schools": one based on the top ten
percent of schools showing proficiency; and one based on the top
ten percent of a school's student growth; a system that works
better, provides motivation, and makes sense. The sixth NCLB
requirement was for the department to identify schools for
improvement, plan corrective action, and school restructuring,
actions that do not exist under the waiver. The seventh measure
required improvement plans for all schools, because under NCLB
no school could meet AYP in every category. The new system
provides a differentiated improvement plan with the emphasis on
one and two star schools. These low achieving schools must
still submit a comprehensive plan to the department. Three,
four, and five star schools who have not met and AMO are
required to submit a streamlined, focused improvement plan for
the target areas not being met. The improvement plans for these
schools is submitted to the district and handled locally.
8:21:17 AM
DR. MCCAULEY moved to the eighth comparison point, and stated
that under NCLB there was increased directing of Title 1 funds.
When schools were seen as not meeting AYP, not only were
increased requirements for school improvement plans required,
but the federal government directed that additional Title funds
be allotted to provide supplementary services in those
districts. The waiver has alleviated this issue. The ninth and
final comparison is the funding structure. Under NCLB the
funding structure was not based on school performance. With the
waiver a subset of Title 1 provides appropriate funding to be
directed towards focus and priority schools, the one and two
star schools, with students showing the most need; 1003A funds.
8:23:12 AM
DR. MCCAULEY directed attention to page 6, of the committee
handout, to explain the ASPI elementary/middle school indicator
weightings for students in grades K-8. The pie chart shows the
three elements that contribute to the star rating with
percentages attached to each element: 40 percent school
progress; 35 percent academic achievement; and 25 percent
attendance rate. The academic achievement represents the
percentage of students who are proficient or above in reading,
writing, and math. The school progress relates to the gain that
a school has achieved from the previous year's standards-based
assessments. The attendance rate is the average attendance of
all students. She explained that the overall total from each of
these elements is what determines the final ASPI points awarded
and the number of stars that a school will receive.
8:24:59 AM
DR. MCCAULEY pointed out that the ASPI high school indicator
weightings, for students in grades 9-12, has three differences:
the inclusion of the graduation rate, 20 percent, and a college
and career ready indicator, 10 percent, in addition to the
school progress, 40 percent, and adjustments to the emphasis
given academic achievement, 20 percent, and attendance rates, 10
percent. These elements are calculated in the same way as for
the lower grades and a correlating star rating is assigned to
the school. She elaborated that the 20 percent graduation rate
points are assigned on a four or five year achievement basis;
whichever one provides the school with the most points. The
college and career ready indicator qualifying scores are gleaned
from the ACT Inc., Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT), and the
WorkKeys assessments.
8:27:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD returned to slide 5 and questioned point
8, regarding the increased directing of Title 1 funds.
DR. MCCAULEY responded that when Title 1 schools failed to meet
AYP, districts were required to set aside a certain percentage
of funds for supplementary educational services. These funds
were to be made available to parents to purchase tutoring
services, or for the school to use towards implementing
supplementary education services.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD clarified her understanding that these
were funds for assisting parent's in supplementing their
children's education, and asked, "That's no longer available?"
DR. MCCAULEY stated, "That's correct."
8:28:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned to page 3, of the committee
handout, and the percentage of federal funds allowed for
administration, to ask what percentage of the department's
budget two-three percent represents, and whether it is
sufficient to cover the necessary agency costs.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY offered to provide further information.
8:29:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked about how the waiver relates to
student busing.
DR. MCCAULEY responded that NCLB included a busing provision, if
a student was attending a school that did not meet AYP and had
the opportunity to attend one which did. The option fell away
with the waiver and the elimination of AYP.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY added that, when in effect, this option was
available in larger districts with multiple schools, as many
areas are single school districts.
8:30:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked what occurs if the state fails to
meet the terms of the waiver.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the result of non-compliance would be a
return to the NCLB model, AYP would be required, and flexibility
would be lost. To a follow-up question he explained that EDC
submitted a plan for approval by the U.S. Department of
Education (USDOE), which is subject to ongoing monitoring.
Washington State recently lost their waiver and has returned to
implementing NCLB. Other states are at risk for not making
progress towards the goals in their waivers, but Alaska received
kudos for not only a great job of implementing the waiver, but
for making the USEDC monitoring process easy.
8:34:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER questioned the NCLB requirement that 100
percent of students meet AYP by 2014, and asked if it is
rational to expect all students to reach full proficiency by a
date certain.
DR. MCCAULEY explained that proficiency on some level relates to
basic skills, which a worthwhile goal that every educator
directs students towards. The flawed aspect, under NCLB, is the
timeline and the one size fits all expectation that did not take
into account where schools were at the onset of the mandate; to
have the same expectation of every school does not make sense,
she opined. The one-size-fits all approach of AYP is what
educators lost faith in over time.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER observed that the waiver does not appear
to emphasize proficiency, and he suggested perhaps it has become
lost in the process. Turning to page 6, he noted that no slice
of the pie is dedicated to school progress, perhaps being
combined with academic achievement. He opined that the system
may downplay, and unintentionally allow a school to have an
ongoing failure in proficiency.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY clarified that the "academic achievement"
category could easily have been named "proficiency" instead, and
represents 35 percent of the schools star ranking. The goal
remains for every school to be proficient, he said, but rather
than having a school ranked entirely on proficiency the other
components were included.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said determining academic success still
appears difficult, as well as understanding whether the money
being put into education results in proficient students.
DR. MCCAULEY offered that, in addition to the academic
achievement portion being exclusively the percent of students
who are/are not proficient, the school progress aspect is about
whether or not students are progressing. There are seven levels
of performance, from far below proficient through advanced.
When a school moves a student from one level to another, credit
is earned in the ASPI system. The scores are established via
the statewide mandated assessment. Should a student backslide
rather than progress, it will be reflected in the metric and
affect the schools rating as well. The seven levels are about
moving towards, maintaining, or advancing a student's
proficiency.
8:41:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND recalled how educators across Alaska
determined early on that the NCLB AYP requirement would be
unattainable. The act neglected to recognize variables that
could bring down a schools rating, such as attendance
considerations. A school could be performing well on all other
fronts, but not meet AYP because a flu epidemic occurred during
a crucial count period.
8:42:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented that NCLB is a large target, and
not a policy that he is comfortable defending; however the
question for measurable academic growth remains. He pondered
whether schools are being expected to maintain a continued
trajectory, of unlimited improvement, indefinitely. Educational
goals once were, and should be again, clear and not obscured, he
opined. Additionally, it is important to understand how to best
allocate limited state funds.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY offered that the department has tried to not
allow progress to obscure proficiency. A student that is
proficient or above must be recognized, and the waiver system
allows for that recognition where NCLB did not. Also, funds
were not required for the system shift from NCLB to the waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked, "How do we know the proficiency of
our kids - where are we at?" Further, he asked whether the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is used to
determine proficiency.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the statewide assessments are
looked to for measuring student growth. The NAEP assessment is
only administered in the 4th and 8th grade every other year,
allowing comparisons on a national level. Also, NAEP does not
provide aggregated data on sub-groups.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether EDC anticipates improvement
on the NAPE scores.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered, "Yes." He stressed that
improvement would occur due to the changes in the system:
raising the trajectory for learning and implementing higher
expectations.
8:48:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD returned to page 5, of the committee
handout, to ask how much money has been spent on NCLB, and
offered her own calculations. She then asked whether, if every
school would end up failing [under AYP requirements], NCLB could
be considered a success.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY pointed out that NCLB did have positive
aspects. Certain requirements that proved helpful included:
disaggregating school data, identifying needs in sub-group
populations, and providing a better picture of overall
performance. However, the accountability portion that was
imposed under the reauthorization failed to make sense.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD queried what changes might occur if it
were reauthorized again.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that Congress has discussed
reauthorization and EDC is monitoring the progress. Despite the
attention that NCLB is receiving on a national level, nothing
has yet come to fruition. However, he opined that flexibility
regarding the accountability measures, as offered under the
waiver, would be a good direction for USDOE to consider
pursuing.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked:
Did the NCLB waiver cause college and career ready
standards, a P20 data system, assessments, and
accountability, which caused the teachers evaluations
to be linked [to proficiency].
COMMISSIONER HANLEY established that the P20 data system is not
connected to the waiver. The college and career ready standards
were in place prior to, and helpful in, receiving waiver
approval. Criteria for the waiver requires that teacher
evaluations be connected to student learning. Department
regulations have eight standards for evaluating a teacher, and
one was replaced to include student learning as a component; an
area that was under revision prior to the waiver application.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reported having reviewed a forty page
document posted on-line by EDC [unidentified] and asked why the
AMO indicates different targets for students; Native American
and Asian for example.
DR. MCCAULEY responded that AMO targets vary for each school, as
well as targets within subgroups of students. The baseline data
for the targets are established independently for each school,
as well as for each subgroup.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY offered an example that if a particular
group of students were found to be 50 percent proficient, the
goal would be to reduce the number of non-proficient students by
one half. In the course of six years, 75 percent of the
students would need to be assessed as proficient. The goal is
to move all students towards proficiency by reducing the
baseline non-proficient percentage by 50 percent at a time.
8:55:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON queried whether the rewards schools
recognition program is based on two different systems measuring
growth and proficiency.
DR. MCCAULEY said the program is based on two systems and
explained that the reward categories are for the highest
performance and the highest progress and include the top ten
percent of schools in each category: overall student
proficiency and overall progress of students. Additionally, a
minimum graduation rate must be attained, irrespective of
progress or proficiency, along with other baseline achievements.
Remarkably, she said, a handful of schools are recognized, each
year, in both categories.
8:57:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for an opinion on the "top down
approach," and whether it is considered supportable.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that EDC is not a fan of the NCLB
approach, which is why the waiver contains an accountability
system created by the department.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked if the mandates for the waiver
requirements are fully funded.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY allowed that the department does not
consider the waiver system perfect, however it is an improvement
over NCLB. The AYP scores were difficult to address, and
schools were at a loss on how to approach improvement. Under
the waiver the schools remain engaged and understand the star
rating system. Reiterating that the waiver did not require
funding to implement, he said that to answer the full funding
question would require an audit of the various components; some
are certainly fully funded and some are not.
9:00:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding of the
improvement measurement system having seven levels within each
grade level, and asked if it is an accurate summation. He
further asked how attendance is considered and whether medical
situations are taken into account.
DR. MCCAULEY agreed with the member's comprehension of the
system. She discussed the seven levels, stressed the difference
between proficiency and progress, and added that, although it is
a complex system, the teachers are able to work within the
matrix to create a rigorous classroom dynamic. Regarding the
attendance percentage, she said there is an adjustment for
excused versus unexcused absences, and offered to provide
further information.
9:04:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD mentioned a number of programs that she
would like further information on, then described her
understanding of the costs involved for implementing the waiver,
which she maintained has been considered by school boards to be
an unfunded mandate. Kodiak [school district] has reported
costs for implementation to have reached $1.8 million, which has
included: alterations to the curriculum, assessments,
broadband, and teacher training. During these economic times,
she said it is important to understand the costs involved. A
ten year snap shot for the federal, state, and local costs would
be helpful, she opined.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested that the member clarify her
specific requests and submit them in writing to EDC to ensure a
clear and accurate response. He commented that in a business
situation, where results are lacking and new systems are
implemented, an automatic skepticism occurs regarding
effectiveness. He said this is not far from what is happening
with the change in the educational system. The pass fail system
of NCLB being reconfigured into a star rating system will take
some time to correlate and comprehend. However, he acknowledged
that the committee and EDC are certainly on the same page for
providing students the best education possible.
9:10:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER announced the next meeting.
9:11:17 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:12 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| House Education Committee ASPI ESEA v2.pdf |
HEDC 2/13/2015 8:00:00 AM |