Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/14/2015 08:30 AM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB80 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 80
"An Act repealing the requirement for secondary
students to take college and career readiness
assessments."
10:01:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS, SPONSOR, explained that HB 80
was a repeal of the mandate from the previous year's
omnibus education bill, HB 278. School districts were
required to facilitate the mandate for all secondary
students to take the American College Testing (ACT),
Scholarship Aptitude Test (SAT), or WorkKeys exam. Last
session HB 278 had provisions for funding for the purchase
of the exam within the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED). However, school districts were left
with an unfunded mandate. She pointed out that testing took
instruction time away between teachers and students and
created an administrative burden for school districts to
coordinate and provide testing. She argued that HB 80 would
relieve school districts from an administrative obligation
and would save DEED $525 thousand per year. School
districts supported the elimination of all unfunded
mandates due to the current budget crunch. The testing was
an additional hurdle for students that had fulfilled all of
the other criteria necessary to graduate. She pointed out
that the packet she had distributed to members included
several letters from school districts detailing the burden
of providing the testing to students. She concluded that HB
80 would remove the new testing mandate before it became an
expected tradition.
10:04:27 AM
Representative Gara reported that he had been contacted by
a number of school officials about the possibility of
administering an annual exam once every four years. He
could not recollect the name of the test. In changing the
time between testing the state would save a significant
amount of money. He wondered if Representative Gattis knew
the name of the test.
Representative Gattis believed he was speaking of the
Alaska Measures of Progress (AMP) test which was not part
of the current legislation. She had thought of including
the AMP test in the bill and went so far as having a
committee substitute drafted, but felt limited on time.
There were other issues having to do with the AMP test
including federal funding that needed to be thoroughly
investigated which would take time. Therefore, she left it
out of the bill. She added that the Senate had a bill
currently being vetted regarding the AMP test. She
summarized that HB 80 was limited to the ACT, the SAT, and
the WorkKeys exam.
10:05:45 AM
Representative Gara wanted to hear from DEED about the AMP
test because of the potential cost savings.
10:06:12 AM
Representative Wilson clarified the version of the bill for
consideration. She asked about what happened to the test
information once a student completed one of the three
exams.
Representative Gattis did not know but the department would
be able to answer the question.
Representative Wilson wanted to know the answer. She also
wanted to know about any requirements in terms of providing
exam locations. She wanted to know how the state benefited.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that Deena Paramo from the
Matanuska Borough School District was available for
questions as well as Les Morse with DEED available.
10:07:40 AM
LES MORSE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, reiterated that the question was how the
data was used. He stated that for the particular assessment
the department received the data for the purpose of
verifying student participation. The state also took the
number of participating students and calculated the
percentage of students participating within the state's
school rating system to determine whether students were
taking the assessment. The exam was the means of
determining college career readiness and the state's school
accountability system.
10:08:57 AM
Representative Wilson asked if the state was grading its
schools based on whether students participated in the
assessment test rather than student performance.
Mr. Morse responded that the exam was a participation
requirement. He added that the state used other assessments
for achievement and performance. The test was used to
determine performance for the Alaska Performance
Scholarship but not for state purposes of accountability.
Representative Wilson wanted to hear from the Matsu
superintendent. She relayed her personal experience taking
the ACT. She wondered if the school districts were required
to administer the test during the school day.
DEENA PARAMO, SUPERINTENDENT, MATSU BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
(via teleconference), indicated that the current discussion
was what the district had evidenced in the current year.
She pointed out some of the unintended consequences;
additional work for counselors, lost instruction time in
the classroom because of assessments being administered
during school hours, and a significant amount of paperwork.
The fact that students could choose one of three different
tests also complicated the process. Another downside was
that students were given one attempt. If, for example, a
student was ill on the day of the exam, changing the date
required completing a hurdle of paperwork. It also meant
that a student would have to register on a weekend day on
their own time. She added that ACT, SAT, and WorkKeys
scores remained with a child's transcript.
10:11:15 AM
Representative Wilson understood that the primary reason
for the test was to satisfy a requirement for the Alaska
Performance Scholarship. She thought the fee to take the
test was minimal. She was concerned with the costs and the
classroom time lost because of the test requirement.
10:11:50 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the second repealer that
repealed AS 14.03.75(b) regarding students that did not
qualify for a diploma because of failing to take a college
and career assessment. He wanted to know the practical
result if the bill was amended and the statute repealed. He
wanted to clarify that if a student did not take the test
they could still receive a diploma.
Representative Gattis stated that essentially the state
mandated each student to take one of three tests, whether
or not they passed it, in order to get a diploma. She
emphasized that even if a student did all the required
course work and passed all of the associated assessment
measures, they could not receive a diploma unless they took
the ACT, SAT, or WorkKeys exam. Simply stated, HB 80
allowed students who had completed their course work and
received all of their credits to receive their diploma.
10:12:55 AM
Representative Gara understood that the tests would become
voluntary. He wanted to know why Representative Gattis
removed the provision that the state or the school district
could pay for the testing.
Representative Gattis responded, "That is an interesting
word, whether they can or they shall."
Representative Gara clarified that currently it was
"shall."
Representative Gattis stated he was correct. She added, "It
must. The state must pay for it. This is mandated."
10:13:48 AM
Representative Gara asked Representative Gattis why she was
deleting the provision for the state to pay for testing for
students that wanted to go to college or to pursue higher
education through vocational training.
Representative Gattis responded that she deleted it so the
state would not have to bear the cost of the testing. The
student would pay to take one of the three exams rather
than the state having to pay for it. She pointed out that
there was a provision for students who could not afford to
pay for the testing. Her staff would explain.
10:14:28 AM
STEVE RICCI, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS, indicated
that there was a provision for a waiver for low-income
students. The College Board, the company that sells and
distributes the ACT and SAT, reported that for students who
received a waiver they would also receive additional
benefits that were not available through the state. He
suggested that, for instance, low-income students would
receive four free college application waivers. He
highlighted that low-income students benefited more by
attaining the waiver from the College Board than receiving
the testing from the state.
10:15:31 AM
Representative Gara understood that free college
application waivers were available. However, he wondered if
a student could get a waiver for the fees associated with
taking the ACT, SAT, or WorkKeys exam. He asked if there
was a WorkKeys waiver. He also asked if there was an ACT
and SAT waiver based on income.
Representative Gattis stated there was a waiver for the ACT
and SAT exams through the College Board. The WorkKeys test
was available through the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development (DOLWD).
Representative Gara wondered why Representative Gattis
removed the regulations for people with disabilities and
referred to AS 14.07.165.
Mr. Ricci asked Representative Gara to repeat his question.
Representative Gara indicated that the statutes addressed
regulations the department was allowed to adopt to assist
students with disabilities. He wondered why the legislature
would take away the power to grant assistance to students
with disabilities.
Mr. Ricci offered to do additional research. His
interpretation was that people with disabilities would
still have the ability to test, but it was not explicit
that it was mandatory that the state provide the testing.
10:17:04 AM
Representative Gara commented that it was not the way he
read it but thought more information was necessary. He had
one question for Ms. Paramo regarding the AMP test. He
purported that it costed school districts a significant
amount to provide the test on an annual basis. He asked for
her thoughts on alternatively providing the test once every
four years. He wondered if it would save her school
district money.
Ms. Paramo emphatically supported a four-year rotation for
the AMP test. Additionally, the test provided similar
information about schools rather than about individual
children's learning. There were other assessments that were
more informative that parents and teachers relied on as
well as school districts in making daily decisions. She
would also support eliminating the AMP test completely.
Representative Gara asked about the potential savings from
moving the test from an annual exam to a test administered
once every four years.
Ms. Paramo relayed that the state paid for the cost of
testing materials. The school district spent approximately
$15 Thousand per testing session for additional staffing to
accommodate and process the assessment.
10:19:10 AM
Representative Guttenberg wondered what the state would
lose in terms of test scores. He suggested that the bill
would change the demographics of students taking the test
regardless of the availability to students who could not
afford it. He wanted to know if there was something the
state needed or required to determine a student's grade
which the state would no longer have access to with the
passing of HB 80.
Representative Gattis verified that he was talking about
the ACT and SAT exams versus the AMP test.
Representative Guttenberg confirmed he was talking about
the ACT and the SAT.
Representative Gattis tried to paraphrase Representative
Guttenberg's question about those students that did not
take any of the tests. She clarified that in the current
statute if a student did not take one of the three tests,
they would not graduate. She wondered if Representative
Guttenberg's question had to do with determining the
purpose of the testing mandate.
Representative Guttenberg responded in the negative. He
discussed the ranking of states in terms of how they are
doing in educating students. He suggested that by changing
the way Alaska was doing its testing the numbers would be
skewed one way or another. He wondered if Alaska would lose
credibility with a scoring system.
Representative Gattis remarked that because it was the
first year there were no numbers to lose or gain. She was
looking to eliminate the test before the state utilized the
initial data. She was unaware of what the state would do
with the testing numbers being a new mandate.
Mr. Morse indicated that currently the state used the
information to verify participation. He did not anticipate
any loss of credibility with any ranking organization. All
students chose to take one of three assessments. The
legislation was brought forward to create a college or
career readiness environment within schools. With the state
covering the costs associated with the testing it broadened
student access and helped students to meet requirements
associated with the Alaska Performance Scholarship. He
reiterated that waivers for the ACT and SAT exams were
available to low-income students and helped to preserve
student access to testing.
Mr. Morse anticipated a loss in the number of testing
sites. He relayed that without a state contract testing
could not be conducted during school hours, thus, reducing
the number of testing sites. He stressed that the main
question was whether the test should be required to receive
a diploma. He conveyed that DEED did not have a strong
feeling about the issue one way or another. He confirmed
that the department thought it was good to take the test.
However, it also understood the current financial climate.
Returning to Representative Guttenberg's question, he did
not believe there would be a loss of credibility.
10:24:20 AM
Representative Guttenberg asked if the waiver applied to
the fee or having to take the test.
Mr. Morse clarified that if students met a low-income
requirement, the non-profit companies, ACT and the College
Board, would give those students a fee waiver to allow them
to take the test without cost.
10:24:54 AM
Representative Munoz mentioned getting rid of the high
stakes exam, the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam
(HSGQE) in the previous year and replacing it with the
three choices of exams. She wanted to make sure that
students did not have to pass the exam to get a diploma,
they simply had to take it. She asked if she was correct.
Mr. Morse responded in the affirmative. He added that
taking any of the three tests (ACT, SAT, or WorkKeys) would
satisfy a student's participation requirement.
Representative Munoz asked the sponsor about whether she
had considered also removing the testing requirement for
the Alaska Performance Scholarship (APS) and rather relying
on a student's grade point average for qualification of the
APS.
Representative Gattis responded that she had not thought of
Representative Munoz's idea. She reported that the feedback
she received from different people was that they would find
the funding for their children to take the exam. She spoke
of her first two years as the Education Committee Chair.
She had asked school districts to provide her with unfunded
mandates so she could address them. In the current year
schools were focused on eliminating unfunded mandates. She
opined that the testing detracted from the state's main
mission. She also offered that the testing results did not
help the school districts teach kids adding that many kids
were moving to different areas. She believed she had
addressed and discussed the issue of folks not being able
to afford an exam. She conveyed that if school districts
had kids that could not afford the test but wanted to take
one they would find a way to fund the testing.
10:27:06 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the way in which students
with disabilities were treated. He wanted to know whether
students with disabilities who wanted to take career
assessment tests, even in the absence of a mandate, would
be able to do so. If so, he wondered if the schools would
be required to accommodate disabled students with special
needs by state policy.
Representative Gattis relayed that schools already made
accommodations for students on a daily basis as part of
their Individualized Education Program (IEP). In terms of
testing, schools would continue to make necessary
accommodations. She stipulated that she was basing her
answer on her own life experience.
Vice-Chair Saddler specifically asked if schools would be
mandated to accommodate disabled students. He restated his
first question which was whether disabled students who
wanted to take the assessments in the absence of the state
mandate be allowed to do so.
Mr. Morse responded in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if schools, by policy, would be
obligated to accommodate the special needs of students with
disabilities.
Mr. Morse specified that if the testing was not state
mandated the testing would not be administered during
school hours. The testing would not be run by the schools
but by either the non-profit for SAT [ACT] or College Board
for SAT. Both assessments allowed for accommodations and
were made available to students that needed them.
10:29:14 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler clarified that schools would not have to
make accommodations but the College Board or the ACT
authority would make accommodations.
Mr. Morse responded affirmatively.
10:29:26 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler wanted to clarify a question asked by
Representative Munoz. He wondered if it was correct that in
order to qualify for the APS a student had to take one of
the assessments.
Mr. Morse responded positively.
10:29:42 AM
Representative Gara referred to the disability provision in
AS 14.07.165 (a)(5) and (b). Currently, for a student with
a disability the department was required to adopt
regulations that might address the conditions, criteria,
procedure and scheduling of the assessment, things needed
to accommodate someone with a disability and required to
adopt regulation. He asked why it was no longer needed.
Mr. Morse stated that the reason it would no longer be
needed was that the schools would not be doing the
assessment. The College Board and ACT would be responsible
for conducting assessments and providing necessary
accommodations provisions. He elaborated that the current
statute was mandating schools to follow the same provisions
laid out by ACT and SAT. He concluded that the world would
not change for students with disabilities.
10:30:59 AM
Representative Gara asked about WorkKeys.
Mr. Morse's understanding was that WorkKeys was part of ACT
and the same accommodations would be provided. However,
WorkKeys was not conducted in the same type of setting
where there were certain test days.
Representative Gara asked what AMP stood for and where he
would find it in the statutes.
Mr. Morse answered that AMP stood for Assessment Measures
of Progress. It was the standards-based assessment required
in statute, also required under federal law, and was the
assessment used for state accountability given in grades 3
through 10.
10:32:42 AM
Representative Gara asked if the state would incur a
federal penalty if the legislature decided to move the AMP
to being administered every four years.
Mr. Morse confirmed that there would be a federal penalty.
He elaborated that the $97.5 million the state received for
the elementary and secondary education act would be at
risk.
Co-Chair Thompson stated that HB 80 would be brought up
again at 1:30 pm at which time public testimony would be
heard.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB80 Supporting Documents - Becoming an SAT test center is easy.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB80_SupportDocuments_Matsu.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB80_SupportDocuments_Dr. Paramo.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Supporting Documents - Letter Sara Moore.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Supporting Documents - Letter Griffin.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 105 PP slides.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Amendment N 4.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Amendment N 3.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB80 Supporting Documents -ASA Resolution Opposing Unfunded Mandates 3-8-2015.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 105 Amendment N 5.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Hb 105 Amendment N 10.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 AMENDMENT N.9.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Amendment N 8.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Amendment N 7.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Amendment N 6.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Amendment N 4.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2015 8:30:00 AM |
HB 105 |