Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/18/2013 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB120 | |
| HB151 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 151-SCHOOL GRADING SYSTEMS
9:21:54 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 151, "An Act establishing a public school and
school district grading system for purposes of improving
accountability and transparency; providing for Alaska strategic
educators in public schools; and providing for an effective
date." [Version 28-LS0496/O, Mischel, 3/14/13, was before the
committee.]
9:22:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD, speaking as sponsor of HB 151,
stated that the bill's short title is the parental education
information act.
9:23:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 151, [labeled 28-LS0496\O, Mischel,
3/14/13], as the working document. [Version O was previously
adopted on 3/15/13.]
9:24:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD paraphrased from the sponsor statement,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
"An Act establishing a public school and school
district grading system for purposes of improving
accountability and transparency; providing for Alaska
strategic educators in public schools; and providing
for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD restated the short title of HB 151 is
the parental education information act. She characterized this
bill as being a consumer report card for education. As
previously stated, the public has consumer reports on many
things, such as cars or refrigerators, but education is very
important so schools should also be subject to a grade.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD continued with her sponsor statement,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Alaskans currently have no unified, consistent and
easily understandable method of measuring the
performance of our K-12 schools and monitoring their
progress. [HB 151], the Parental Education Information
Act, will establish grades for our schools and school
districts in a format that is familiar and understand:
"A through F" grades like our students receive.
This bill sets up a clear and specific grading system
for schools and school districts, with grades based on
both overall student achievement on statewide,
standards-based tests, and individual learning gains,
including a significant 25 percent of the grade being
based on the gains of those students who scored in the
lowest quarter of the tests for reading and math.
Parents, teachers and administrators will know where
their students stand and know what is needed to
improve their school districts and their district
grades. School districts who raise their performance
two grade levels will receive an "A" and they will be
rewarded with incentives, including increased autonomy
and local control. In other words, we don't want to
get in the way of success.
The State of Florida implemented the "A through F"
grading in 1999. Since then, Florida has made
significant gains in [its] test scores, and the gains
have been especially notable among students who come
from lower-income households or face significant
challenges. I strongly believe that HB 151 will do the
same for our state, and I request your support for
[HB] 151.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD continued with her presentation. She
explained that a grading of "A-F" will bring clarity and
understanding to the process. She suggested the grading will
encourage school excellence, reinforce the current goals, and
motivate school improvement. She said the grading system will
also direct media and attention to schools, initiate positive
statewide competition, and spark widespread support. She
further said the grading system will increase parental
involvement and create school pride. She offered her belief
that all schools can be "A" schools. Finally, the data is
already being collected [so it will be easy to implement.]
9:28:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to a letter [of support] in
members' packets from Natasha Von Imhof, Anchorage School
District dated March 14, 2013.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD then referred to a two-column chart,
with headings entitled, "K-12 Education Spending Per Capita" and
"4th Grade Reading Scores."
9:29:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reported that according to the NEA the
state and local spending [for education] in Alaska is the
highest in the nation. However, according to the U.S.
Department of Education, Alaska ranks last for the 4th grade
reading scores, which is depicted on the far right column.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that Florida is sixth
lowest in terms of education funding but its scores are the
sixth highest in the nation.
9:30:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to a chart entitled, "Proven
Results of the A-F Grading System." She said this depicts the
education reform as charted for Florida since 1999. In 2012,
over three-fourth of Florida's schools are rated "A and B
schools" so the grading system demonstrates positive results in
Florida. In 1995, Florida began grading schools as high
performing, performing, low performing, and critically low
performing.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated that according to the chart the
number of "D and F schools" hasn't changed significantly. She
asked for further clarification on schools with a "C" rating and
where they are depicted on the chart since it seems some data is
missing.
ROBERT PEARSON, Staff, Representative Lora Reinbold, Alaska
State Legislature, responded that the number of "D and F
schools" dropped precipitously from 1999 [to 2012], numbering
approximately 400. He stated that the number of "A and B
schools" is almost seven times more productive. He pointed out
this chart doesn't show "C" schools since the chart was designed
for comparison purposes for the two groups. He pointed out more
schools currently exist in Florida than in 1999; however, in the
first year about 1,200 schools fell into either "A and B
schools" or "D and F schools."
9:32:38 AM
MR. PEARSON stated that based on the chart a larger number of
schools received a "C" in 1999, but the number decreases in
later years.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND directed attention to the dotted lines
on the chart and pointed out the "D and F schools" line is
relatively flat, particularly from 2003 to 2011.
MR. PEARSON directed attention to the vertical dotted lines on
the chart with arrows. He said this demonstrates the five times
when Florida raised its standards for "A and B schools." He
explained that Florida raised its standards when a certain
percentage of schools reached the "A and B" status, which meant
the schools must perform better to continue to maintain its
status.
9:33:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what happened to the "D and F
schools" standards when the "A and B schools" standards were
raised. She further asked whether the "D and F schools"
standards were also changed.
MR. PEARSON answered that the standards were raised for all
schools "A" through "D" standard. He explained if the schools
could not meet the "D" standard, the schools received an "F."
CHAIR GATTIS understood the bar was raised for everyone.
MR. PEARSON answered that is correct.
9:34:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the aforementioned graph. She
pointed out a lack of consistent movement; instead there seems
to be a series of ups and downs. She said she had a hard time
understanding the reason for these fluctuations.
CHAIR GATTIS asked for further clarification.
9:36:32 AM
CHRISTY HOVANETZ, Senior Policy Fellow, Foundation for
Excellence in Education (FEE), offered to provide an explanation
of the previously mentioned chart. She explained that during
2003-2004 there were considerably more "D and F schools". This
graph shows improvements even though the vertical line is
absent. Schools performing at a "C" level are not depicted on
the graph since some schools dropped in ranking while others
increased in ranking. The primary purpose of this graph is to
track the excellent performers ["A and B schools"] and the "D
and F schools", which are depicted on the top and bottom lines,
respectively. She confirmed that the standards have increased
over time and the bar was raised across the board for each
grade. Additionally, the number of schools has increased in
Florida. More importantly, she pointed out that the "D and F
schools" depicted are not the same schools [since some of the
failing schools improved]. Further, personnel from successful
schools frequently are recruited to assist the failing schools,
which may adversely affect the schools they left. This explains
the consistency in the numbers of low-performing schools since
some schools will fluctuate between levels of performance. She
drew attention to slide 3, [not in members' packets] which shows
the national assessment progress scores. She stated this slide
compares Florida student achievement on the 4th Grade reading
test beginning in 1992, noting the green line indicates
Florida's performance. She directed attention to 1998 and 2002,
which showed an increase of eight points on the national
assessment for educational progress.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON remarked that the referenced charts are
not in members' packets.
MR. PEARSON confirmed that Ms. Hovanetz is referring to a slide
that is not included in member's packets.
9:40:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the chart entitled, "Proven
Results of the A-F Grading System" and pointed out an increase
from 2011 and 2012 the "D and F schools", which seems somewhat
significant. She asked for further clarification on the
increase in failing schools in those years.
MS. HOVANETZ answered that during 2011-12, Florida changed its
proficiency standards for the Florida Comprehensive Assessment
tests, or the statewide standardized assessment testing for
reading and math. She pointed out the vertical line between
2010 and 2011 shows the timing; however, higher proficiency
standards went into effect during 2011-12, which raised the bar
on proficiency. For example, prior to 2012, Florida had
approximately 75 to 80 percent of its 4th grade class reading at
a proficient level. Once the standard changed, only 55 to 60
percent of the 4th grade classes were considered proficient.
While the points weren't altered in terms of the "A-F" schools,
Florida changed it statewide standards for student proficiency.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recalled the "C" level schools were not
included on the chart since it wasn't possible to identify
whether a school increased or decreased. She asked for further
clarification why it isn't possible to track these changes since
it seems important to know the outcome.
MS. HOVANETZ confirmed the line chart indicates the net effect.
She assured members that the progress for each school is tracked
year to year, including "C" school progress.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further information.
MS. HOVANETZ offered to provide the detailed tracking
information to the committee.
9:44:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON observed that the bar was gradually
raised for requirements. She asked for feedback on the process.
MS. HOVANETZ answered that one thing the Foundation for
Excellence in Education (FEE) firmly believes is that any
educational goals need to be aspirational but achievable and
goals should not be unrealistic goals. She suggested that in
1999 their standards were tougher, but she still thought the
goals were aspirational ones. She again referred to the chart
entitled, "Proven Results of the A-F Grading System" and noted
the 515 "A and B schools" were listed with 677 "D and F
schools". She emphasized from 1999 to 2001 the standards,
statewide tests, the number of points between grade categories,
and proficiency standards were not changed. During those three
years nearly twice as many "A and B schools" and half as many "D
and F schools" are listed. She offered her belief that this is
due to the way the material was presented, engaging more people
in the educational conversation.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether teacher training changed.
MS. HOVANETZ responded since Florida was a local control state,
that initially the target and aspirational goals, or standards,
were provided and allowed school districts the flexibility to
implement them. She acknowledged that students don't all learn
in the same way or need the same things so the school districts
had flexibility to make the determinations. As the school
grading system progressed, the FEE provided more direction to
the chronically low-performing schools. Additionally, the
highest performing schools, the "A and B schools" earned more
flexibility in terms of the accountability system in place.
9:48:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD provided some background for Florida,
relating the models the state used for grading prior to the
successful A-F grade standard it adopted in 1999. In fact, what
education reformists have discovered across the nation is that
"what gets measured, gets done." She cautioned against pouring
money into an educational system without measurable assessments.
Since the data is already being collected in Alaska, additional
testing is not required to implement HB 151. She suggested all
that is necessary is to synthesize the data and put it into an
easily readable and measurable format. Again, she reiterated
that all schools have the potential to become "A" performing
schools. In short, Alaska's schools need a "jump start" and HB
151 would provide that stimulus. The grading system of A-F
would bring a catalyst for change.
9:50:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the Florida approach is
being considered beginning with the first year achievable goals.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD anticipated his question would be
answered in the remaining presentation.
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the Florida schools knew in advance
that the standards would be raised or did the schools learn this
during the process.
MS. HOVANETZ acknowledged the initial changes to standards in
2001 were included in the enabling legislation in 1999. The
changes in 2004-2005 occurred with rulemaking, in part, to
comply with NCLB. In 2007, another planned assessment and
enhancement occurred. In 2010, the changes were made to include
high school accountability, such as college and career
readiness, to incorporate the ACT/SAT scores and graduation
rates into the calculated. In summary, significant planned
enhancements happened and school districts were provided at
least a one year notice of any enhancements.
9:53:46 AM
MR. PEARSON offered to review the section-by-section analysis of
the bill. He stated that Section 1 provides a short title:
"Parental Education Information Act." [HB] 151 will give
members of the public and parents of students in Alaska's
schools comprehensible information on school and school district
performance. He characterized this as a consumer report for
education.
MR. PEARSON related that Section 2, AS 14.03.123 (a), would add
charter and boarding schools to the school and district
accountability statue and place all qualifying schools under the
grading system specified in Section 5 of this bill. He noted
that approximately 78 schools will not be qualified to
participate since they have 20 or fewer students.
MR. PEARSON said that Section 3, AS 14.03.123 (c), specifies the
performance designation regulations shall include the grading
system specified in Section 5 of this bill. Section 4, AS
14.03.123 (f), specifies that student performance measures are
to be based on statewide standards-based assessments. It would
also add the science assessment and specifies that the
accountability system include indicators of school progress. It
would remove unspecified "other measures" currently in statute.
MR. PEARSON said Section 5, AS 14.03.124, would add a new
provision that identifies the school and school district
performance designations as "A," "B," "C," "D," and "F." It
would also specify the formula for assigning school designations
and exemptions from the designation. It would also provide
incentives based on performance as well as identifying criteria
for school district performance designations. It would also
identify "Alaska Strategic Educators" who are classroom teachers
who volunteer and are assigned to teach in schools that earned a
"D" or "F" designation the previous year. Finally, Section 6
provides an effective date of July 1, 2014. He concluded that
the EED would implement the program.
9:56:26 AM
DAVID BOYLE, Executive Director, Alaska Policy Forum, stated
support for HB 151, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read [original punctuation provided with formatting
changes]:
Chairwoman Gattis and committee members, I am David
Boyle and I am speaking for the Alaska Policy Forum.
The Alaska Policy Forum strongly supports HB 151.
To illustrate and shine the light on the issue of
transparency and the definite lack of information
provided to parents by school districts, I would like
to share some personal stories that I experienced last
year. These stories occurred during the last day of
formal registration in the Anchorage school district.
I wanted to inform parents of their rights according
to both federal and state law, that they could get
their kids out of failing public schools and get them
into successful public schools. In addition, the
school district is required to transport these
children free to the successful public school.
What I discovered was eye opening. I stood out front
of three failing schools in the poorer side of town,
Mountain View to be exact. I handed out information
which included a list of those schools that had failed
NCLB for three years or more. This list included 16
schools in the district. I also included an ASD
application form to transfer a student to a successful
public school. Finally, I had a flyer which
described, in easily understood language, the parents'
rights under the law.
I talked to 21 parents and informed them that the
school they were about to enroll their children in had
failed NCLB. Of those 21, none, repeat none of them
knew the status of the school. Of those 21, 17 were
going to opt out of the failing school and get their
kids into a successful public school.
One African American father had just enrolled his son
in a failing school, Clark Middle School, which has
failed NCLB for 9 years with no changes as required
under the law. The father told me it was a terrible
school. He said all they did was to give the kids
free stuff. He was enthused when I told him about his
rights to get his son to a successful public school.
The next day I received a call from an Alaska Native
grandmother who scolded me several times because I was
not outside the elementary school on the first day of
registration-that was the day she had enrolled her two
granddaughters in a failing public school. She
thought I was a school district employee providing
information. I told her I was not a district employee,
just a volunteer trying to get the best education for
the kids. I then took a package of information to her
apartment and she thanked me profusely. You see, she
had already lost a granddaughter to drugs at East High
and was determined to get the best for her two other
granddaughters. I thanked her for being involved in
her grandkids' education.
Later next week, I received a call late at night from
a father who spoke in broken English. He had taken
off work to get his two children out of a failing
school in Mountain View. Unfortunately, the district
had lost his paper work and his kids would have to
remain in the failing school for a few more days. The
principal had even tried to persuade the father to
keep his children in the failing school. I contacted
a school board member and before the next school day
began, that father's two kids were in a successful
school.
I could tell you more personal stories but time limits
me.
The ASD mailed out more than 8,600 letters to
households informing parents of their rights under law
to get their children out of the failing schools and
enroll them in a successful public school.
Unfortunately, most of these letters were received the
day after the formal registration window closed. If
one assumes about 1.5 students per household, this
would mean that about 12,000 students were in failing
ASD public schools - about 25 percent of the total
student enrollment. I have to add that if the
Department of Education and Early Development gets a
waiver to NCLB, which they requested, none of the
districts will be required to offer public school
choice and free transportation. These kids will be
trapped in failing schools. To me, I find that
disgusting.
I also have a physician friend who had a kid in a
failing school in the district. She received a letter
from the school district and was unable to understand
what it said.
We believe this is about power and transparency.
Information is power and bureaucracies know this best.
Parents are the consumers of public education and they
should be told how well or how poorly their schools
are doing.
Would you eat at a restaurant if you knew it had
failed its health inspection? Would you go to a
restaurant that had a good health inspection rating?
Well, let me tell you: education is much more
important than restaurants.
When you travel, you look for lodging. Would you stay
at a one star hotel at $100 a night or would you stay
at a five star hotel at the same price? This is
exactly the way it is in Alaska's education system.
We have great public schools in Alaska. School
districts should be proud and tell parents how well
their schools are doing.
By the way, the Alaska Policy Forum has report cards
on the ASD and the Mat-Su School Districts. We used a
simple metric: we averaged together each school's SBA
math and reading scores and assigned a letter grade
based on these scores. The Matsu only has two D and F
schools. The ASD, on the other hand, had 21 schools
that received a D or an F. You can go to our website
and see for yourself.
Some of you listened to Mr. Kevin Chavous testify at
the joint House and Senate Education and Judiciary
meeting last month. Remember one of his truisms: you
don't know what you don't know. This is true,
especially for parents.
The bottom line: if we are going to grade students,
we should grade ourselves and our schools. I might
add rather than put the grade for the specific school
on the school's website, I would strongly recommend
you put it on the home page of the website because in
my experience it's very difficult to find information
on some school district's websites. I want to thank
you for the opportunity to speak on this very
important matter to all parents and Alaska's children
and please pass out HB 151.
10:02:58 AM
[HB 151 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 12 HB 120 Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 13 HB 120 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 14 HB 120 Fiscal Note - EED-K12.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 15 HB 120 Fiscal Note - EED-PEF.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 16 HB 120 Backup - Leg Research History of Transportation of Pupils 2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 17 HB 120 Letter Support - Anchorage School District 2-28-2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 18 HB 120 Letter Support - Saddler 2-27-2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 19 HB 120 Letter Support - Kenai Peninsula Borough School Dist.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 20 HB 120 Letter Support - North Slope Borough 2-18-2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 21 HB 120 Letter support - Fairbanks 2-22-2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 22 HB 120 Letter Support - MatSu 2-19-2013.PDF |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 01 HB 133 Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 02 HB 133 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 03 HB 133 Sectional Summary.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 04 HB 133 ADMs and Full Values.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 05 HB 133 Kasayulie v. Alaska Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 06 HB 133 DEED FY14 School Construction Grant Fund List.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 07 HB 133 PowerPoint.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 08 HB 133 Fiscal Note - EED-FundTransfer-3-13-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 01 HB 151 Sponsor Statement v. A.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 02 HB 151 v. A Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 03 HB 151 Sectional v. A.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 04 HB 151 Fiscal Note v. A - EED-TLS-3-8-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 05 CS HB 151 ver. O.PDF |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 06 HB 151 Information Packet.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 07 CSHB 151 Fiscal Note - EED-TLS-3-14-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |