Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/25/2013 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB151 | |
| SB41 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 151-SCHOOL GRADING SYSTEMS
8:05:47 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first 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."
8:06:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD, prime sponsor of HB 151, observed that
the education committee is tasked with an important mission: to
oversee the laws of education in Alaska. As a whole, Alaska can
improve its system of education by instituting a grading system
to help schools become aware of their effectiveness and to be a
catalyst for change. She said HB 151 - the Parental Education
Information Act - is a consumer report for education that
creates school accountability through transparency by providing
a simple and comprehensive grading system. The bill directs the
Department of Education and Early Development (EED) to establish
by regulation the criteria that accounts for improvement in
student achievement by assigning annual performance designations
on an A-F scale. She clarified that criteria for the
performance designation, based on two years of data, would be as
follows:
(1) 50 percent combined student achievement data in
reading, writing, math, and science
(2) 25 percent individual learning gains of all
students in reading, writing, and math
(3) 25 percent individual learning gains in reading
and math achieved by students who scored at or below
the 25th percentile on the statewide standards-based
assessment in reading or math
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD pointed out the bill exempts schools
with less than 20 full-time students from this section. The
impacts of the grading system are as follows:
· bring clarity and understanding
· provide a consumer report card to communities
· motivate improvement
· spark community-wide support
· increase parental involvement
· be a catalyst for change
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD provided background information on the
next speaker.
8:11:41 AM
CHRISTY HOVANETZ, PhD, Senior Policy Fellow, Foundation for
Excellence in Education, directed attention to the graph found
in the committee packet entitled, "School Grades by School Type
in 2012." She explained the graph is a complete representation
of all of the schools in Florida receiving grades A-F in 2012.
Also in the committee packet was a graph entitled, "School
Grades for 2012 Compared to 2011: Elementary Schools," and she
noted that Florida substantially raised its proficiency
standards between the 2011 and 2012 school years thereby
affecting one-half of each school's grade. The graph depicts
the number of schools improved to a higher grade even though the
"bar of proficiency went up" in 2012. Dr. Hovanetz said, "...
specifically for F schools and D schools as had been highlighted
in our previous conversation, that not many schools that earned
a D or an F remained a D or an F the following year. There is a
lot of movement of those schools up and down based on the
instructional practices and the instructional leadership of that
school from year to year."
8:14:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON requested clarity on the second graph.
DR. HOVANETZ restated the purpose of the graph. In further
response to Representative P. Wilson, she said the numbers in
yellow are the number of schools that maintained their grade
from the previous year, the numbers in green are the number of
schools that increased a letter grade, and the numbers in pink
are the numbers of schools that declined a letter grade. She
offered that the graph portrays a comparison of schools' letter
grades from 2011 to 2012.
Discussion on the graph followed.
8:20:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the same graph for middle
schools, and pointed out that in B, C, and D categories there
were more schools that declined than increased a letter grade.
He asked whether data from 2010 to 2011 was available, as that
data would not be affected by changes in assessment criteria.
DR. HOVANETZ said the data exists for each year, although the
standards are raised every "couple years." She reminded the
committee that Alaska will be writing its own proficiency
standards and its own grading criteria.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested comparative information for
2010. He acknowledged that Alaska proficiency standards also
change each year.
[The middle school graph Representative Seaton referred to was
not included in the committee packet.]
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, again taking information from the middle
school graph, advised that for middle schools, in the B
category, eight times as many schools decreased a letter grade
than improved. In the C category, seven times as many schools
decreased a letter grade than improved, and in the D category,
twice as many schools decreased a letter grade than improved.
8:24:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated her general support for the idea of
grading schools; however, she suggested that the data could be
used in a different context to attribute improvements in grades
to school choice, or to other factors in the Florida schools.
She asked how the data proves that these improvements are due to
the school grading system.
DR. HOVANETZ stated that data, prior and post to the
implementation of the grading system, indicates that the
percentage of students improving on national assessments for
fourth grade reading and math has increased substantially, even
though there were not many other reforms taking place in
Florida.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for the effective dates of the
following programs in Florida: the school grading system, the
third grade reading and retention program, and the school choice
program.
DR. HOVANETZ responded the school grading program became
effective in 1999. At the same time, there were multiple school
choice programs available, including opportunity scholarships
for students in failing schools who wanted to move to better-
performing schools. The third grade retention policy did not
come into effect for another five years, thus that program did
not play a part in the initial improvements in school
performance.
8:28:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND reported from a newspaper article that
the Florida school system has slipped out of the "top ten" due
to budget cuts and stalled national test scores. She asked to
see the accountability program data aligned with Florida's
budget, noting that the governor is seeking to restore education
funding, and Florida is falling in all 14 National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) categories.
DR. HOVANETZ agreed that Florida's scores declined slightly in
2011, and observed that a change of governor has led to a
weakening in the leadership advocating for educational reform.
However, there is a strong effort to maintain the rigor of the
accountability system and to increase proficiency requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated her support for the grading
system, but agreed with the need for details on all of Florida's
reform efforts, beginning with the starting point at which
Florida was compared to other states. Information on the
grading system could then be looked at relative to all of the
other reform efforts and student funding.
DR. HOVANETZ reported that in the 1990s Florida was in the
bottom ten ranking for fourth and eighth grade reading and math,
nationwide. The most recent rankings put Florida into the top
ten after the implementation of school grading. She offered to
provide the state ranking data for those years, and pointed out
that Florida has not mandated any type of statewide professional
development instruction or curriculum. Statewide policies such
as expectations for reading levels are without specific
classroom direction as to how the expectations are to be met,
although districts were offered professional development,
curriculum and materials, and diagnostic training assessments.
For the grading system, the state holds schools accountable for
ensuring that students are proficient and make at least one
year's progress in one year's time, but did not direct the local
districts on how to do so.
8:35:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether students in the Anchorage
School District receive A-F report card grades.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD understood through third grade students
receive N, S, or O. Students in higher grades receive A-F.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER observed there are other assessments of
school performance at the state and federal levels, and asked
the sponsor for information on those assessments.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated the annual yearly progress (AYP)
report - related to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) - is
available, but is complicated and includes information on the
district as a whole. Each school receives an individual report
card on topics such as race, participation, attendance,
retention, transience, economics, volunteers, drop-outs, and
reading scores. She opined that HB 151 adds one more layer to
data that is already being collected in order to create a simple
report card similar to the sample found in the committee packet.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the NCLB AYP report
concludes with an overall rating.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said no.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER then asked whether there is a state
assessment.
8:39:40 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), informed the committee EED's standards based
assessment (SBA) is given annually in grades three through ten
as a function of complying with federal accountability measures.
Although the data can be broken down by subgroups, the main
score reflects whether a school meets AYP or not. The bill adds
a separate system in addition to the one already in place.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the system added by HB 151
is duplicative or complementary.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the systems would measure slightly
different aspects. At this time, EED has submitted a waiver to
change the AYP model and instead rate schools on a five-star
system; the proposed bill "could be considered complementary."
In further response to Representative Saddler, he said a parent
would go to the state web site to see the status of federal
compliance and the report card created by the proposed bill.
8:42:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested a simpler chart could be
developed on how many schools met or did not meet AYP rather
than bringing in a new system to report on the same year.
DR. HOVANETZ clarified that the school grading system does not
improve student achievement; the school grading system
highlights students' performance in the school to demonstrate
whether or not the school is meeting the needs of its students.
The A-F grading system has been a major catalyst for schools to
change albeit without any direction from the state. As schools
are held accountable and grades are made public, the A-F system
shines a bright light on schools that are or are not successful,
leading to changes and improvements at the school. She advised
that these changes follow immediately.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned attention to the graph indicating
declines and said he could not see how the letter scores
actually produced those results. He noted that HB 151 uses a
rolling average of two years and asked how a two-year average
would affect the changes in Florida.
DR. HOVANETZ said Florida does not use a two-year average and
could not comment on the possible impact. The two-year average
is not used because it complicates the system and does not give
a true picture of what is happening in a current year. She
returned attention to the graph, explaining that when a 75
percent improvement rate in the number of schools graded A or B
is attained, Florida raises the standard higher. From 2011 to
2012, Florida raised the bar and that explains the number of
schools that are in decline. She assured the committee that in
2013 there will be an increase in A and B schools; in fact, data
from 2010 to 2011 shows "a very different picture." Dr.
Hovanetz restated the importance of continuing to raise the bar
on standards to prevent the data from becoming meaningless.
8:49:45 AM
CHAIR GATTIS noted that Alaska is currently using a five-star
program to grade schools, but the bill proposes to change from
stars to A-F, for simplicity, and the rating will be prominently
displayed for easy access by parents.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD emphasized that the same data will be in
a different and clearer form. Further, the data would be 50
percent based on achievement and 25 percent on individual
learning gains in reading, writing, and math, and 25 percent on
the lowest 25 percentile. Basically, the bill strips out all of
the accessories and focuses on the core of achievement and
learning gains. She called attention to an unnamed handout in
the committee packet to point out that Alaska spends the highest
amount per pupil yet ranks last according to 2011 NAEP scores;
Florida spends only $1,517 per pupil, yet ranked sixth overall
in the nation in reading. Representative Reinbold concluded
that the grading system was a part of a comprehensive system of
reform that can also be a catalyst for change in Alaska.
8:52:38 AM
ROBERT PEARSON, Staff, Representative Lora Reinbold, Alaska
State Legislature, clarified that the star system is part of
EED's NCLB waiver application and is not in place at this time.
Furthermore, there is a major difference between the criteria
for grading in that the proposed one- to five-star system uses
70 percent achievement and learning gains, 25 percent
attendance, and 5 percent participation. The grading system in
the bill determines a grade on the basis of 50 percent
achievement and 50 percent learning gains.
8:53:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, referring to both the star and HB 151
grading systems, observed that a school that starts out very low
and makes significant gains may earn a higher grade than a
school that was already performing well. Her experience is that
a grading system should be based on performance rather than
improvement.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD responded that the grading system does
just that by eliminating the nonacademic statistics such as
attendance and participation, and grading 50 percent on reading,
writing, math, and science testing. However, it is important to
show progress to motivate schools and students.
DR. HOVANETZ agreed that the ultimate goal is to have all
children proficient. Further, if students enter school
proficient, there still needs to be an indication of continued
progress. On the other hand, there needs to be an indication
that teachers are ensuring that underperforming students are
also making a year's worth of progress.
8:57:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER cautioned that if the basis for
assessments is "gains" there is the possibility that schools
will reach a limit at the top. He pointed out that Florida
continues to raise standards thus students will always have room
for achievement; however, if HB 151 bases 25 percent on the
growth in the lowest 25 percentile of schools, and 25 percent on
learning gains, there may only be a "a tiny fraction of
improvement available."
MR. PEARSON advised that all schools have a mix of various
achievement levels among their student body. The point of the
criteria of the grading system is that a high-achieving student
body will still have to make a year's progress, or more, to
improve or maintain a grade. The rewarding of extra points is
intended to help schools rise up students in the lowest 25
percent, and that component is recognized by schools and
teachers as a very important part of the education system.
DR. HOVANETZ added that the method of defining learning gains
addresses students who are performing at an advanced level, in
that it measures whether they are still performing at an
advanced level in the following year. In fact, only those
students who maintain their advanced level are counted as making
learning gains even though they are proficient.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER agreed with the previous statement that
an A-B-C grade is a reflection of achievement but does not imply
accelerated learning or improvement, and he said he was not
comfortable with the added element of a change in achievement
level. He asked for information about the Alaska Strategic
Educator section of the bill, and any related cost.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD relayed her intent is to give EED the
power to recognize outstanding teachers who are willing to
transfer to a D or F school. The teachers will be identified as
Alaska Strategic Educators, and this can be accomplished without
adding a fiscal note.
9:02:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if the grading system provides a
means to assist individual teachers who need extra help.
DR. HOVANETZ answered that the school grade does not provide
data on individual teachers, but the principal will receive
accountability information on individual student performance
within the school, and this will reveal whether there are
classes with a majority of students who are not making learning
gains.
9:05:13 AM
CHAIR GATTIS opened public testimony.
9:05:28 AM
BOB GRIFFIN, Research Fellow, Alaska Policy Forum; Contributing
Member, Students First - American Federation for Children,
stated his support for HB 151. He said he has attended dozens
of education seminars across the country, and views this reform
as one of the most effective and inexpensive that he has
encountered. Alaska has a combination of expensive K-12
education per pupil and low performance, and the state is in
desperate need of cultural change along the lines of the
Parental Education Information Act. He compared educational
statistics between Florida and Alaska, reporting that in 2011,
Alaska was first in per-capita educational spending and fiftieth
in reading for low- and upper middle-income students. One of
the most important aspects of the Parental Education Information
Act is a rating system that allows for chronically low-
performing schools to show improvement. He opined there is a
lack of choice in small communities and in chronically low-
performing schools, and assigning grades to schools will serve
as a positive catalyst for cultural change and will spur
innovation and change such as happened at the Alaska Native
Cultural Charter School. He disagreed with those who consider
HB 151 as punitive, and compared the bill to other simple
consumer rating systems that provide [objective] data.
Inspiration for the Alaska Strategic Educator came from the
education summit in Anchorage and this model has been used to
great advantage in another state. Mr. Griffin urged for a
cultural change in K-12 education statewide, beginning with HB
151.
9:11:29 AM
LADAWN DRUCE, Representative, Kenai Peninsula Education
Association/NEA-Alaska, indicated her opposition to HB 151. Ms.
Druce stated that educators in Alaska are continuing to learn
and strive to better Alaska's education system. She said she
will serve on the advisory teacher evaluation group formed to
advise EED on the new teacher evaluation regulations, a
component of which is related to student learning data. Ms.
Druce referred to earlier testimony and disagreed that the
proposed grading system is simple and comprehensive; in fact, it
is not simple to understand, as evidenced by the questions
generated by the committee in this meeting. Furthermore,
although assignment of a letter grade may be simple, education
is not, and educating students is a complex art that involves
other subject areas that the grading system does not address.
The bill intends to motivate improvement, but she questioned
how, and stated parental involvement is attained by inviting
parents into schools to be part of the school community. She
suggested that education is not a competition and is not
relevant to a business model, because schools do not control
their populations. She recalled teaching at Kotzebue High
School in the 1980s, and said becoming a D or F school attaches
a stigma - not a positive motivation - to a school in a
situation where students have no other high school to attend.
Finally, she asked the sponsor to identify the problems that the
bill seeks to address, and to work with educators to identify
and solve problems.
9:14:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether teachers would be attracted
to serve in low-performing schools as an Alaska Strategic
Educator.
MS. DRUCE was unfamiliar with that section of the bill.
9:15:56 AM
TIM PARKER informed the committee he has been a teacher at
Lathrop High School for 15 years. He said his experience in
motivating and improving student performance has proven that
shaming is not a positive approach on how to improve schools.
It is a fact that most of the low-ranking schools deal with the
problems of poverty and transiency, which cannot be solved by
assigning a grade to a school. Mr. Parker recalled his teacher
training taught him that improvement comes from talking to
students and providing extra support. He agreed with
Representative LeDoux that the bill is not tied to student
performance, and advised that teacher in-service opportunities
and extra time with students would be actual solutions to do so.
He urged for adequate support for schools to enable teachers to
provide services to students who are struggling. He stated that
NEA-Alaska is in favor of positive changes in education such as
providing directed professional development, professional
learning communities, peer review, extending the time of the
school year, creating a good evaluation system, family/school
partnering, and delivering a varied curriculum. Mr. Parker
urged for future legislation addressing the aforementioned
topics.
9:19:58 AM
JACOB BERA said he is a teacher at Eagle River High School and a
member of the Anchorage Educational Association and NEA-Alaska.
He expressed his concern about HB 151 because it stigmatizes a
school instead of providing ideas for improvement. He agreed
with the intent of the bill which is to recognize and identify
areas of success and areas which need improvement; however, HB
151 moves in the wrong direction to motivate parents and provide
a catalyst for change. He returned attention to the existing
school report card issued by the Anchorage School District
(ASD), noting that education and assessment is more complex than
a letter grade can represent and the ASD report card provides a
more complete picture. For example, the ASD report card for
Eagle River High School indicates improved scores, the school's
goals and actions for improvement, parental involvement, school
strategies, and school successes. Mr. Bera's research revealed
that although the intent of the bill is well-meaning, and he
supports accountability, rigor, parental information, and
parental choice, the proposed report card does not provide
pathways to improvement. He referred to the Alaska Strategic
Educator section of the bill and questioned whether there is
motivation for a teacher to transfer to a school that has been
identified as a failing school. Mr. Bera gave an example of the
excellent teaching staff at Mountain View Elementary, even
though it has been targeted by the Alaska Policy Forum as a
failing school. He provided copies of NEA-Alaska's guidelines,
"Six Principles for Leading the Profession" to the committee.
9:25:20 AM
KEVIN SHIPLEY, Superintendent, Kake City Schools, agreed that
Alaska needs to make changes in its educational system that will
improve the performance of all students. Although he does not
have a problem with the A-F grading system, he stated he has
concerns about the bill. Mr. Shipley noted his experience as a
"turn-around specialist" for 12 years in Texas, on which the
Florida grading model is based, and that he understand the
reform model of education and how it affects changes that have
been implemented in Alaska. While the challenges are similar,
there are differences between Alaska, Texas, and Florida, thus
solutions to problems are not the same. He provided specific
outcomes to the Florida model, and opined that standards have
been manipulated: scores for minority students were raised, but
not in a way that related to college readiness or to the ACT and
Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). He questioned the wisdom of
implementing a system from another state into Alaska, citing the
cost of new testing requirements for science. Mr. Shipley
cautioned the unintended consequences of the bill may stigmatize
low-income schools and students.
CHAIR GATTIS restated that the science section has been removed
from the bill.
9:28:32 AM
CHAIR GATTIS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
[HB 151 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 SB 41 Bill Text v. U.pdf |
HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 41 |
| 02 SB 41 Sponsor Statement v. U.pdf |
HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 41 |
| 03 SB 41 Sectional Analysis U.pdf |
HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 41 |
| 04 SB 41 EED Fiscal Note Version U.pdf |
HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 41 |
| 05 SB 41 Supporting Document-Letter Nate Davis 02-22-2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 41 |
| 06 SB 41 Supporting Document-Wasilla Lake Christian School 03-19-2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 41 |
| 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 |
| 08 HB 151 Letter Support - Alaska Policy Forum.pdf |
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 |
| 09 HB 151 Letter Support - Von Imhof ASD.pdf |
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 |
| 10 HB 151 A-F Bill Presentation.pdf |
HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |