Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/04/2016 01:30 PM 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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing: Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority: Laraine Derr | |
| HB254 | |
| HB156 | |
| HB209 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 254 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 209 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 156
"An Act relating to compliance with federal education
laws; relating to public school accountability; and
providing for an effective date."
3:07:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, SPONSOR, explained that he would
be happy to provide a general overview of the bill and
answer any questions members might have. However, he wanted
to first address the issue of the bill's fiscal note.
Representative Keller began by asking for serious
consideration of and action on the bill. The bill addressed
three sections of law. The first had to do with the
reporting requirements for school districts. The second was
the accountability section which laid out the assessments
and different issues related to the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and the
duties of the commissioner. He explained that much of the
bill addressed housekeeping issues. For example, with the
ESSA there was a new emphasis on local control and local
input. He referred to Section 6, page 3, line 26 where it
talked about the assessment process. It required the local
input of the local school district and the teachers. The
most colorful part of the bill was in the last section
where it pushed the pause button on standards based
assessments until the Department of Education and Early
Development and the school board could come back with a
report on the totality of the state's section of law, Title
14, as it related to accountability and assessments and with
recommendations for any changes. Most importantly the group
would come back with an assessment plan that could be
implemented. He pointed to page 6 of the bill.
Representative Keller next wanted to address the question as
to whether the bill would cost the state money. He contended
that it would not. However, he was not confident enough in
bringing a zero fiscal note from the DEED. He had supporting
opinions from various entities. He had a memo from the U.S.
Department of Education that he would be passing out to
members (Copy on file). He relayed that he and Senator
Dunleavy had met telephonically with Adam Honeysett
[Managing Director of state and local outreach for the U.S.
Department of Education] and Ann Whalen [Senior Advisor to
the Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education of the
U.S. Department of Education]. They subsequently sent a
memo that was forwarded to the State of Utah. He wondered
what would happen if the state did not fulfill the
requirements laid out in NCLB and ESSA. He mentioned a
handout that members had in their packets (Letter dated
February 3, 2016 from Assistant Secretary Deborah Delisle
to Commissioner Mike Hanley: copy on file). He pointed to
number 3 on page 3. He read the question about the
consequences of a state or district that failed to adhere
to the federal assessment requirements.
Representative Keller explained that in order to have a
fiscal note, there had to be a decision somewhere that the
state failed to comply. He contended that it would be a
difficult step for the U.S. Department of Education to get
over because the intent of the bill was to take a break and
do a better job of complying in terms of accountability and
assessment issues. In other words, if there was a failure
to comply enforcement actions could be taken. There were 7
things that could be done if the state refused to comply
with the requirements. He argued again that it was not the
case.
3:13:36 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked Representative Keller to
identify the full document. Representative Keller responded
that the full document was a memo from Deborah Delisle,
Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
The memo was addressed to Commissioner Mike Hanley. He
thought it was the best response to the question about what
happened to states that did not comply. He was happy to
supply the letter to the committee.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that he would have the letter
dispersed.
Representative Keller continued to explain that taking a
break would not be a new precedence. The State of
California took a 3-year break to review its laws and was
receiving reports. The difference for California was that
it negotiated the process as it went along. The State of
Alaska was in a situation where there were failed tests and
angry parents. He relayed that the ESSA would go into
effect in August 2016. He referred back to the U.S.
Department's letter indicating that it was early in the
process of implementing the ESSA and many decisions had not
been made yet. He thought that it was logical for the
State of Alaska to take a break to develop an assessment
plan and to conduct a review of the state's laws and
regulations having to do with ESSA. He reported that ESSA
afforded more local control.
Representative Keller next referred to page 4 of Ms.
Delisle's letter that addressed the specific enforcement
actions. He read directly from the letter:
"The specific enforcement action (s) the Department of
Education would take depends on the severity of non-
compliance."
Representative Keller surmised that Alaska would unlikely
experience severe enforcement actions based on the
intention of taking a break to get things accurate. He
noted that the state would not be refusing to do anything.
Rather, the state was taking a break. He also informed the
committee that the money was Title "A" money: federal money
designated to be dispersed to states with the attempt to
make things equitable for disadvantaged students. In the
act of applying for Title A money the state promised that
it would follow all of the rules. One of the rules was that
Alaska had to test grades 3 to 8 and a grade in high
school. He thought Alaska was in an uncomfortable position
because The Alaska Measures of Progress (AMP) failed. He
noted that in the previous week in Education Weekly there
was a report on different states and it discussed state
school boards across the nation feeling the urgency to flex
muscle. He claimed that what Alaska was trying to do was to
reinsert itself back into the education policy business. He
continued that the money had gone directly into the
department and, in turn, the department had given it to the
districts. He believed that having input in the education
process was critical.
3:18:42 PM
Representative Keller continued to discuss the issue of the
assessment. He talked about dealing with the parents of
students. He thought it was a mistake to choose the wrong
people to handle the subject. He believed people working
for the state wanted a good assessment plan. He had also
had the opportunity to get to know some of the new members
of the State Board of Education and was impressed. He urged
the committee to proceed with the legislation. He had no
problem with the indeterminate fiscal note.
Representative Gattis thanked Representative Keller for
bringing the legislation forward. She thought it was an
ideal time to be looking at the state's assessment. She
thought it was a good idea to think about pushing the pause
or reset button and mentioned the state might be eligible
for a waiver. She liked the option of applying hind sight.
Other states had been able to do so. She thought the timing
was perfect.
Representative Keller responded that the worst case would
be that the legislature would pass the law and the U.S.
Department of Education would not approve of it. It would
take some time before the state received any notice of
disapproval. He supposed that by such time the state would
be able to complete its own assessment.
3:23:14 PM
Representative Kawasaki referred to the letter that was
handed out during the meeting. The letter indicated that
the U.S. Department of Education could withhold a portion
of the state's Title 1 Part A administrative funds and
programmatic funds. He wondered what the value equated to.
Representative Keller suggested Representative Kawasaki
direct his question to the DEED. He pointed out that the
letter specifically stated "administrative funds" would be
at risk. He relayed that administrative funds would be
withheld before program funding was revoked. He had been
told by the Department of Education that 70 percent of the
revenue for the department was federal money. He did not
know what portion was Title 1A.
Representative Gara asked about the implementation of the
ESSA adopted in the prior year. He wondered if the bill
reestablished the designation of schools. Representative
Keller responded that the legislation did not change the
state's law regarding the designation process. One of the
requirements was for the school system to give a grade to
schools and to assign a designation and a grade to the
state education system. However, the state had never set
any guidelines for grading. There was one slight change in
the bill that required the DEED to assign a designation for
the state public school system based on the proficiency of
students compared to other states.
Representative Gara wondered if the designations under
state law were adopted because of the passage of the NCLB
Act. Representative Keller responded in the affirmative and
added there was not a lack of interest in knowing how the
state's school system was performing.
3:26:51 PM
Representative Gara remembered one of the largest flaws of
the federal designation system was that although teachers
and a school's administration were doing a good job and
students were making improvements, given where the students
were starting or their home life, some of them were still
failing. The designation was influenced. He wondered if the
state still maintained the same grading system.
Representative Keller admitted that in some ways the bill
kicked the can down the road. However, it called for a
review process.
Representative Gara asked if it was more feasible to come
up with a better school ranking system rather than the one
from the NCLB Act. Representative Keller indicated that it
would be a monumental task. The bill was an attempt to look
at things more closely and get further input from local
school districts, parents, and students. There were many
people in the state that had a lot invested in the current
system. He suggested that the bill provided a step forward
to get collaborative input on how to proceed, but it would
not fix all of the problems.
Representative Wilson relayed the state did not currently
use the same system to grade the state's schools as was
used when the NCLB Act was in place. She reported that the
state changed it with a waiver, imposed more teacher
accountability, and switched to a star rating system for
school performance. She had just read an article that
stated that the new testing that was most recently imposed
was a failure because of technical and computer issues. She
wanted Representative Keller's take on classroom time and
teaching versus continuing tests.
Representative Keller restated that it was a time of crisis
with several loose ends needing resolution. He believed
testing was critical and important in education in order to
better understand the educational needs of each student.
From a teacher's perspective student learning was extremely
important, and from the state's perspective in spending
money, accountability was very important. He felt that the
legislation provided an opportunity to come together.
3:31:58 PM
Representative Gattis responded to Representative Gara's
comment. She asserted that there were several things the
state placed into statute that dealt with the NCLB Act. She
thought the state would definitely have to conduct another
review. She added that with the signing of the ESSA in
December 2015 states were still trying to figure out their
options and what was allowed. She believed there were
several things at play and that the state should not get
ahead of itself. She thought the bill helped press the
pause button and to come together. There would be huge
changes in reporting, the statute, how the state graded its
schools, and how it held its teachers and students
accountable. She agreed with Representative Gara that there
was a flaw in the system. There were folks that were not
graded on their progress. Teachers that could help to
advance a student from a second grade proficiency to a
third or fourth grade proficiency were not given due credit
because of the student not being proficient in an expected
grade. There were huge challenges for the state. She
thought in going through the process and slowing down, the
state would have an advantage.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to Section 2, page 2, lines 9-
10 of the bill. It described that the department would
inform the governing body of the designations assigned to
the district and to the state public school system. He
wondered who applied the designation to the state public
school system. Representative Keller clarified that there
was a section of the law that drove the designation that
was not in the legislation. He referred to AS 14.03.123a.
Vice-Chair Saddler read from statute AS 14.03.123a:
(a) By September 1 of each year, the department shall
assign a performance designation to each public school
and school district and to the state public school
system in accordance with (f) of this section.
Vice-Chair Saddler relayed that later on in (g) it defined
"state public school system." He asked for the
representative to provide a couple examples of the elements
of a public school system by which Alaska's system could be
compared to those of other states.
Representative Keller responded that in drafting the
legislation he did not want to get specific about what
would be used. It stated that the state board would make
the regulations for the determination. He relayed that the
only tool that did a proficiency comparison was National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The bill did
not designate what was to be used other than it had to be
based on proficiency. There were tests that were comparable
that the board could look at using. He left the language
broad on purpose.
3:36:49 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to the indeterminate fiscal
note. He highlighted a couple of places in the analysis
section of the fiscal note that stated that the fiscal
impact could not be determined because of a lack of
measures necessary to estimate costs. He expressed his
concerns about going ahead with an assessment without
knowing the designations or measures or the price of the
assessment.
Representative Keller highlighted that the bill placed a
tool in the tool box for the commissioner and the state
board in interpreting and figuring out how the state would
respond to forthcoming regulations. It was not that the
state would be incurring a cost by some federal enforcement
act that worried him. It was more that the state would be
at the table with the federal government trying to figure
out what was going on.
Vice-Chair Saddler did not want to lose the $200 million of
federal money in impact aid. Representative Keller
responded that it happened one year at a time. If there was
a threat of losing millions of dollars of federal money
legislation would be before the committee again. He was not
particularly worried about the federal money but he wanted
it to show up on the fiscal note as indeterminate rather
than zero. However, at present he would be comfortable with
a zero fiscal note.
Representative Guttenberg referred to Section 8, page 6, on
line 16. He wondered if the bill placed the standards -
based assessment on hold between July 1, 2016 and July 1,
2018. The bill would not allow the first administration of
whatever plan that was developed until the school year of
2020. There was always a contradiction between having
assessments and not having assessments and standards when
speaking with teachers. He wondered if students fall
between the seams by not having something when they were
applying for college. He was concerned that colleges would
reject Alaskan students because they did not have testing
or grades to compare with those of students from other
states. He thought the change being proposed in the
legislation was significant. He asked if Alaska's students
would fall through the cracks. Representative Keller
responded that members of the committee understood the
dynamics of what happened in the districts better than he
did. He mentioned the most recent education chairman and
deferred to a district expert.
3:41:32 PM
Representative Munoz asked if school districts were
supportive of the bill. Representative Keller stated that
districts were concerned with anything that might threaten
federal money. However, he received positive responses from
many districts about a possible change. He thought that
districts' fears were over-rated.
Representative Munoz asked if there was enough flexibility
for states to figure things out by 2020 with the new ESSA
law.
Representative Keller responded that in his opinion he
thought yes. He added that the state did not know what the
response of the federal government would be. The state was
not simply refusing to comply. Rather, the state was
wanting to do it correctly with some time to do so.
Representative Munoz clarified that all testing would be
discontinued from third grade when testing began.
Representative Keller responded that she was incorrect. The
department would not be able to require assessment-based
testing. He elaborated that when a school took Title 1
monies it was a promise to conduct testing. The requirement
did not go away. The state was halting the state department
from using the sanction on the mandate on local districts
to administer the assessment-based test.
Representative Munoz asked whether the district would
continue with the testing if it received federal funding.
She wondered if the state department could not require the
testing. Representative Keller responded affirmatively. He
indicated that the Department of Education and Early
Development agreed to require the testing. The federal
government required the state to offer the test to
everyone. It required districts to administer the tests. It
did not require parents to take the test. The requirement
stated that the test had to be administered to everyone
fairly. No group of people could not be excluded. It was
part of the NCLB Act which was in effect until August 2016.
3:45:11 PM
Representative Gattis wondered if she had heard
Representative Keller correctly that the schools would be
able to continue their testing. She recognized that other
states had applied for waivers or the opportunity to slow
the process down to get things right. She wanted to confirm
that Alaska would not be jumping "out of the box" in
comparison to other states. She thought the Title 1
dollars were a huge concern. She asked if it was his intent
to decline the federal dollars or to just slow the process
down to get things correct using the federal dollars while
going through the process. She opined that the new ESSA was
a moving target that needed to be better understood in
terms of what it allowed.
Representative Keller responded that by taking federal
dollars the state was obligated to operate as it was
currently operating - basically operating as an outpost for
policy from the U.S. Department of Education. The
legislation would allow the commissioner to have another
tool in the toolbox to negotiate.
Co-Chair Thompson indicated that the meeting would be
recessed for 10 minutes. Upon reconvening representatives
from the DEED would be testifying on HB 156.
3:48:08 PM
AT EASE
3:57:26 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that Ms. MacKinnon and Deputy
Commissioner Walter available from the DEED.
BETTY WALTERS, INTERIM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced herself.
MARGARET MACKINNON, DIRECTOR, ASSESSMENT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT, introduced herself.
Representative Kawasaki referred to the question he had
asked the sponsor of the bill dealing with funding. In the
memo members received written to Commissioner Hanley stated
that failure to comply with the assessment requirements
could place Title 1, Part A funds in jeopardy. He wondered
how much funding could be at risk. Ms. MacKinnon replied
that Title 1a funding was approximately $40 million which
included money that went out to each of the districts in
the state.
Representative Kawasaki continued to reference portions of
the memo to Commissioner Hanley that went on to say that
the state could find itself out of compliance with a wide
range of other programs that required the state assessment
results. One of them was school improvement grants, ESSA
Title III, Part B, which dealt with the Individuals with
Disabilities Act. Another was programs for rural schools
under ESSA Title IV. Additionally it could affect migrant
education under ESSA Title 1, Part C. He wondered if she
had a value for each listed. Ms. MacKinnon responded in the
affirmative. She stated that based on the information in
the letter, the total amount of funds that were represented
would be over $99 million for FY 2017.
3:59:55 PM
Representative Wilson asked if it was an opportunity to be
able to reevaluate what kind of testing the state wanted to
conduct. She wondered if it would provide more opportunity
and flexibility to utilize the testing that school
districts were already doing such as the Measures of
Academic Progress (MAP) testing. She suggested that it was
a reset of sorts. She believed the bill's intent was to
utilize the opportunity to do what was best for Alaskans.
The most recent testing was not very successful.
Ms. MacKinnon reported that she had had a recent
conversation with Anne Whalen, the assistant secretary at
the U.S. Department of Education to clarify some of the
requirements under the ESSA. She had provided Dr. McCauley,
the department's interim commissioner, a letter. She
continued that the passage of the ESSA did provide the
state more flexibility in certain areas. Those areas
primarily related to the design of the school
accountability system that had some required indicators,
including achievement on the state assessments, and also a
measure of growth. In other words, not everything would be
based only on the assessment. There was some flexibility in
the assessment and a couple of new options. However, the
state was still required to give the same statewide
assessment to measure the state's standards to all students
in grades 3 through 8 annually and at least once in school.
There was an option allowing a state to approve districts
to request a local choice of a nationally recognized high
school assessment comparable to and reported similarly to
the results on the state's assessment. The option only
applies to high school and not to grades 3 through 8.
Representative Wilson asked if other states had obtained
waivers. She supposed other states were taking a slower
approach to making the necessary changes and doing it
correctly. Ms. MacKinnon reported having talked with people
who had worked with the state department in California and
also asked Anne Whalen at the U.S. Department of Education.
The situation in California was that they were in the
process of implementing the smarter balanced assessment. In
the year in which the assessments were field tested,
California used those assessments in a field test mode then
transitioned into the regular assessment in the following
year. Some of the transition might have had to do with when
the assessments were used or growth from the assessments in
California's accountability system. She thought having the
assessment was different. Assistant Secretary Whalen had
indicated that no state had been able to receive a waiver
of the assessment requirements.
4:03:35 PM
Representative Wilson noted that she had requested
previously that the state would not make up its own test or
cut scores. She did not believe it was fair to Alaska's
children. The State had not been successful again. She
hoped that the state had learned that there were great
assessments available. She contended that it was time to
stop trying to reinvent the wheel and to start looking at
assessments that were already available for less money and
allowed for comparison of Alaska's kids to kids in other
states.
Representative Guttenberg asked about the department's
evaluation of the bill. He also asked how difficult it
would be to align assessment tests if they were different
from school district to school district. Ms. MacKinnon
responded that the state would have a high school
assessment. The state could opt to allow individual
districts to choose a nationally recognized high school
assessment such as the ACT (American College Testing) or
the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test). The U.S. Department of
Education was clear that the ACT and the SAT were not the
only examples and that it would be up to the states to
determine whether to allow a district to choose to give an
alternate assessment. The test would have to be
administered to all students in a district and would have
to measure and be able to be reported comparably to the
state's assessment (designed to measure the state's
standards). It was a process of determining other
assessments that could also be shown to measure the state's
standards.
Representative Guttenberg assumed that it was feasible and
not as difficult as it could be. He asked about the
department's consideration of the bill in terms of what it
did, its implementation, and the risk of losing federal
funding if it passed. Ms. MacKinnon responded that the way
in which the bill was written would prohibit the department
from requiring districts to take a test within the
following 2 school years. She thought that it potentially
put the state at risk for losing Title 1 federal funds. She
reported receiving a letter that indicated the state would
be out of compliance. She was working with district
superintendents and stake holders to look at what kind of
assessment the state would want to implement over the
following 2 years. Alaska had choices and did not have to
have a custom assessment, only one that measured the
state's standards. She suggested that the state might end
up with a system of assessments. There was some
flexibility. She reiterated that the state would be out of
compliance if it did not administer an assessment.
Representative Guttenberg thought it would be a
considerable risk. He wanted to weigh and measure the
state's ability to do its own assessment and the risk of
lost funding which would affect Alaska immediately.
4:08:34 PM
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED HB 156 to public testimony.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
4:09:24 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler reviewed the indeterminate fiscal note
from DEED. The appropriation was Teaching and Learning
Support and the allocation was Student and School
Achievement. The Office of Budget and Management component
number was 2796. The amount was zero for FY 17 and in the
future it was indeterminate.
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to REPORT CHHB 156 (EDC) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kawasaki relayed having a discussion about
the previous bill dealing with the BGCSB with a fiscal note
indicating a cost of about $20 thousand for travel. He
thought that there was a larger picture to look at.
Although the fiscal note detailed potential loses of
federal education funds and impact aide that could equate
to $200.2 million. He had not seen an updated letter other
than the one dated February 3, 2014 to Commissioner Hanley.
It seemed like there might be more information from the
department that they had received a subsequent letter
stating that if, in fact, the state did not have a
standardized test in 2017 and 2018 it could cost Alaska a
large amount of money. He did not feel comfortable letting
the bill out of committee without fully understanding its
impact. He thought it was bad business to push legislation
forward without knowing the consequences to the state.
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson thought the state had a unique
opportunity. She thought that the letter to Commissioner
Hanley from the U.S. Department of Education conveyed that
each school district could design a test to be used for the
purpose of assessing state standards. She favored moving
the bill forward.
Representative Guttenberg spoke to his objection. He
indicated that without having a better understanding of the
true risk or implications of losing about $90 million per
year in federal funding, he could not support the
legislation. The bill sponsor had mentioned coming back in
the following year to fix any issues. However, he mentioned
that even a brief simple bill took months to travel through
the legislature. He did not want to risk losing federal
funding.
Representative Gattis believed the state was in a "Catch
22" position and thought moving forward would be the right
thing to do currently. She would be supporting the bill.
4:14:53 PM
AT EASE
4:21:34 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Kawasaki discussed the letter from the
United States Department of Education dated, April 1, 2016
(copy on file). He believed the letter conveyed that
federal funds and impact aid could potentially be
jeopardized and opposed the legislation.
4:22:24 PM
Representative Gattis remarked that although she understood
Representative Kawasaki's point of view, she hoped that
prior to the bill getting to the floor there would be more
of an opportunity to take a harder look at the legislation
and some of the options other states had executed. She
would be a "yes" vote.
Representative Guttenberg MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon,
Thompson
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Kawasaki,
Representative Neuman and Representative Gara were absent
from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7/2).
CSHB 156 (EDC) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previously publish
indeterminate fiscal note: FN1 (EED).
4:23:42 PM
AT EASE
4:25:11 PM
RECONVENED
4:25:24 PM
Co-Chair Thompson called the meeting back to order and
indicated that there was a committee substitute.