Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
04/08/2013 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB57 | |
| HB179 | |
| HB190 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 179 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 189 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 190-CREDIT FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL COURSES
9:08:12 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 190, "An Act providing for course credit in
secondary school based on demonstrated mastery of the subject."
9:08:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, sponsor of HB 190, reviewed the intent of
the proposed bill, and stated that students taking college
courses were not receiving full course credit because of a lack
of "seat time." He explained that the proposed bill allowed
students who had demonstrated mastery of the course content to
challenge to test out of the course and receive the full
academic credit. He reported that each school district would
still define the demonstration of mastery for the course
subject, and would be required to provide an assessment for a
challenge to a course. He pointed out that although some school
districts had already established policy for challenging
courses, other districts had not, and the bill required this for
every school district. He noted that the course credits would
apply toward fulfillment for the Alaska Performance Scholarship,
but it was not required that these credits be factored into a
grade point average. He shared that this challenge did not
include credit for any of the prerequisite courses. He directed
attention to the Credit By Choice program in the Anchorage
School District [Included in members' packets], and clarified
that it was not the intent for all the policies to be the same.
He reiterated that each school district could determine its own
policy of course challenges for credit, which would only apply
to those courses already offered by the school, and that a fee
could be charged for the assessment. He stressed the need for
progressive education and to keep students engaged.
9:13:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her belief that some classes
would be more easily assessed than others, expressing her
support for the opportunity to challenge offered by proposed
HB 190.
9:14:32 AM
CHAIR GATTIS shared an anecdote about required coursework, and
commented that students were often held back due to the lack of
opportunity to challenge out. She stated support for HB 190.
9:15:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to page 1, lines 10-
11, and asked about the implied cost for development of an
assessment tool. He pointed out that, although the fiscal note
was zero to the state, the school districts would have some cost
to develop a fair assessment tool. He asked the sponsor for an
estimate to the cost of a fair assessment tool.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that, a final exam could be used
for any class using a text book. For classes that required
actual production, it could require individual time from a
teacher, which was the reason the Anchorage School District
required an $85.00 challenge fee. He opined that scholarships
for fees would be available, if necessary. He declared that
there was not a mandate to design a separate assessment tool for
every student.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested that school districts share
standards and approaches, which could lead to more consistency.
9:18:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON directed attention to page 1, lines 10-
11, which stated that a school district "shall" establish as
assessment tool, and she suggested a need for the language to be
more flexible. She proposed that this could be better addressed
as each course challenge arose.
9:19:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed agreement that assessments
should only be required when a course was challenged.
9:19:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that it was not the sponsor's
intent to have a challenge assessment established in every
district for each class offering, but merely to ensure the
response to a student request. The district would still
determine the definition for mastery and the determination for a
passing grade.
9:20:58 AM
CHAIR GATTIS opened public testimony.
9:21:04 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked about a requirement for advance assessments
versus creation of an assessment when the course was challenged,
and how this program would work in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
School District.
GENE STONE, Assistant Superintendent, Matanuska-Susitna Borough
School District, said that the circumstances were tailored to
each situation in order to have this program work. He relayed
that the student consulted with a guidance counselor, a teacher,
and an administrator, all prior to allowing a student to
challenge a course. He described that the on-line support
programs could be used to determine the level of mastery, which
would allow for a shorter course completion time and recovery of
the credits. He stated that it made no sense to have a student
sit through a full semester class if they had already mastered a
significant part of the course. He explained that students
could also receive both high school and college credit by taking
a college level course, and then demonstrating mastery. He
referenced a situation whereby a student failed the first
semester of a course, but stayed in the course, and then passed
the end of year examination, which demonstrated mastery of the
entire subject.
9:25:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how many students succeeded with
their challenges.
MR. STONE replied that the challenge option was only available
to students when the teachers had a high degree of confidence
for success. He offered his belief that this process could
become more frequent.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the school district had a stock
of assessments, or would develop new ones.
MR. STONE responded that the school district had invested in
APEX Learning for credit recovery, but that other school
districts would need to determine what was going to be used for
an assessment tool.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the school district would share
its assessment tools.
MR. STONE replied that it would be necessary to invest in the
APEX Learning on-line courses, but that the other assessments
were the standard teacher generated tests of the curriculum,
including year-end final examinations to demonstrate mastery.
9:28:15 AM
CHAIR GATTIS explained that the aforementioned APEX Learning was
an on-line credit recovery and advanced placement course. She
noted that there was a proprietary cost involved with APEX.
9:29:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asking if the final examination for
Algebra I did encompass the entire scope of the year, questioned
whether a final examination was a full assessment of the
students understanding of the range of the course.
MR. STONE replied that this would be necessary for each school
district to determine, and possibly augment the assessment for
certain courses.
9:30:24 AM
BRUCE JOHNSON, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, stated support for HB 190, and said that seat
time was becoming increasingly obsolete in some classes. He
declared that it was appropriate to have the determinations
placed under the purview of each school district. He suggested
that the standards based assessments results could be used for
determinations, as well as a variety of other tools which could
be deployed on an individual basis. He opined that this was in
the best interest of students, and that the standards would
evolve and make the assessment process much easier.
9:32:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned whether testing out or
challenge programs were being implemented in other educational
systems.
MR. JOHNSON replied that it had been a standard in other states
and universities for some time, and that many nationwide school
districts were now implementing this approach.
9:32:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there were associated costs to
the programs in the other states.
MR. JOHNSON offered his belief that in the two states in which
he had worked, Illinois and North Dakota, there had not been
significant costs.
9:33:31 AM
HERB SCHROEDER, Vice Provost, University of Alaska Anchorage
(UAA), Alaska Native Science and Engineering Program (ANSEP),
stated his support for HB 190. He declared that ANSEP classes
had "raised the bar for education for our students," as
incentives were provided to the students. He reported that,
although most ANSEP students completed college courses while
still in high school, many would not receive equivalent high
school credit. He declared that this was a de-motivator for
hard work, and that students needed encouragement to take these
college courses. He pointed out that proposed HB 190 provided a
mechanism for students to be rewarded for academic excellence.
9:35:26 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), in response
to a request by Representative Seaton, reflected on page 1,
lines 10-11 and the concern for the language stipulating "shall
establish an assessment tool." He offered his interpretation
that, although this would be a school district responsibility,
it did not necessarily require any response prior to the
challenge for a course.
9:36:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for his interpretation of assessment
tool preparation as a practical matter.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY opined that it was not difficult for a
school to prepare an assessment for testing out of most courses.
He declared that it would be a task for a school district which
had not thought of assessment for challenges, but that school
districts would be prepared if the proposed bill was passed.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired about what was an acceptable
delay for an assessment to test out of a class.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY hypothesized that the school district would
encourage the appropriate action to meet the requirements of
law. He offered his belief that it behooved the district to be
prepared.
9:39:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if it would be appropriate to alter
the language in the proposed bill to allow the districts some
latitude for preparation.
9:40:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that preparation time was
inherent in the process to implement a policy, as the current
version would allow school districts to develop their policies
ahead of time. He offered his belief that school districts
would request teachers to prepare assessments appropriate to
their courses, which could include the standard based
assessments, independent assessments, or final examinations. He
surmised that it did not require a school district to drop
everything, and immediately develop an assessment for every
class. He declared that teachers would already have some
assessment tool for the end of the class. He allowed that the
most important aspect for each school district was to determine
the bar for mastery of a course, currently a 90 percent
assessment in the Anchorage School District. Although he
defined mastery as the ability to move on to the next course and
succeed, he declared that the state should not make the
determination of mastery for each school district. He reported
that data from previous testimony in the House Education
Standing Committee indicated that "most kids that drop out of
school have already passed the high school exit exam, and the
reason they're dropping out is because they're held in courses
that are not challenging ...."
9:43:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed her concern for a student
interested in testing out of a class which was necessary for
graduation. If the district was slow to provide an option, and
the student did not take the class and ultimately did not pass
the assessment, there could be a difficulty. She declared her
assumption that "the districts will get their act together and
provide an assessment in a reasonably timely manner." She
opined that this could be revisited at a later date, if this was
not the case.
9:44:35 AM
CHAIR GATTIS expressed her agreement with Representative LeDoux,
offering her belief that the school districts understood the
necessity for supporting students in a progressive way, and that
the proposed bill provided another tool for attaining that goal.
9:45:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related that the intent of HB 190 was not
an immediate mandate for each school district to establish
assessment tools for every class, but to create the assessments
as needed by reasonable interpretation. He suggested that
school districts determine the classes most likely to be
challenged, and prepare those assessments. He advocated that a
"B" grade was sufficient for mastery, although this policy would
be defined by each school district. He requested that the
school districts maintain data for the number of challenges, and
the percentage of successful challenges.
9:46:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the Anchorage School
District policy for course challenge, as it had established
parameters that would be helpful to other school districts.
9:47:03 AM
CHAIR GATTIS, in response to a comment by Representative Seaton,
asked to clarify whether the student transcript should note that
a course was credited by examination.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON shared that this was the policy of the
Anchorage School District, and that each school district could
determine its own policies.
CHAIR GATTIS closed public testimony.
9:47:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, directing attention to page 1, lines
10 - 11, maintained her concern for the "shall" language, which
she opined required an assessment tool for every course provided
by the school district. She suggested a conceptual amendment
which would better define the limitations.
9:49:18 AM
CHAIR GATTIS expressed her agreement for a timeline to the
challenge and testing interval.
9:49:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON cautioned that it would be
counterproductive to place a deadline in statute. He declared
that the most important aspect of the proposed bill was the
requirement for each school district to act. He pointed out
that any course that was being offered would have a teacher to
easily make an assessment.
9:51:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND suggested that students be required to
indicate an interest for a challenge at course registration
time. She expressed agreement with earlier testimony that
school districts would prepare assessments once a challenge had
been requested.
9:52:46 AM
CHAIR GATTIS pointed out that many course assessments were
already in place.
9:53:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested that a conceptual amendment
inserting "within a reasonable time following a demonstrated
need" would better clarify the intent.
9:53:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined that "reasonable time" was implicit
in the language of the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER shared that a school district could
determine that a final examination was sufficient to meet the
intent of the proposed bill.
9:54:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, as
follows:
Page 1, line 10, after "shall establish"
Insert ",within a reasonable time following a
demonstrated need,"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion and asked for
clarification that this was a conceptual amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:56:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report HB 190, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHB 190(EDC) was moved from the House Education Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 04032013_SB57_BillText_VersionY.PDF |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |
| 04052013_SB57_SponsorStatement_VersionY.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |
| 04052013_SB57_Sectional_VersionY.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |
| 03132013_SB57_FiscalNote1.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM SEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |
| 03132013_SB57_FiscalNote2.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |
| 03132013_SB57_FiscalNote3.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM SEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |
| 03132013_SB57_FiscalNote4.PDF |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |
| SB 57 SampleParentInvolvement_Pamphlet_Idaho.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM SFIN 3/28/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |
| SB 57 Third Grade Reading Policies.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM SFIN 3/28/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |
| SB 57 ECS_Third Grade Literacy Policies.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM SFIN 3/28/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |
| SB 57 SupportLetters.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM SFIN 3/28/2013 9:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |
| 01 HB 179 v. A.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 179 |
| 02 CS HB 179.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 179 |
| 03 CS HB 179 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 179 |
| 04 HB 179 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 179 |
| 06 HB 179Fiscal Note-EED-LAM-3 21-13.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 179 |
| 07 HB 179 Backup-FY2012 Total Broadband Cost E-Rate share and Applicant Share.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 179 |
| 08 HB 179 Backup-ADN Article.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 179 |
| 09 HB 179 Backup-LegislativeResearch_Erate section.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 179 |
| 12 HB 179Support Letter FNSB.pdf |
HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 179 |
| 01 HB 190 v. A.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 02 HB 190 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 03 HB 190 Fiscal Note - EED-TLS-3-28-13.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 04 HB 190 Supporting Documents-Letter Herb Schroeder 03-28-2013.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 05 HB 190 Supporting Documents-Email Bob Crumley 03-28-2013.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 06 HB 190 Supporting Documents-Letter Steve Atwater 04-01-2013.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 07 HB 190 Supporting Documents-Anchorage SD Credit By Choice program 04-02-2013.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 08 HB 190 Supporting Documents-MatSu SD policy 04-02-2013.pdf |
HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/5/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/8/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |