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 |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 8, 2013
8:13 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lynn Gattis, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harriet Drummond
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CS FOR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 57
"An Act relating to parental involvement in education; adjusting
pupil transportation funding; amending the time required for
employers to give tenured teachers notification of their
nonretention; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 57(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 179
"An Act providing for public school funding for Internet
services; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 179(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 190
"An Act providing for course credit in secondary school based on
demonstrated mastery of the subject."
- MOVED CSHB 190(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 189
"An Act relating to hazing."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
HOUSE BILL NO. 197
"An Act requiring the establishment of a reading program in
school districts for grades kindergarten through three;
providing for student retention in grade three; and providing
for a report on the reading program and on student retention."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 57
SHORT TITLE: LITERACY, PUPIL TRANSP, TEACHER NOTICES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STEVENS
02/15/13 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/15/13 (S) EDC, FIN
03/13/13 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/13/13 (S) Heard & Held
03/13/13 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/20/13 (S) EDC RPT CS 2DP 3AM SAME TITLE
03/20/13 (S) DP: STEVENS, DUNLEAVY
03/20/13 (S) AM: HUGGINS, STEDMAN, GARDNER
03/20/13 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/20/13 (S) Moved CSSB 57(EDC) Out of Committee
03/20/13 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/28/13 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/28/13 (S) Heard & Held
03/28/13 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/02/13 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/02/13 (S) Moved CSSB 57(FIN) Out of Committee
04/02/13 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/03/13 (S) FIN RPT CS 2DP 4NR SAME TITLE
04/03/13 (S) DP: MEYER, DUNLEAVY
04/03/13 (S) NR: HOFFMAN, FAIRCLOUGH, BISHOP, OLSON
04/05/13 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/05/13 (S) VERSION: CSSB 57(FIN)
04/06/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/06/13 (H) EDC, FIN
04/08/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 179
SHORT TITLE: BROADBAND DISCOUNTS FOR SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) NAGEAK
03/20/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/20/13 (H) EDC, FIN
04/08/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 190
SHORT TITLE: CREDIT FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL COURSES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
03/28/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/28/13 (H) EDC
04/03/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/03/13 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/05/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/05/13 (H) Heard & Held
04/05/13 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/08/13 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM LAMKIN, Staff
Senator Gary Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 57 on behalf of the bill
sponsor, Senator Stevens.
JOHN ELCANTRA, Representative
National Education Association - Alaska (NEA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion on SB 57.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 57, testified in
support of HB 179, and testified in support of HB 190.
MIKE COONS
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 57.
DEENA PARAMO, Superintendent
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of SB 57 and testified in support of HB 179.
REPRESENTATIVE BENJAMIN NAGEAK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 179 as the sponsor of the
bill.
PEGGY COWAN, Superintendent
North Slope Borough School District
Point Hope, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 179.
LINDA THIBODEAU, Director
Office of the Director
Libraries, Archives & Museums
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of HB 179.
DAVE JONES, Assistant Superintendent
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District (KPBSD)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 179.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 179.
GENE STONE, Assistant Superintendent
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of HB 190.
HERB SCHROEDER, Vice Provost
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA)
Alaska Native Science and Engineering Program (ANSEP)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 190.
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of HB 190.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:13:02 AM
CHAIR LYNN GATTIS called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:13 a.m. Representatives Gattis, Saddler,
LeDoux, Drummond, P. Wilson, and Seaton were present at the call
to order.
SB 57-LITERACY, PUPIL TRANSP, TEACHER NOTICES
8:13:50 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 57, "An Act relating to parental involvement in
education; adjusting pupil transportation funding; amending the
time required for employers to give tenured teachers
notification of their nonretention; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was CSSB 57(FIN).]
8:14:11 AM
TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor, Senator Stevens,
stated that proposed SB 57 was an effort to increase parental
involvement in student literacy skills by the third grade; to
change the layoff notification deadline for tenured teachers;
and to adjust pupil transportation funding. He declared that
the data for student success emphasized the need for parental
involvement in order for students to gain proficiency in reading
by the third grade. He pointed to the learning tools used by
many states, including identification and assessment,
intervention with remediation, and policies for retention which
were all necessary strategies prior to that age. He explained
that the proposed bill would communicate these strategies and
information on the importance of early literacy annually to the
parents. These communications would include a media campaign
with an internet website, as well as local television and
advertising programs for better recognition of the importance
for literacy proficiency by the third grade. He offered his
belief that the lay-off notification date for tenured teachers
and the transportation funding for the next three fiscal years
also contained in the proposed bill had already been discussed
in the committee.
8:18:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that a Conceptual Amendment
would be offered following the testimony.
8:19:42 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:19 a.m. to 8:22 a.m.
8:22:14 AM
CHAIR GATTIS brought the committee back to order.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked if the committee had already moved
a similar pupil transportation bill.
CHAIR GATTIS expressed agreement, and reminded the committee
that the sponsor had noted that bills similar to sections of
proposed SB 57 had already been moved by the committee.
8:23:34 AM
CHAIR GATTIS opened public testimony.
8:24:00 AM
JOHN ELCANTRA, Representative, National Education Association -
Alaska (NEA), said that he represented the 13,000 members of the
National Education Association - Alaska. He referred to a
letter submitted to the bill sponsor, dated March 18, 2013,
which had discussed the notification of tenured teachers
[Included in members' packets]. He reported that there was
considerable concern from teachers, especially those in the
"disciplines of art, music, and counselors, folks that are a
little outside the general education mainstream and are a little
more worried, rightfully so..." He pointed out that their
smaller numbers would allow for non-retention more quickly in
the current budget cutting environment. He suggested that a
date of April 20, or a few days following the adjournment of the
legislature, would be a more appropriate date for non-retention
notification to tenured teachers, as school districts would
better understand the upcoming budget. He offered a personal
anecdote regarding motivation and encouragement by his
daughter's music teacher. He declared support by the NEA for
proposed SB 57, only suggesting a change of date for
notification of non-retention.
8:28:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether job fairs would also
change dates in response to the date change in the proposed
bill.
MR. ELCANTRA expressed his agreement regarding the job fairs
held in Alaska, but he questioned a corresponding change for job
fair dates in other states.
8:29:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND reiterated that, once education funding
had been recognized, an earlier date was better.
MR. ELCANTRA expressed agreement that more time for non-retained
teachers to pursue their career was better.
8:30:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER commented that, as there were various
interpretations to the length of session, this could affect the
aforementioned date.
MR. ELCANTRA expressed his agreement.
8:30:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the aforementioned
NEA letter of support included in the members' packets.
8:31:31 AM
BRUCE JOHNSON, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, stated support by the membership for proposed
SB 57 as it would inflation-proof the pupil transportation costs
and contracts. He declared support for the early literacy
programs, as well. He indicated that school districts often
offered contracts and set non-retention dates that worked for
the area and in anticipation of legislative funding. He
declared the importance for retention of specialists and core
teachers through early action.
8:33:40 AM
MIKE COONS declared that, if NEA was against something, he
supported it. He stated that school administrations already
distributed non-retention notices prior to the finalization of
the education budget by the legislature. He noted that he was
unemployed and knew how to look for other jobs. He declared
that job resumes could be withdrawn if a job was available. He
declared his support for the date of May 15 in the current
version of the proposed bill.
8:35:41 AM
CHAIR GATTIS closed public testimony.
8:35:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 1, which
would add language to repeal Section 4 on November 1, 2015.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that, as there was intention for
"statewide coordinated pupil transportation contracts," the
Consumer Price Index adjustment would be in effect for the
school year, 2015, but this would allow for negotiation of new
transportation contracts without any provisions already in
place. He added that the sponsor of SB 57 had determined this
to be a friendly amendment.
8:37:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON declared this to be an important
amendment because of the possibility for increasing competition
for a statewide pupil transportation contract.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection.
8:38:17 AM
CHAIR GATTIS reminded the committee of a prior House Education
Standing Committee discussion on transportation, which had
agreed to "bridge the gap from now until those bus contracts."
8:38:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further information regarding a
date change from May 15 to April 20.
8:39:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that the fiscal note be revised
to reflect the date change.
8:39:34 AM
There being no further objection to Conceptual Amendment 1, it
was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX renewed her request for more information
regarding the date change.
8:40:10 AM
CHAIR GATTIS opened public testimony.
DEENA PARAMO, Superintendent, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District, said that the new date stipulated in proposed SB 57
was within the parameters for knowledge of school district
funding, and allowed the districts to ensure the best teachers
for the following school year. She declared that this date
worked for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District.
8:42:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there were concerns for
moving the date earlier in the year, as suggested by the NEA.
DR. PARAMO replied that the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District preferred the May 15 date, as it would take a
significant amount of time to get contracts prepared by April
20. She reported that the local contribution to the school
district was not determined until after the state legislature
had made its decisions.
CHAIR GATTIS closed public testimony.
8:43:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSSB 57 (FIN), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
HCS CSSB 57 (EDC) was moved from the House Education Standing
Committee.
HB 179-BROADBAND DISCOUNTS FOR SCHOOLS
8:44:09 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 179, "An Act providing for public school funding
for telecommunications or Internet services."
8:44:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BENJAMIN NAGEAK, Alaska State Legislature,
explaining the proposed bill, paraphrased from the following
prepared statement [original punctuation provided]:
The E-rate program provides federal funding for a
portion of a school district's telecommunication cost.
HB 179 will provide state funding for the portion not
covered by the federal discount. For FY 14 that
amount is approximately $13.8 million dollars.
This bill also allows school districts to increase
their bandwidth. Right now about 1/3 or approximately
170 schools have less than 10 megabits per second of
Internet services. HB 179 will allow school schools
below 10 megabits per second to come up to that
minimum level and receive state reimbursement. For
schools that are already at that level or higher, HB
179 allows those schools to increase 10% over their
prior year and receive state funding. This bill does
not limit any school district to higher increases but
does limit the state contribution at that point.
This bill will benefit all school districts across the
state. HB 179 will assists school districts with
their Internet needs and bring all schools across
Alaska to a minimum level of Internet services.
Thank you for again for hearing this bill today. I am
happy to answer any questions the committee may have.
My staff is available and there are people from the
Department online to answer questions as well.
8:46:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 170, labeled 28-LS0679\U, Mischel,
4/5/13, as the working draft. There being no objection, Version
U was before the committee.
8:47:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK explained the changes in the CS, and
paraphrased from the following prepared statement:
Removed "telecommunication" from the bill on advice
from the department.
Removed Title 1 references on advice from the
department.
For FY14 the state match would be the total of the
applicant's share. This is considered the "base
amount."
Beginning in FY15, for those school districts whose
Internet services are faster than 10 megabits-a-second
the amount they are eligible to receive is limited to
10 percent increase from the previous year's amount.
Beginning in FY15, for those school districts whose
Internet services are slower than 10 megabits-a-second
the amount they are eligible to receive can increase
more than 10 percent from the previous year's amount.
8:48:27 AM
PEGGY COWAN, Superintendent, North Slope Borough School
District, stated that the proposed bill supported all the school
districts in Alaska, as increased costs and flat funding created
a continuing challenge to provide the necessary student
programs. She declared that funding for internet services was
critical for education. It allowed the State of Alaska to
leverage federal funds for a percentage of district
telecommunications services. She encouraged support for
proposed HB 179.
8:50:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for an explanation of the E-rate
program.
8:50:23 AM
MS. COWAN explained that it was a per school determination, with
an application that required the school district to bid out its
telecommunication services. She stated that a formula,
established by poverty rates, would define the average
reimbursement percentage to each school district, with a
specific rate to specific schools. She compared reimbursement
percentages among various Rural Alaska school districts. She
noted that the amount of reimbursement was based on the amount
spent on telecommunication, but that the level of reimbursement
was based on federal poverty guidelines for the school district.
MS. COWAN, in response to Representative P. Wilson, said that
the proposed bill would allow her school district to receive an
increase of more than 10 percent reimbursement for internet
services up to 10 megabits-a-second, beginning in 2015. She
declared that this was a big step forward for rural school
districts. She reported that, currently, the rural schools in
her district had less than 3 megabits, compared to 100 megabits
in the Alaska legislative offices. She pointed out that any
school districts with more than 10 megabits would also be
eligible to increase funding by up to 10 percent.
8:54:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, asking about the Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development statewide broadband task force
to increase bandwidth for rural communities, questioned how the
proposed bill would "mesh with that effort."
MS. COWAN replied that, although proposed HB 179 would not solve
the broadband issue, it was a step in the right direction. The
populated areas of the state did not have the Internet access
issues that the rural areas had, and this was the concern for
the taskforce. She offered her belief that there would be an
attempt to bring up to 450 megabits to all the rural
communities. She clarified that the proposed bill would allow
the rural school districts to afford to utilize the current
technology, and make available distance courses in order for
students to compete for the performance scholarship. She
emphasized that this was not the fix that the task force was
researching.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER called attention to previous legislation
regarding bandwidth.
8:57:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked to clarify that each school
contracted for these services.
LINDA THIBODEAU, Director, Office of the Director, Libraries,
Archives & Museums, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), offered her belief that currently the
services were contracted through the school district, but that
the services in the proposed bill would go to each school
individually.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if it would be possible to have a
statewide contract for these services.
MS. THIBODEAU replied that it would be a huge leap forward
beyond the proposed bill, but that, conceptually, it was
possible. She explained that the E-rate requirements were for a
competitive bidding process, so that a school district would not
be required to buy from a provider.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked to clarify whether it would be
possible, and if the providers could bid for this contract.
MS. THIBODEAU explained that the providers would bid to the
school districts individually, and that the school districts
would buy from the cheapest option.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if a statewide approach would be
advantageous.
MS. THIBODEAU replied that it could be very advantageous, but
would require a lot of study.
8:59:47 AM
CHAIR GATTIS opened public testimony.
9:00:01 AM
DAVE JONES, Assistant Superintendent, Kenai Peninsula Borough
School District (KPBSD), stated support for proposed HB 179 and
said that, although it would only have a limited effect in the
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, it would provide great
opportunities for other rural areas of the state.
9:01:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked about the statewide contract
approach.
MR. JONES declared that services were currently bid on a
district wide basis and that the federal reimbursement was
determined on an individual basis. He said that the volume in
the district could bring the cost down, but he questioned that a
single company had the ability to service the entire state.
9:02:30 AM
DEENA PARAMO, Superintendent, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District, stated support for HB 179. She declared that her
school district invested heavily in technology and on-line
courses, to ensure that its students were well connected. She
pointed out that digital learning was an integral part of the
school district curriculum, and allowed students mastery of on-
line research methods and course work, in order to adequately
prepare for a future immersed in technology. She reported that,
as this was a responsibility of the school district, the
partnerships with service providers had increased the area
network for connection to more schools. She emphasized that
this connectivity had brought higher costs, which had been paid
by the community. She declared support for proposed HB 179.
9:04:13 AM
BRUCE JOHNSON, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, stated support of HB 179, declaring that it
would be beneficial for payment of ever increasing higher costs,
while providing greater internet access in Rural Alaska.
9:05:14 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), stated support of proposed HB 179, observing that
digital technology needed to be extended into the schools.
9:05:45 AM
CHAIR GATTIS closed public testimony.
9:05:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated his support for proposed HB 179.
He referenced page 7, footnote 8, of the Legislative Research
Report 00.007 titled "The Federal E-Rate Program and ASTF
Grants: Helping to Connect Alaska's Schools," dated March 17,
2000 [Included in members' packets]. The footnote pointed out
that although wireless connection in schools would be much more
cost effective, it would entail a change to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) rules. He suggested that this
could be a better long-term fix.
9:06:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked to clarify that the schools were not
able to utilize wireless internet access.
9:07:09 AM
CHAIR GATTIS explained that schools could use wireless but there
was a federal issue.
9:07:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 179, Version 28-
LS0679\U, Mischel, 4/5/13, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 179(EDC) was reported from the House
Education Standing Committee.
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.
9:56:47 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:56 a.m.
| 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 |