Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/06/2012 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Superintendent Presentation - Dillingham School District | |
| HB256 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 256-REPEAL STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOLS
8:48:50 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 256, "An Act repealing provisions relating to the
power and duties of the Department of Education and Early
Development to intervene in a school district to improve
instructional practices."
8:49:20 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), suggested that the role of leadership is a
function of responsibility versus authority. He said he accepts
full responsibility for the decisions regarding district
intervention that have occurred since being appointed
commissioner on 2/2/11, and acknowledged that, however
thoughtful, some actions may have been distressing. The three
primarily beneficiaries, of the department's focused mission,
are the students, schools, and educators. Citing Moore, et al.
v. State of Alaska, 3AN-04-9756 CI, (2010), he said the initial
premise was that the State of Alaska was not fulfilling the
constitutional obligation by not providing funding to adequately
educate the children. In the Moore decision, the court defined
the constitutional obligation of the state, which is to
establish and maintain, then stipulated a four prong approach
necessary to meet the requirements: a set of standards or goals
for the students; a means for assessing the students in regards
to the standards to establish progress; proviso for adequate
funding; and adequate accountability and oversight practices.
The court reprimanded the department for negligence in areas of
accountability and oversight. The department, he reminded,
establishes the standards, but the districts are allowed the
latitude for how to present a relevant education to meet those
standards; an important aspect in a state, as diverse as Alaska.
He pointed out that the Yupiit School District is not synonymous
with intervention, but it has been prominent in recent committee
discussion.
8:53:54 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY drew attention to page 6, of the committee
handout titled "Department of Education & Early Development
Testimony Regarding HB 256 February 1, 2012," and reviewed the
chart measuring the progress in the intervention districts from
2005-2010, according to the SBA (standards based assessments)
rating for reading proficiency. The Yupiit school district was
represented on the bottom line, indicating that about 25 percent
of the students have measured proficient in reading skills for
the past five years. He moved to page 7, to indicate the math
and reading data, similarly charted. The Yupiit School District
again measured the lowest proficiency rating, with a beginning
rate at 9 percent, when intervention began in 2005, a spike to
25 percent in 2007, and a leveling out by 2010 at 20 percent;
one out of five children are proficient. Continuing to page 8,
he explained that the data collected from the 2011 third grade
MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) assessment, demonstrates
that 77 percent of the students are in the first to tenth
percentile for reading, which he termed scary and heartbreaking.
What is not shown, he explained, is that within the first to ten
percentile, 80 percent are in the one to two percentiles, which
indicates a significant number of children who are not even
close to being proficient. He said growth is occurring and that
the latest advances are not yet chartable. He credited the
entire intervention team for the progress that is being made.
In 2007 when the court decided, under Moore, that the state was
negligent in oversight duties, it was found that the students in
the Yupiit district were not being exposed to the material
required in grades 8-10 to pass the required High School
Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE). The opportunity to study
material for the HSGQE didn't occur, the students could not be
tested, and hence the high school diploma could not be
contingent on the exam. The situation has been corrected and
the HSGQE is now a valid aspect of the district. Returning to
page 3, he referred to an excerpt from the Moore decision, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
For the State to fail to take a considerable more
directive role in the face of chronically poor
performance, at least for the children in Yupiit,
amounts to an impermissible 'legislative abdication'
of the State's constitutional responsibility to
maintain public schools in this state.
8:59:48 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY opined that the department has been slow to
react to the needs of the children, and offer assistance and
oversight when and where needed. The primary intervention
strategy is the role of the content coach who works directly
with teachers and principals. Coaches work to build capacity
within the school for teachers to provide continuity of learning
throughout the grades, helping students meet the standards. The
primary tool is installing Best Practices [in Teaching]. The
coaches are only able to visit a school for one week per month,
sometimes a few days, and he said the need exists to have them
there for longer periods of time. Referring to a letter from
Lance Jackson, Principal, Tuluksak Schools, undated, the
commissioner read the following [original punctuation provided]:
I think a lot of people want me to say that the state
intervention teams and assistance didn't help - but
that is not true. They did help. They were able to
help us when we were short in manpower, short with
necessary ideas and they were able to provide the
necessary leadership in critical areas like reading,
leadership, organizational skills and state needed
requirements.
Now, I cannot speak for the schools or speak for the
district and the states help in those areas. All I
can do is talk about Tuluksak.
Molli and her crew were able to provide some support,
advice, and a lot of necessary skills that we at the
time needed. It was and is a good relationship for us
to have them in our building.
After a while they were just part of the school and
the staff and they were almost part of the community.
The kids knew them, the staff welcomed them and our
facilities were open to them. It was easy to have
them here and it was easy to have them assist us. I
would dare to say that there was a significant level
of trust between both of our organizations.
So, as I mentioned - the state team helped. It worked
for us. Thank you for your help.
9:02:03 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said that the reaction to intervention
described in the letter is the department's goal, but whenever
an outside entity is imposed in an area the potential for
friction exists. Other intervention strategies, along with
coaches, include: technical assistance; grant writing help;
curriculum alignment; curriculum development; professional
development; and an assigned trustee. He explained how the
Yukon Flats District, an intervention district, did not have a
science curriculum of any type, but with urging, and grant
funding, the district was able to develop a relevant program.
Professional development training opportunities are also
provided, and last year a week long literacy institute was held
in Anchorage. One district, Yupiit, has an assigned trustee to
provide oversight. Yupiit has a SIG (School Improvement Grant),
and the trustee ensures compliance for funding purposes.
9:04:59 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY directed attention to page 5, of the
department's committee handout, and read an excerpt from the
Moore decision as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Even at schools in which student performance has been
extremely poor, and has shown no improvement for many
years, the State has failed to provide an adequate
oversight role with respect to either the considerable
State funds that it disburses or with respect to the
delivery of instruction to the children in those
schools. In short, the State has failed to take
meaningful action to maximize the likelihood that the
children in those troubled schools are accorded an
adequate opportunity to acquire proficiency in the
State's standards when a school has demonstrated an
unwillingness or inability to correct this situation
on its own.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY stressed the importance for the state to
ensure appropriate oversight, and said the department has been
reactive versus proactive. The Superior Court directed the
state to take a more active oversight role, specifically in
Yupiit, thus a trustee was assigned. He acknowledged that
having a presence of this type may be inherently difficult.
However, the role of the trustee is not to give directions, but
to provide suggestions to the district. One of the decisions
from the department has been to develop an exit plan for the
trustee by request of, and in conjunction with, Yupiit
Superintendent Howard Diamond.
CHAIR DICK agreed that it is important for the districts to
receive help from the department, and said the question is how
intervention assistance can be accomplished in a collaborative,
cooperative manner.
9:09:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA underscored the difficulty of working in
both the rural and urban settings of the state; two separate
worlds. She suggested that the thought processes may need to be
altered to view the situation differently, and called for
scrutinization of the lessons that have been gleaned through the
process. She noted that the department presentation did not
include what has been learned, and asked for reflective
comments.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the value of the indigenous culture has
been recognized, and cultural standards are embedded in the
curriculum. He emphasized the importance for allowing decisions
to be made at the local level. The states responsibility is to
establish the required standards and means for assessment, which
then affords the latitude for districts to develop curriculum to
meet the local interests. He reported having met in small
groups with members of AASG (Alaska Association of Student
Government), with representatives from rural areas, and said he
asked them what they expect from education. The students
expressed interest in being able to be employed beyond the
borders of their districts, and many have goals that reach
beyond the traditional subsistence life style. It is incumbent
upon the state to provide an education which allows any student
to attain their goals, he stressed. The department develops the
goals to be attained which will allow students to be successful
in whatever they choose to pursue, and the local district
determines how the standards will be met.
9:14:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed that particularly rural areas
may have difficulty receiving help from an outsider. The
presence of an appointed trustee, not from the area, who
observes and monitors versus assisting, could be perceived to be
a policing figure. She asked whether the role of trustee could
be metamorphosed to create a more workable relationship, and
suggested that a change of personality might prove helpful. She
agreed with the commissioner, regarding what the court mandated,
and the need for the department to take necessary action.
Further, she asked whether the science curriculum, developed for
the Yukon Flats district, has been made available for other
schools.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said it is available.
9:16:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that the commissioner has been on
the job for one year and four days, that this is the third
hearing of HB 256, and that it is the first opportunity for the
department to respond on the proposed legislation. He said:
The sponsor of the bill, and at least one other school
district, has said that the department has not worked
collaboratively and has violated the spirit and intent
of SB 285. The member from Bethel region
[Representative Herron] ... said that there is perhaps
an institutional bias against Western Alaska. ...
[Please] address those two ... claims.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the coaches have been well
received and appropriate collaboration was been reported. The
concern is primarily focused on the trustee, he noted. The
trustee has helped in several ways, he does not direct staff,
but he has helped to provide materials. The trustee has also
collaborated, he said, and offered several examples: SIG grant
oversight; procurement and introduction of MAP materials for
consideration by the district; insights into hiring the new
principal in 2011; and the trustee offers feedback to the
district superintendent following each visit. Regarding the
question of bias towards Western Alaska, he said a facility may
not conform to the department's growth model and be named an 872
School, cited in EED regulation 4 AAC 06.872 (c)(1)(2)(3).
These regulations provide indicators, outside of NCLB or AYP, to
identify whether a school is moving in the right direction.
Regulations contain specific parameters for how the desk and
instructional audits are to be conducted and the data utilized.
The audit results provide a basis for consideration of further
action, and the department maintains a comprehensive file on
every district to track schools in this manner. He maintained
that the process is very deliberate, and based on the
requirements of SB 285. The department's decisions for action
can be quantified through the 872 School data file.
9:21:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI recalled the sponsor's further concerns,
and said:
It seems that every school might be on the path to
intervention and ... the department ... only has a
subjective process in which to intervene.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that his previous comments address
the intervention process that is in place. Adequate Yearly
Progress, based on the NCLB act is not the tool the department
utilizes, because the department recognizes that in the year
2014, Alaska will not have attained the required 100 percent
level. Thus, NCLB is an erroneous tool to use. Under SB 285,
the department is required to notify the legislature if
intervention or redirection of funding is to occur in any
district; stipulating collaboration on the legislative level
prior to departmental action. He maintained that the decisions
are not truly subjective based the data.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that the content coaches are
reportedly helpful, well received, and could be used more, he
then queried reasons for the brevity of the coach visitations:
scheduling issues; funding needs; or other considerations.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY clarified that the coaches are not the
primary players, and provide limited assistance and insight. He
said that if a district needs a fulltime position, contracts and
funding would need to be considered and allocated. The personal
welfare of the coaches is also a concern. Many villages do not
have available facilities and the coach may have to campout on
the floor of the school. It can be difficult to maintain a
lengthy visit for some people, given these conditions. Also,
efficient use of the coaching staff is maximized to target the
appropriate schools.
9:25:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE opined that the Yupiit situation appears to
be a leadership issue. Establishing respect is a first
requirement in leadership, he noted, then asked how credibility
and experience is established when intervention is necessary.
Additionally, what experienced personnel are available and being
drawn on, at the department level, to enter an intervention
district and command respect and fellowship in a rural area.
Citing the Moore case, and the directive to do more, he noted
the pyramid management structure of schools: school board,
superintendent, principals, and teachers. He asked where EED
enters into this management structure for intervention purposes;
perhaps in place of the school board, or does a structural
change need to occur.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the state and federal law
allows EED the opportunity to clean house and replace boards,
staff, and superintendents; however, removing local control
would not have a positive impact on any community, he opined. A
workable model is required, and it is important to bring
strength to what exists.
9:30:30 AM
CHAIR DICK interjected that Mr. Sanborn's role as trustee may
not be a good fit. He reported having read the biographies of
all of the coaching teams, and said rural experience varies from
coach to coach. Also, the coaching requirements contain no
mention that participants be competent to utilize, demonstrate,
or implement the cultural standards. He offered that cultural
understanding is the only element that will bring success in the
village schools. The depth of experience required does not
exist within the department, he opined, and integration of the
culture has not occurred.
9:32:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled the competitive school
improvement grants, which provided two years of funding to
create working models in the schools. The intent was to collect
research on comparative models in similar school districts and
determine successful approaches. He noted that there are some
very successful rural schools, and asked if the department is
comparing the working models to what is occurring in the
intervention districts.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY replied yes, and said the growth table that
was a part of the performance pay model is part of what is used
today to identify low performing schools. He said a best
practices model is what is being considered fundamental; an
upward adopted curriculum.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reworded his question to ask whether the
successful rural school characteristics are being considered in
order to address similar issues in the intervention schools.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said yes, several aspects are comparably
important, which include direct connections to the community's
vision, support needs, and expectations. Other contributing
factors are outside of the department's control, which include
socio-economic challenges. He said a lack of vision and
community involvement plays a huge role.
9:36:37 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said in wrap-up that a moral and legal
obligation exists, but the best model for attaining the goals
remains nebulous. Also, the department may need to be doing
more in the districts rather than less. Regarding the
personality of the trustee, he reiterated that an exit strategy
is being devised.
9:38:35 AM
KIM LANGTON, EdD, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction,
Yupiit School District,
I am the assistant superintendent of instruction for
the Yupiit School District. I served as a principal
for fourteen years in two Utah districts and a private
school in Honduras. I have been superintendent over
Iditarod, Kuspuk and Denali Borough School Districts.
All schools in Denali made AYP during my tenure there.
Several of the schools in Kuspuk and Iditarod made
AYP, and continue today. I was president of CEAAC at
the time Moore was filed. Before the announcement
that Yupiit School District would be assigned a
trustee, I was hired to oversee instruction in the
Yupiit School District. I also direct the SIG grant.
Much of the conversation last week focused on the lack
of collaboration in the intervention efforts of DEED.
The following points were made:
1. Judge Gleason in Moore vs. State argued that
additional support was needed, particularly in the
Yupiit School District,
2. She stated that the support be done in a
collaborative manner,
3. We heard testimony that the state provides
experienced, capable content coaches,
4. The "plan" of support was and is being devised
while the plane is in the air,
5. The "plan" was/is devised in Juneau, specialists
were and continue to be hired and assigned by Juneau,
and direction comes from Juneau with minimal YSD
input.
We believe that DEED had and has the best intent.
However, the history of which I am aware, and the
reality I have experienced in the past year and a
half, gives a clear indication that the intervention
process was implemented with a strong philosophy that
the best way to turn a "failing" school district
around is to give mandates, create a plan from afar,
discount local efforts, programs, and training, and to
superimpose your vision on the district. Years ago, I
remember hearing about how intervention schools were
being treated by educators in the state, and recall
finding it hard to believe. Roger Sampson was the
commissioner, and was someone I deeply respected due
to his success in the Chugach School District,
arguably the finest educational system in the state.
That district earned its reputation not from top down
efforts, but from a collaboration of bottom up, top
down, and side-to-side efforts. Time and funding was
spent getting people together to study research-proven
best practices from wherever they could find them, and
all taking responsibility for effective implementation
of the plan about which all had a say.
The result was a turnaround success that serves
students in supporting dynamically increased
achievement, preparing students for work and life,
preparing them for and helping them get into Job Corp,
Avtec and colleges and universities, and overall
preparing them for bright futures. The changes in the
district were made in all aspects of their operation,
from the business office to the maintenance program.
This resulted in earning the Baldridge Award,
presented by President Bush in early 2001. From
scores of Chugach folks I have known over the years,
this was accomplished through the collaborative
involvement of folks throughout the organization.
This should be Alaska's model for a turn-around
district. It was and is collaborative, which not only
gives insight to its success but to its sustainability
as well. Nowhere in the turn-around literature are
there examples of a state taking over a district or
intervening in a top down manner with success. Years
ago the state determined that Yupiit's scores were
low, and put it on intervention status. From that
time the staff and leadership at Yupiit were treated
as if they had nothing to bring to the table, little
expertise of value to add to the discussion, and were
left virtually out of the discussion. Perhaps if
Commissioner Sampson had applied his Chugach
experience of utilizing, trusting and empowering his
staff and leadership with intervention districts
across the state, we would not be here today, and
Yupiit would be achieving at far higher levels. The
world offers a metaphor. DEED has operated in a
manner reminiscent of "nation building", where much
money is spent, quality expertise is focused, local
expertise is ignored, and the results are negative,
despite the huge cost.
Regarding the content coaches, we have asked that
these expert folks come and live with us, serve with
us, to truly enable them adequate time to work as
coaches with our teachers so that they could have a
deep and lasting effect on instruction. Commissioner
LeDeux and his deputy replied to our requests that we
would not be having any "boots on the ground." The
hiring of the trustee, especially given the timing,
was the wrong support for our teachers, especially
given his price tag, and the fact that he came,
according to him upon arrival, simply to observe. Not
to work with the teachers. Not even to work with
district leadership in the challenging work of turning
around the district. No boots on the ground, despite
paying for a trustee with boots on the ground for
weeks out of the month. No boots on the ground
despite receiving $7,000,000 from the legislature at
the end of the 2010 session, earmarked for
intervention districts. We would have welcomed that
money spent on more time with the coaches to enable
them to actually make a difference. The only change
we saw after the money was allocated was a trustee
sent to observe us.
Our principals, curriculum director, and district
leadership team are evaluating data, talking to
teachers and observing instruction. We determine
together what our needs are. We ask content
specialists to work with staff and provide specific
support. We often encounter resistance, our requests
unmet. When we fail to collaborate, instruction
suffers, students pay the price. If we are to make
full use of these content coaches, we need to work
collaboratively in how they are directed and utilized.
Why is collaboration so important? It obviously is
critical for building the kind of professional
relationship necessary to be successful. We are told
from the business world that we should be teaching
children to work collaboratively in groups to solve
problems. We certainly should be able to model what
it is we expect our students to do. Beyond that, it
is pragmatically recognizing the value of the
experience and expertise of those closest to the
children, the culture and the community where the
students live. If you discount the perspective and
insight gained there, you will fail.
In 2008-2009 Akiak had 40 percent of its students
proficient in language arts. In 2010-2011 only 32
percent were. In 2007-2008 47 percent were proficient
in math; in 2010-2011 25 percent were proficient.
Akiachak has remained desperately low in language
arts, from 15 percent proficient in language arts in
2007-2008 to 14 percent in 2010-2011. Academic
achievement, while low enough to earn a spot on the
intervention list, has gone progressively lower since
intervention. Our MAP (Measures of Academic Progress
assessment by Northwest Evaluation Association, NWEA)
scores show that over 70% of our students fall in the
1-10%ile in the RIT [Rausch Unit] scores. I do not
imply or believe it is all the state's fault. Much of
what they have done has value. We all take
responsibility for increasing academic achievement for
our students. I could spend hours talking about the
efforts we are making with the input and direction of
our new Curriculum director. But the case can and
must be made that the top down intervention process
experienced by Yupiit has failed.
Outside of intervention, interactions with the state
are very positive and productive. The leadership of
the current commissioner has given us hope. I
personally believe that had Mr. Hanley been
commissioner at the beginning, it would have been
initiated in a much more collaborative and mutually
respectful manner. The intent of this testimony is to
give statute an objective face that will serve
students, regardless the personalities serving at
DEED.
This is a situation where simple cooperation would go
a long way to better preparing our teachers for the
students they serve. The structure of intervention
needs to be fixed so that the district has a chair (or
two) at the table. We need mutual respect and
coordination. It is a shame that so much money has
been wasted due to poor planning, poor implementation,
poor or lacking organization, and an overall top-down
philosophy. We could argue forever over strategy,
research proven practices, what should the plan or
vision be, etc., but what cannot be argued is the
failure of the current effort. It can be fixed, but
only if everyone is at the table equally, fairly,
working together collaboratively to improve our
schools for our kids.
It is not so much a question of what, but how.
9:47:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT regarding trustee Sanborn, asked whether
it would it be helpful to have a larger presence with more
interaction.
DR. LANGTON responded that the school board members, and others,
would like to see more apparent, intentional, interaction. It
would be a plus if he were to be more hands on in his approach.
9:49:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that many of the comments have
been made in review of the intervention, and asked whether it
will be possible to build on the progress that has been attained
to and continue forward in a cooperative manner.
DR. LANGTON said it would be important to know what the content
specialist agendas will be when they arrive, and to have input
into the agenda. Recently a local teacher identified a specific
need, which could have been addressed by one of the specialists,
but it was not on the agenda, and could not be taken up despite
a number of e-mail exchanges. He said it reminds him of the old
saw "too many chiefs," but conceded that the situation has
improved with Commissioner Hanley. It would be important for
the district to have a seat at the table for decision making.
Statute defines how the intervention is to be handled, which can
be a complicating factor at times.
9:52:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that the trustee is being asked to
act as a co-superintendent and the coaches to become parallel
teachers. He said it is not clear what is being requested in
the way of collaboration.
DR. LANGTON maintained that the district has not experienced
added value from the presence of the trustee; not even in the
context of MAP or SIG. One issue is that new hires make up the
majority of the teaching staff, primarily arrivals from the
Lower 48. Each is a first year teacher finding their way in a
new locale, culture, and climate, as well as trying to adjust to
the challenges of turning a school around. He said these
teachers require direct, intensive, well modeled coaching. The
modeling takes time and the content specialists are available on
a limited basis, effecting minimal impact. Further, the
district has little say, and no pre-communicated understanding,
regarding what the specialists will address whenever they
arrive. It's a bit of a mystery, he finished.
9:56:13 AM
CHAIR DICK explained the need to fashion appropriate legislation
that creates a safe environment for districts coming under
intervention and to assist the department in the recovery
endeavor, regardless of the individuals involved.
[HB 256 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|