Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/22/2012 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Aleutians East Borough 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
8:30:31 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."
[Chair Dick passed the gavel to Representative Pruitt.]
The committee took an at-ease from 8:30 a.m. to 8:33 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 256, labeled 27-LS1171\E, Mischel, 2/21/1. Without
objection, Version E was before the committee.
8:33:16 AM
CHAIR DICK pointed out that a similar bill has been lodged in
the Senate [SB 194], which further validates the need for this
legislation to elicit a change in the current intervention
practices. The first element, of the proposed committee
substitute (CS), renames the requisite action to restoration
rather than intervention, which will set a more harmonious tone
to begin the work. Then the CS provides for an evaluation of
the Department of Education and Early Development (EED) by the
superintendents of the state as a means to promote
accountability and allow even the most remote school districts
to call official attention to needs that might otherwise go
unnoticed. Also, the CS eliminates the role of trustee, and
redefines the method of appointment and duties of the coaches.
Overall, the proposed language provides for a clear,
collaborative, inclusive, step by step strategy for improvement
to occur over a period of years, and provides the legislation
which the commissioner and attorney general both urged as
necessary, with the repeal of SB 285. The CS requires that EED
include a district representative when holding formal
conversations regarding intervention plans; thus ensuring that
the opinions of the local officials are included in "the loop."
Another element specifically addresses districts that are
comprised of 50 percent or more Alaska Native students. The
"Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsible Schools" are
stipulated as the guideline for developing improvement
strategies in these areas. He reviewed the history and
development, and summarized the content of the guidelines,
available in the committee packet. The current research based
education is based on the studies of a target audience which did
not include Alaska Natives, he opined. The proposed legislation
provides for appropriately directed research to be conducted and
included in the educational structure. Finally, the CS removes
EED as the sole authority for the redirection of district funds
and places the decision in the hands of a team comprised of
school district officials, in collaboration with the department.
8:40:34 AM
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, Alaska State
Legislature, provided a sectional analysis, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1- Department annual report:
Amends the requirements of the Department of Education
& Early Development's annual report:
Removes the reference to schools having a designation
of "in crisis" since that term is not defined;
Replaces the term "intervention", with restoration -
since that is the goal of efforts to assist local
school districts to improve instructional practices.
Adds a requirement that the Department report the
reasons for turnover in certificated personnel and
superintendents, not just report the numbers and
percentages.
Section 2- School and district accountability:
Requires the Department to give technical assistance
to a public school or district that receives a low
performance designation. This is in recognition that
smaller districts may not have the technical capacity
to devote the appropriate resources to developing a
district improvement plan.
MS.KREITZER emphasized that the court [decision of Moore, et al.
v. State of Alaska, 3AN-04-9756 CI, (2010)] noted this area of
accountability as a specific concern.
8:42:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to Section 2, and asked how
technical assistance is defined.
MS. KREITZER responded that the court summary may include
language which is broader than is actually contained in the
bill. The reference in the sectional analysis is meant to
encompass the kind of talent that is specific to creating a
school improvement plan, she explained, then continued the
presentation, paraphrasing from the prepared statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 3:
Adds a Department accountability section. This
section sets up a process for superintendents to
evaluate the Department as to:
Whether the staff was supportive of the district;
Description of the support received and an evaluation
of the support;
Quality of the level of contact the district had with
the Department;
Its reporting requirements; and
How the Department may improve services to the
district.
These evaluations would be summarized to lessen
personal identities and provided to the Governor,
Legislature, and Commissioner of Education.
MS. KREITZER elaborated on the importance of removing the
identities from the evaluation process, allowing for an arms-
length relationship, as a means to cultivate productive and
candid critiques. She then continued, the presentation
referring to, paraphrasing from the prepared statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 4- Duties of the department:
Amends the duties of the department to include more
cooperative opportunities for the department and
school districts.
Includes opportunity for school and district personnel
to participate in the Department's review of the needs
of Alaska's public schools toward the goal of
improving the schools.
In adopting regulations to implement improvements, the
regulations must include appropriate cultural
standards that must be included in instructional
practices in districts in which 50% or more of the
students are Alaska Native.
The Department must
Identify intensive learning opportunities for each
district.
Analyze community involvement and methods for
improving it.
Address teaching capacity, retention and development
and provide for technical assistance to teachers.
Ensure districts develop and maintain elective and
career and technical courses.
Notify a district of a low performance designation,
offer technical assistance consisting of predictable,
research-based strategies tailored to Alaska before
beginning state restoration activities.
Describe research-based strategies that target
educational performance.
The Department has to employ qualified personnel to
provide advisory/consultative services to districts.
However, these services must be consistent with AS
14.07.030(14), which is amended in this bill.
Restoration activities do not include hiring a
trustee.
Ensures that elective and career and vocational
courses are included in regulation as a minimum course
of study.
Removes the requirement that student proficiency be
tied solely to standards-based assessments. The
district must demonstrate three consecutive years of
improvement or measures identified as indicators of
student success and achievement under AS 14.03.123(f).
(Page 6, beginning at Line 23):
When a school is designated as low performing, the
rest of Section 4 sets out a collaborative, rather
than punitive process for the Department and the
district to work together to improve school
performance
After being designated a low performing school for two
years,
The Superintendent of the District and the
Commissioner shall select appropriate independent
experts to evaluate the school and prepare a report
for the Commissioner, the local school board and the
Superintendent. The report will also be made
available to the public through Internet posting of a
summary.
If a school is designated a low performing school for
a third year, there will be frequent consultations
between the Department and the staff at the school and
the Superintendent.
A School Improvement Team will be established
consisting of the Commissioner or his designee, the
district Superintendent, school improvement coaches, a
member of the local school board and a member of the
legislature.
The School Improvement Team will evaluate the school
for best practices applicable in Alaska relating to
major areas of school administration, governance and
instructional practices.
Section 5 - Powers of the Department:
Specifies that regulations adopted by the Department
related to restoration of a school or district must be
consistent with federal and state law and the superior
court's findings, dated February 4, 2009, in Moore v.
State of Alaska. These regulations must provide for:
Qualified employees to exercise supervisory authority
for instructional practices in the district or in a
school.
Training and other support as necessary to implement a
school or district improvement plan.
Regular monitoring, evaluation and modification of
improvement efforts tailored to the strengths and
weaknesses of the school or district.
Availability of courses and remedial programs
necessary for students in these schools to meet state
standards for graduation in the expected time frame.
Section 6 - Powers of the Department:
Before the Department may redirect public school
funding for a low performing school, the department
must:
Assemble a school improvement team and that team must
have requested funding to be redirected for a
specified purpose related to improving instructional
practices.
Provide notice to the legislative committees with
jurisdiction over education.
Provide notice to the district and provide an
opportunity for the district to respond.
Establish a timeline for redirecting the funding back
to the district after the team determines improvement
has occurred.
Section 7 - Powers of the Department:
Adds language to codify the cooperation that should
exist when instructional coaches and expert staff are
brought in to assist a low-performing school or
district.
Section 8 - State Board of Education Duties:
Requires the State Board of Education to review the
Department's compliance with its statutory
responsibilities related to school monitoring,
improvement and restoration.
Requires the Board to provide the Superintendent and
local school board who are the subject of an item for
consideration on the Board's agenda to be provided
notice that the item is on the agenda and an
opportunity to respond.
8:50:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT referred to Section 3, regarding the
requirement to have superintendents from other districts
involved in the evaluation process, and asked about the
effectiveness, and applicability of comments from someone who
may not be familiar with the area under intervention.
MS. KREITZER suggested that it would be similar to an emergency
medical debriefing, as might occur during an emergency medical
team (EMT) response. Further, she opined that an outside voice,
with related experience, can provide important situational help
to assist in moving beyond a sticking point.
8:54:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON interjected that the superintendents
tend to relate to each other and inherently provide mentorship
support that surpasses district boundaries.
8:55:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the CS, Section 1,
page 2, line 14, and asked whether the intent is to conduct
teacher exit interviews.
CHAIR DICK responded that paragraph (8) directs the department
to make a best effort survey for discovery of why teachers leave
a restoration district. The current exit data has been gathered
informally and is incomplete, thus, it provides minimal
information to assist districts with teacher retention.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the CS appears to create
a mandate to have a survey completed, which would need to become
an aspect of the statewide teacher contractual agreements. He
suggested that if the intention is to gather more thorough
information via a superficial effort, that the requirement not
be placed in statute.
MS. KREITZER offered that contractual concerns would not enter
into the requirement, as any district may choose to conduct an
exit survey. She suggested that every district has a desire to
gain a better understanding of teacher turnover, particularly in
view of the expenses involved when hiring replacement staff.
Requiring a district to make inquiries, summarize the
information, and report findings to the department, should not
prove burdensome to a district, she opined.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed; however, he said that the CS
places the onus for information gathering directly on the
department, not the district.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated her understanding that, although
the language stipulates that the department shall report to the
legislature, EED is not the required source of the data, thus
leaving the charge for compiling the information open for
determination.
8:58:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI turned to the CS, Section 3, page 2,
line [29], to reference the term "shall" and asked what if a
district chooses not to provide a departmental evaluation; does
a consequence exist.
CHAIR DICK responded that the intent is to provide a
superintendent the opportunity to evaluate the department's
actions, and agreed that the language may need amending, as part
of the committee process.
9:00:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired about the possibility of
adopting the bill as a three year pilot program; allowing for
feedback and review.
CHAIR DICK agreed on the plausibility.
9:02:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT referred to the analysis of Section 4, and
paraphrased the language which read [original punctuation
provided]:
There will be frequent consultations between the
Department and the staff at the school and the
Superintendent.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT noted that concerns have arisen due to the
current intervention scheme, and asked what differentiates HB
256.
CHAIR DICK explained that the intent is to ensure collaboration
in choosing the coaches, as well as throughout the entire
process.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed that intervention is a sensitive
issue and a hostile environment needs to be avoided; however,
the department needs to keep districts on track to meet specific
goals and appropriate expertise must be made available.
CHAIR DICK referred to the committee packet handout titled
"Sequence of Assistance," which delineates the HB 256
intervention stratagem. He suggested hearing from the invited
witnesses to gain a better understanding of what is occurring
and what is being proposed.
9:06:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated support for the efforts of the
current commissioner, and asked to have his comments put on
record.
9:07:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT passed the gavel back to Chair Dick.
DR. NORMAN ECK, Superintendent, Arctic Northwest Borough School
District, testified in support of HB 256, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am Dr. Norman Eck, superintendent of Northwest
Arctic Borough School District. We have 1950 students
in 12 schools in our 11 villages. None of our villages
are accessible by roads and all supplies have to be
flown in. I have been employed in Northwest Arctic
for 14 years, one year as a Director, 5 ½ years as
principal, and now I am in my 7th year as
superintendent.
I appreciate this opportunity to speak with you today.
I support changes in language in School Intervention
law. We need to be sure we have as an objective
Intervention process as possible. We need to focus on
what things are needed based upon the local school
situation and listen to local voices as well as
provide guidance and support to the educational
programs in place.
It does little good to go back and complain about past
problems or grievances with the Department of
Education over how we were treated when Northwest
Arctic was under Intervention by the department.
However, now that we are working to craft a better and
improved process and model for Intervention, it is
valuable to look at past mistakes, mistakes of my own
district and mistakes of the Department of Education,
in order to put in place an Intervention process that
will be a positive model for students, staff,
community and school. Working together, and placing
the needs of students above all else, we can do this.
First, we must have an objective process for
Intervention within a school. To place an entire
district under Intervention may not be what needs to
be done. For example, Northwest Arctic, as an entire
district was placed under Intervention on account of 3
schools with poor academic achievement, but a number
of our schools were doing very well. Additionally,
when Northwest Arctic was placed under Intervention,
two other districts were also placed in Intervention
at the same time, Yupiit and Lower Yukon. However,
there were 7 other districts with student achievement
scores lower than Northwest Arctic, but those
districts were not placed under Intervention. The
placement of Northwest Arctic seemed to me to be a
political placement rather than an objective
placement.
Second, programs that are considered "best practices"
in general by educators on a State or National level
may not be strategies that work well in some of our
isolated rural villages. We need to look at the local
situation and evaluate what can work best here and
then look at choices and see what the local capacity
is for program change. In the case of Northwest
Arctic the Department of Education dictated specific
"best practices" and had given instructions to
observers and consultants to come and do certain
things that were in conflict with what is the best
program or action to take locally. Much of this
failed.
Third, the current instructional improvement plan that
the local district or school may have in place needs
to be looked at and worked with before it is thrown
out or over-written by a new plan that is dictated by
the Department of Education. In our case, when
Intervention was put upon Northwest Arctic we already
had an excellent improvement plan in place. We
already had contracted with certain consultants to
help us in a constructive manner. We were forced to
use the Department of Education's plan, and then
overlay that plan and the Departments consultants in
our schools.
Fourth, the Department of Education, alone, lacks the
depth of knowledge and expertise to conduct the
Intervention process. Even today, the situation in
the Yupiit District is one of conflict with the local
district instead of working in concert and supportive
of the District and its administration. For example,
expertise from other Districts in the State can be a
most valuable resource for advice to a fellow District
in need. School Board members from other similar
Districts can be a resource and support to the local
District Board members in need. Surveys and
inventories of processes and programs should be
undertaken. Other Districts with similar professionals
can be a most valuable resource to the Intervention
School and the Department of Education in these cases.
These are good reasons to be concerned about the
Intervention process and how it has worked and not
worked, well. In the case of Northwest Arctic, we
were fortunate to be able to establish good
relationships with the head consultants assigned to
our District, John Holst and Richard Hebhardt, over a
period of 4 years. We learned from them and they each
learned from us as we worked together to improve
services to students.
Finally, I want to commend the Department of Education
for releasing Northwest Arctic from Intervention in
August of 2010. In August of 2011, Yukon-Koyukuk was
released from Intervention. A national statistic is
that only 5% of districts that have gone under
Intervention have been released from Intervention.
I want to commend the Department of Education and the
Governor for the settlement in the Moore Case. The
process for providing targeted assistance to low
performing schools as lined out in Moore Settlement
can be very instructive to us. The solutions are not
dictated or directed by any one party, but by a coming
together of parties, listening to the needs of the
local school, and providing help that is requested by
the Intervention School in the categories authorized
in the agreement. In this way, much can be
accomplished.
Finally, for successful Intervention (or a better term
is school improvement), a process of assistance must
be detailed that will provide supports for the
students, teachers, administrators, communities, and
school board. Districts that need help must be
afforded a process of Intervention that truly assists
the schools to enable improved student academic
performance through targeted assistance in terms of
personnel, policy, and finance for specific programs.
9:16:21 AM
DOUG CONBOY, Superintendent, Kashunamiut School District,
provided historic testimony, to review the intervention process,
paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
I began my tenure as Supt of Schools in Chevak in July
of 2009. I knew early on of several important issues
that were going to need to be addressed. For starters,
the Curriculum was in disarray, the leadership of the
district had undergone significant change with a new
Principal and Superintendent and there were several
folks on the teaching staff new to Chevak.
We had started the clean-up of the curriculum in April
of 2009 shortly after I had accepted the position of
Superintendent by looking for a reading program, we
wanted this program to be literacy based, and scoped
and sequenced for grades K-8. We found that in the
Treasures reading program. We also made sure that KSD
had a team in the state sponsored Curriculum Mapping
Institute workshops scheduled for the fall of 2009.
My second effort was to work at improving the learning
environment; to that end we contracted with PEAK to
train our staff in best practice for teaching and
learning.
In September of 2009 I was contacted by DEED and told
that some DEED people would be coming to Chevak for a
visit. I asked what the nature of this visit would be
and was told it would be purely supportive in nature.
That visit took place over a two or three day period
shortly thereafter. In meetings with DEED staff we
were asked what we saw as problems in our district,
and also what we planned to do to address those
problems.
After laying out what we had identified as our most
pressing issues and showing the DEED staff what we had
planned to address them, we were praised for what had
been done and for the direction we were taking to make
improvements. DEED staff asked that we document our
efforts and record progress. KSD staff was already
doing that and we continued to monitor what we were
doing noting problems and the adjustments we were
making along the way toward the goal of implementing
our plan. This kind of re-tooling of the delivery of
education services takes time and our plan was to work
on this over a much longer period of time than one
school year.
This was communicated to the DEED staff with favorable
reactions from them.
Later that same school year, a group charged by DEED
to conduct an Instructional Audit of our district
contacted me. After asking several questions of this
audit group I was told that the audit came as a
mandate from DEED and that it would occur in early
March. We were then presented with a lengthy list of
materials and items that the auditors would want to
see when they came as well as a list of people they
would want to interview as part of their job in
Chevak.
These Auditors referred to their work as an
"investigation", I took exception to this and asked
them if we had done something wrong or had broken a
law? At that point they said no and tried to assure
me that what they would be doing was not to find
wrongdoing but to help us. We took considerable care
in preparing a portfolio for them containing all the
information they had requested and a schedule of the
people they wished to interview with dates and times.
After receiving the portfolio the auditors called back
to tell us that they wanted to change the schedule
around. They were told that there would be no
schedule changes. The auditors were being allowed to
disrupt our daily schedule already and that level of
disruption was not going to increase. We provided
them everything they had asked for in our portfolio
and we would adhere to the schedule in it.
The audit was conducted over a three-day period in
March of 2010. Several weeks later we received the
report from the audit. In that report, we were told
things we already knew, curriculum was weak,
assessment also weak, leadership not strong, learning
climate quite good, etc., etc. All of these things
were the same as we had discussed and gone over with
DEED staff back in September. However the report was
written in such a way as to indicate that this was
news to us. In late April or Early May of 2010 I
received a call from DEED in response to this audit
report. The purpose of the call was to offer me some
"quick fixes". At that point I lost patience and
strongly disputed the concept of a "quick fix". First
there is no such thing as a quick fix for education,
second if there were quick fixes, why wasn't DEED
telling schools about them before they got in trouble?
In essence this call was made to tell me to do what we
were already doing about problems we already knew
about. Again I got the impression that we were
regarded as too stupid to know what the problems were,
and also too stupid to know what to do about them.
My questions:
How much money did it cost to send the DEED staff to
Chevak in September?
How much more money did it cost to first pay the
auditors and then bring them to Chevak, to do a
totally redundant report?
What happened after the visit from DEED staff in
September to demand this audit? From my perspective,
it had to be that we were not trusted to do what we
said we were going to do about the problems we had
identified.
What sense does it make to expend this amount of funds
and time to tell schools things they already know and
then order them to do things they are already doing?
Is this a reasonable use of state money?
Given what seems to be a scarcity of funding at
present, I cannot help but think that this expenditure
should have been avoided due its total redundancy.
The individuals involved here were doing what was
asked of them. As such, I have no hard feelings
toward any of the people mentioned here. I do take
exception to a course of action that is redundant and
wasteful of both time and funds.
9:23:18 AM
JERRY COVEY, Education Consultant, Former Commissioner of
Education, said it is important that EED be allowed to intervene
in districts that are consistently below standards, and
expressed concern for how intervention occurs. He addressed
Representative Pruitt's inquiry regarding the collaboration of
superintendents from other districts, and said that local
decision making may not be the best approach. It is often
helpful to have an outside perspective, which might offer an
objective and validating opinion. Intervention by nature may
initially put people at odds, he said, and not everyone has the
same capacity, understanding, and motivation to effect change.
He stressed the need to objectify key points of the process. He
agreed with Representative P. Wilson that the bill could be
launched as a pilot program and reviewed on a timeline basis.
He said the trick lies in the deployment and delivery of
services that are supportive, influential, and respectful. The
challenges are immense, particularly considering the geographic
and winter conditions in the state. A collaborative effort on
the frontend is imperative and would represent an appropriate
response, he opined.
9:29:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered that the initial contact can be
uncomfortable in a village setting, and the beginning of the
collaborative process may be difficult; however through
perseverance improvement will become apparent, she predicted.
MR. COVEY said that collaboration requires time, commitment,
respect and an appreciation for a variety of viewpoints. Given
positive intent there is a possibility to move forward and he
said the bill will provide a structure to support that type of
work.
9:32:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that the testimony has indicated a
lack of collaboration, during the recent interventions. He
asked for comment from the commissioner's office to describe the
experience from the department's perspective.
MR. COVEY stated support for the means by which the bill
outlines intervention. He offered a description of how a
collaborative process would take place, beginning with an
agreement of the facts, followed by commitment to a plan, which
may include delivery of services, and the implementation of
agreed upon strategies.
CHAIR DICK added that accountability standards are a key aspect.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI opined that some language could be
considered subjective, and cited Section 1, page 2, line 14, and
Section 3, page 2, line 31. Further, he asked about the
anonymity factor that has been raised, and whether that would
cultivate transparency in the process.
MR. COVEY said that a standardized format could be generated to
gather and report data regarding why teachers leave districts;
without data nothing can be reported. Further, he said it is a
common practice for organizations to self-evaluate, and an
objective approach could be devised to collect valid data for
improvement purposes.
9:38:40 AM
CHAIR DICK interjected to provide an example of how a current
REAA superintendent has been confounded by departmental
priorities regarding school maintenance funding. In the example
the superintendent understood that his district was number 25 in
the order to receive funding; however, distribution only
extended to the first 20 schools on the list. The
superintendent then assumed that the following year, his would
be ranked as the fifth for funding, but instead became number
53, which has resulted in confusion and frustration on the part
of the REAA. Although accountability for this type of action
should be forthcoming, a response has yet to be offered by the
department. The department should be held answerable to these
types of reasonable questions, he opined.
9:39:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT suggested that codifying collaboration
requirements is not easy, and asked whether it's entirely
necessary.
MR. COVEY expressed his belief that although it is not plausible
to legislate collaboration, an appropriate process can be
established. The department sought and received the authority
to intervene, as was necessary under NCLB directives. He
suggested that the process could have been better crafted, with
additional considerations given, prior to inception, and
modifications that have occurred have not been satisfactory.
The proposed bill provides a formalized, objective means to
accomplish the task in a more thoughtful manner, he opined,
stating that it is a step in the right direction.
9:43:46 AM
CHAIR DICK referred to the "Sequence of Assistance" committee
handout, and reviewed the three year approach. He paraphrased
from the document, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Year 1
By Sept 15, the district needing assistance will be
evaluated by independent recognized expert(s) in the
areas that may include: business services, board
governance, leadership, maintenance, human relations,
instruction and the degree of community interaction
with the school and preparedness of students to learn.
By Oct 15, the report will be made available. By Nov
15, the superintendent and DEED will choose a coach to
address the needs identified by the independent
expert(s).
CHAIR DICK said that in the first step responsibility for
improvement is identified, and includes the parents as well as
elements of each component to be considered. He continued
paraphrasing from the document, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Year 2
The superintendent will choose a second coach.
Agreement with DEED is not necessary. The existing
plan will remain in place. Resources, like content
and technical coaches as well as teacher mentors, may
be made available.
CHAIR DICK elaborated that the superintendent is allowed the
latitude to choose a second coach, not in collaboration with the
department, in order to work closely on specific aspects. He
continued paraphrasing from the document, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Year 3
A team will be formed that will evaluate the results
of the original restoration plan (RP1). The Team will
develop a three year restoration plan (RP2).
The school board will be part of the Team. The Team
will include: 1) DEED; 2) Superintendent; 3) Coaches;
4) School Board; and 5) Member of Legislature.
CHAIR DICK said a member from the legislature will be an
important team member, due to the educational oversight
responsibility held by the state. He conjectured that if the
Yupiit representative had initially been involved in the
intervention within his district, the process may have unfolded
differently. He continued paraphrasing from the document, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
The Team will develop a three year plan (RP2). A copy
will be sent to the parents, DEED, and Legislature.
The information will also be posted on the school
website. The team will additionally consider all
aspects of local education, technology, maintenance,
admin, etc.
9:46:49 AM
CHAIR DICK explained that a certain amount of superintendent
turnover is experienced and local politics are an important
aspect to be considered. An outside voice can be helpful in
handling some situations, particularly in a small community
where personalities are well known, and he provided an example
to clarify the point. The superintendent is likely to be
entirely immersed in the local environment, which would hamper
certain actions on his/her part. Further, parents also need to
be held accountable and the coaches from outside of the
community may be in the best position to approach, rally, and
solicit participation from family members.
9:49:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT expressed concern, stating that the
involvement by the department appears to be minimal. He
indicated that if a lawsuit were filed, EED would be the named
defendant, and suggested that it would be important to include
more involvement on the part of the department.
MR. COVEY agreed that equality of voices is important and a
balance needs to be found among participants. He then referred
to Chair Dick's comments regarding the need for assistance from
outside experts, to stress that this is a valid point.
Additionally, he said that conducting a broad base analysis of
the situation is necessary to consider the variety of
contributing factors, and should include system reviews of
elements such as teacher housing, instructional leadership and
support within the district, school board decisions, and
facility maintenance.
9:53:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned the three-year time frame.
CHAIR DICK pointed out that NCLB is a five-year process: Year 1
notification is given to the district, Year 2 students are
allowed the opportunity to relocate to another school, which is
not applicable in the majority of Alaskan districts, Year 3
students can request/receive free tutoring provided by the
district, Year 4 restructuring occurs, and Year 5 radical action
occurs. The approach proposed in HB 256 consolidates the effort
into a concise plan: Year 1 the problem is perceived and
coaches and other help are provided, Year 2 additional help is
sought, and Year 3 a firm three-year plan is developed.
MR. COVEY added that the bill addresses the need for
collaboration at the district level. Flexibility exists in the
plan, which allows a district to enter the process at the
applicable stage, and may not require three years to complete.
Finally, he stated support for HB 256 and said it presents an
opportunity for better services to be provided.
9:57:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said that a single district may have
several schools with perhaps only one not meeting AYP, and
suggested the need for this scenario to be considered.
[HB 256 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS HB 256 Intervention 21012.pdf |
HEDC 2/22/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| CS HB 256 Intervention Sponsor Statement 022112.docx |
HEDC 2/22/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| CS HB 256 Version E 022112.pdf |
HEDC 2/22/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| HB 256 Supporting Testimony Dr. Eck 022212.pdf |
HEDC 2/22/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |