Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/05/2002 03:04 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 352-SCHOOL PERFORMANCE REPORTS Number 0157 CHAIR DYSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 352, "An Act extending the dates for assignment of performance designations of public schools and the dates for reports and monitoring based on those designations; and providing for an effective date." [Amendment 1 had been adopted on 2/21/02. Amendment 2 had been placed before the committee on that date and discussed; the full text is found in the 2/21/02 minutes.] Number 0172 ED McLAIN, Ph.D., Deputy Commission of Education, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development (EED), thanked Representative Dyson for his earlier meeting with EED personnel regarding the proposed language [in Amendment 2] to address the reporting of district efforts to involve the community in establishing behavior standards. He reported that the current processes were discussed in that meeting; as a result, [EED] had drafted a letter outlining the procedures for [EED and school districts]. DR. McLAIN offered that reporting of this issue was the main concern [addressed in Amendment 2]. He said, "We wanted to commit for the record that we think that that reporting does make sense." He noted that EED has found a way to [procedurally accommodate this reporting]; the aforementioned letter outlines the procedures for doing so. He concluded, "It's my understanding that this would address the concern that was raised in Representative Dyson's proposed amendment, and we're hoping that with this process laid out, ... that concern is alleviated." [Committee aide Jason Hooley, in response to a question, indicated Chair Dyson had offered Amendment 2 at the February 21 hearing; it had not been adopted or voted on.] Number 0288 CHAIR DYSON recounted that several years ago, the legislature passed into law a school safety and behavior bill; it required each school to go through a community process to establish community-supported behavior and safety standards for the school. The bill also provided protection for teachers and administrators for enforcing the standards and following the procedures, provided the school had a discipline procedure in place. He said: To my dismay, there's no written record or ... evidence that any schools have been aggressively following the law. So, in a ... slightly clumsy fashion, I was attempting to amend into this bill a requirement for the reporting of the process of [these] behavior and safety standards. CHAIR DYSON reported that [EED] has convinced him this isn't the most appropriate way to accomplish it; furthermore, [EED] will accomplish this through regulation. "That's what they've put before you in writing," he added. He drew attention to the EED letter dated March 7 to superintendents [that will inform administrators of the new procedures]. CHAIR DYSON withdrew [Amendment 2] for the foregoing reasons. He noted that the main bill [with Amendment 1's typographical correction] was before the committee. Number 0450 CHAIR DYSON asked about the three types of designations: one used with schools in need of improvement under Title I and the [Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)]; one passed by the legislature one or two years ago; and one introduced by the federal government. DR. McLAIN agreed with Chair Dyson's synopsis of the first two types of designations; he elaborated on the federal designation, saying, "They're giving new guidelines on how they wanted to [have] the fed part revised and broadened. The current fed - the one that's out now - really refers only to Title I schools." DR. McLAIN estimated only 270 schools of Alaska's 506 schools are designated as Title I schools. Those 270 schools are the only schools covered by the current set of [federal designations]. He said the new U.S. House Resolution 1 [the reauthorization of the ESEA] takes a much broader [approach to designations], requiring states to have a designation system for all schools. Number 0479 CHAIR DYSON asked if the [U.S. Department of Education (DOE)] has identified the new designations it is requiring. DR. McLAIN replied that they indeed have. He asked Mark Leal to expound on that matter. Number 0550 MARK LEAL, Director of Assessment, Teaching and Learning Support, Department of Education and Early Development, stated that the ESEA talks about "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) and sanctions for schools that do not make adequate yearly progress. The ESEA does not address the higher designations such as "distinguished" that a school might receive, he offered. The ESEA is very specific about what Alaska would call an "in crisis" designation based on test scores, and it is very specific about the definition of AYP for students and subgroups in the state. Number 0590 CHAIR DYSON inquired if United States H.R. 1 automatically supersedes the old designations. DR. McLAIN responded: It will. It was very specific ... in that it will replace [the old designations]. But the schools that are already in that process are not grandfathered - ... they will continue. So if a school is already in year two or year three [as a school improvement site], they will continue. ... They will not get a chance to start over. ... We do have 11 to 13 schools that have been designated as school improvement [sites]. CHAIR DYSON asked for clarification about the name of the designation for [Title I] schools needing improvement. MR. LEAL offered that it is "school improvement site." CHAIR DYSON asked whether one of the new federal categories fits that name, "schools in need of improvement." DR. McLAIN replied that the federal designation of "school improvement site" is synonymous with the state designation of "school in crisis." CHAIR DYSON pointed out that ["school in crisis"] is the existing state name and suggested that [EED] might want to change that name. Number 0688 MR. LEAL replied that [EED] has not proposed [to change the designation name]. He noted that currently the main task is to try to bring "these two pieces of legislation together ... under one system" and ensure that the state is following the new federal laws. CHAIR DYSON asked, "So the feds have already made provision for the existing ... Title I, that it'll ... fit under the new federal [requirements]? ... What you've got to do is make sure the state's [designations] conform to the new H.R. 1?" He asked why this alignment will take two years. Number 0730 MR. LEAL noted that this proposal [for a delay] was initially offered to allow [EED] to implement the [designation] model that the School Designator Committee determined to be the most fair: a model using one-third status and two-thirds growth. It would take [EED] at least another year to obtain growth data, he reported; then, to capture the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE) results from 2004 along with data showing graduation rates, the two years were requested. MR. LEAL told members [EED] is now trying to evaluate how it will make the state's model fit with the new federal requirements. He said, "I'm not a hundred percent sure - and we don't have the direction yet from the federal government - whether the model that we have proposed is ... going to fit with the federal model." He offered that his inclination is to develop the best possible model, rather than hurry the process along. Number 0819 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted his support for the delay. He asked, "What is the point of the performance designations? And if a school, say, is declared 'in crisis,' what does that mean? And what are the teeth in this that would cause a school in crisis to change?" Taking money away from a school in crisis will obviously not help it improve, he offered. Likewise, a school that has done a superior job shouldn't be penalized for that good job. He inquired how the state will ensure that these [designations] will work. Number 0875 DR. McLAIN replied that [EED] wants to use the federal allowances in the new law to combine with other money and supports provided at the state level. The specific federal dollars, sanctions, and rewards are varied, he noted. For example, one specific federal provision pertains to school improvement sites; it calls for the district to set aside 20 percent of its Title I funds for two activities: to provide transportation to students who attend the failing school and to provide supplemental services. DR. McLAIN pointed out that Dr. Susan Sclafani, Counselor to the U.S. Secretary of Education, had addressed this provision with EED personnel during her recent visit to Juneau; she'd recognized that this provision for transportation and supplemental services was designed with Lower 48 urban areas in mind. These urban areas are places where students could get on a bus to go to another school; there might be, for example, a Sylvan [learning] center or some tutors nearby to send students to. He indicated that both EED personnel and Dr. Sclafani acknowledge that more work needs to be done at the state and federal levels to address the ramifications of this provision for isolated communities and schools for which transportation to another place is not feasible. He said: That's the kind of detail that we need to work out with them, but that is the kind of answer that the feds have in terms of additional dollars that could not just be spent for "business as usual." [The funds] must be targeted for those sort of ... purposes. Number 0971 DR. McLAIN expressed his understanding that [EED] must define, by the end of the summer, the criteria for being on the list of providers for supplemental services. He noted that Alaska and other states are in conversation with the U.S. Department of Education because this subject is new to them. DR. McLAIN acknowledged some concern on EED's part regarding what it means to allow someone to be on the list of providers for supplemental services. For example, if a Mr. Jones wants to be a tutor, [EED] has to decide: What are the criteria for allowing him to be on that list? What is [EED's] liability? What does it mean for someone to be on that list? Dr. McLain stated that if Mr. Jones provides supplemental services but shows no progress in two years' time, he can be dropped [from the list of providers]; however, [EED] must define how to determine what adequate progress is. These are the kinds of details [EED] is working on with other states to ensure it is a solid piece, he added. Number 1041 DR. McLAIN continued: We're hoping ... the budget that was proposed had additional state dollars that we were asking to have put into place: the $2-million fund to provide some targeted instruction and targeted support for the low- performing schools; and then $2 million, a request that the administration had for a fund, for the high- performing [schools]. If there's a model out there that is indeed working, we want to support that and perhaps use that as a model for other schools that might find themselves serving similar [populations]. That's still in our request, but that would be the kind of a state dollar that would accompany [the federal funds]. DR. McLAIN said in addition to the 20 percent set-aside, as [school improvement sites] pass into their third and fourth years of the plan, the federal government allows the state to become increasingly directive. Instead of just giving the money over, the state can become more restrictive about what is done with that money. In any case, school [improvement sites] will have to show their programs are based on a proven methodology and research. He said: What we have to do, between now and the beginning of this next year, is set up what's our criteria. How do we define that? So we've got a lot of rulemaking that we have to do internally [and] get out to the districts. And that's, again, to come back to the question of why are we looking for the delay. We think those are pretty critical questions and we want to be able to turn our attention to that. Number 1122 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked whether the 20 percent set-aside was new federal money or money taken from some other school or district. DR. McLAIN indicated EED has only seen general, large-budget categories from the federal government, and wants to ensure that the [20 percent set-aside is new money]. He said when Dr. Sclafani met with EED personnel to discuss Title I monies, EED was told an additional approximately $8.5 million [is being made available]. He said he'd be more comfortable after he'd had time for more careful review. DR. McLAIN expressed his understanding that the intended source of the 20 percent set-aside is new money. School improvement sites that fail to improve will experience increased control over [all Title I funds, not just the 20 percent set-aside]. He said [EED personnel] have discussed with federal personnel the issue of district-level decisions about many of the instructional resources at a particular site. That site might not have direct control over such decisions as staffing and other resources. He noted that this is a very important issue. Both he and Mr. Leal have been site and district administrators; he stated, "We want to make sure that we've got that process well in hand before we start going out with ... chipped-in-stone rules." Number 1246 CHAIR DYSON offered his understanding of the federal regulations: that the 20 percent comes out of that school's portion [of Title I monies] if it doesn't make improvements by the end of the second or third year; this 20 percent can be available to the parents who are seeking it. He added: When we got into this business ... two or three years ago, our present governor said if the schools finally don't make enough improvement and show that they're making progress, ... we're going to take them over. Now, both he and ... Commissioner Holloway, I think, have ... moved off of that strong [of] a statement, and I'd ask both of them if they were ... going to start the state-operated schools again or whatever else. But I think your question is, Representative Stevens, right on the mark. CHAIR DYSON added that his reading of the federal "stuff" indicates to him that in the third and fourth years without improvement, the staff must be changed. Number 1307 DR. McLAIN responded that EED wants to provide a clear summary sheet of those consequences to the [House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee]. He noted that state Title I staff are working on that; he apologized for not being able to provide it today. He questioned which part of a school district's Title I funds are considered for the 20 percent set- aside - the district's Title I funds or the individual site's Title I funds. He offered that he'd heard the response to be 20 percent of the district's allocation, a much larger sum. He concluded that this information is what he hopes to provide in the summary sheet. Number 1344 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked about the percentages of schools falling into each of the four [state-designated] categories. He offered his opinion that statute already mandates the reporting of this information, even if [sanctions] are not yet enforced. He also asked how the state will dovetail with the federal rules. For example, is the state's premise even the same as the federal government's? He noted his impression from [Dr. Sclafani's presentation] that the state has a different premise from the federal government's. Number 1389 MR. LEAL responded that [EED] does not have breakdowns of the percentages of schools in the four categories because it does not yet have the growth data. He said: The bigger question for us right now is ... your second question, and that is, how is this going to dovetail with the federal requirement? Because if ... the federal requirement is to designate schools that haven't made adequate yearly progress, ... that is, in effect, designating the bottom of the ... [designation] system. It doesn't require us to designate ... the other areas. ... If we [don't] get the delay, we would be working just with this "adequate yearly progress" definition - which isn't what the [designator] committee really wants to do, but it might be what we have to do. Number 1440 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL observed that the department would have to make a decision about this matter; he added that [the legislature] would work with EED. This decision pertains to using the federal designation [of school improvement sites] as Alaska's lowest designation. He queried, "Is that ... what you're thinking?" MR. LEAL replied: The definition is a state definition; it's not a national definition. And ... there's pretty specific guidelines on what adequate yearly progress would be. And ... once we set ... that bar, based on this year's test results, then we also have to set goals for each subgroup ... to achieve ... AYP, [which] is ... based on the percentage of students who are proficient. And so once we ... find out where that bar is according to the federal definition, then we need to go back and set goals to get ... each school and each subgroup to achieve a hundred percent [proficiency] within 12 years. Number 1490 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the growth and status [scores] being used as designations would be considered valid criteria by [DOE]. MR. LEAL replied, "It doesn't seem so." He offered that in conversations as recent as yesterday, [DOE] personnel indicated that to all appearances, the federal AYP definition would be the one EED must use for the bottom [level of designations]. He offered that he foresaw some flexibility for EED to include other, higher categories of designations. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if this issue would present a regulatory problem to EED. He surmised that the statutes are broad enough, but then questioned whether, indeed, they are. Number 1550 MR. LEAL replied that [EED] is currently drafting regulations for both outcomes. For the outcome in which the delay is not granted, draft regulations are about 85 percent written for designating schools based only on status. He noted that EED is also drafting regulations to address AYP. "We're struggling right now ... to get this thing going," he concluded. Number 1590 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Leal for his impression of the federal timeline [for implementing the designations]. MR. LEAL replied that the direction [from the federal DOE] is for [EED] to implement the law; [DOE] will tell the state which parts of the state's implementation don't fit the guidelines as they are being written. He acknowledged, "It's not a great process." He added: I think that the federal government is kind of struggling with the same thing this [designator] committee is - and that is, that they want this ... to move ahead, and they don't want it to ... get bogged down in the regulatory process. ... It's a difficult situation for us to try to guess what it means. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "Maybe we shouldn't amend this." Number 1644 DR. McLAIN observed for the committee that Mr. Leal is in daily, even hourly, conversations with [DOE]. This is a good example of why EED is requesting the [delay]. He continued: We really want to keep ourselves going down this one path, and there's constant flux. If ... Representative Coghill had asked us questions about the status and growth four days or so ago, we probably would have answered somewhat differently. This took us ... by surprise when the feds started to indicate that that might not be the way. I give that as an example just of how fluid right now, I think, some of the decision making is ... over there. Number 1676 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA remarked that [Alaska] is still left with the problem faced by some schools - including schools in her district - that effectually have two kinds of schools in the same building. The concern is that these schools will be "lumped into the same category." She mentioned a big responsibility placed on the students, teachers, and administration [as the designations are established]. Furthermore, there is a large responsibility for legislators; as in any business, there must be commitment from the people who fund [the enterprise]. She added, "It doesn't matter what the feds say they're going to do; in the end, ultimately, we're the one who will make the final decision. ... Do we have that commitment?" Number 1762 CHAIR DYSON responded: [We] have a constitutional responsibility in this state ... for education and what that means. And whether or not money is the answer or part of the answer is a question for a lot of debate that we have to do in the future. And your point's well taken. Number 1780 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING noted his philosophical difference of opinion by questioning whether more money for education necessarily equates to better education. He acknowledged the common goal of a "good, solid education for our kids"; however, he pointed out his belief that more money for public schools is not necessarily the answer. Alternatives in education such as promoting correspondence studies need to be explored. He added, "I'm not trying to get on a high horse here, ... but I just felt a need to go down this road a little bit to keep the issue alive of alternatives." REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING pointed out a voucher bill that he'd sponsored a few years ago that "didn't get very far, unfortunately." Mentioning property tax credits and funding for correspondence study, such as through Alyeska Central [School], he said those kinds of programs will go a long way toward making education the best it can be. He concluded, "I really appreciate where you're coming from, [Representative Cissna]. I think we have the same ultimate goals. It's just [that] we have a different path that we wish to travel." Number 1837 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said it will be a disservice if additional time isn't taken. He observed that the designations are based on limited information - the tests students take, which determine whether a school is deemed "in crisis" or "distinguished." Although primarily the norm-referenced tests and dropout rates are used, so many other things enter into what makes a good school, such as a music program or an athletic program. He drew attention to the additional indicators [listed on the sample report card]. He queried, "Are those things going to be ... taken into account when you actually give the report card on the school? It'll go beyond that issue of simply making a designation, but it'll also, I assume, comment on those other elements of what makes a good school." Number 1880 MR. LEAL replied that [EED's] intent is to report those other school-quality indicators as part of the school report card. He pointed out that there is a significant amount of discussion and debate within the [designator] committee of trying to find other elements on which [EED] can collect reliable data to put into the designation portion. He said, "But understand that in order to keep the two systems compatible, that would only be to identify the higher end of the designation." This is another area in which the [designator] committee's work is unfinished, he concluded. Number 1908 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked for examples of additional indicators. MR. LEAL offered that one indicator that the [designator] committee has discussed is some measure of parent and community involvement; there is "significant pressure" from the State Board of Education [and Early Development] to do this. "Again, it's a delicate path ... because we cannot, under the federal law, ... say that a school that has a high degree of parent involvement and ... very low test scores or doesn't make adequate yearly progress is ... a distinguished school," he said. Test scores will remain the driving force. The [designator] committee also wants to "flesh out the higher ... grades of high school" by looking at SAT [Scholastic Achievement Test] scores, a graduate survey, or something to "take the [designation] piece all the way to its ... logical conclusion," he noted. Number 1981 DEE HUBBARD, Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Representative, School Designator Committee, testified via teleconference. She said, "Now you can see ... the amount of fun we've been having over the past ... two years in dealing with this situation." She pointed out that at the last meeting of the School Designator Committee, members received a 15-page document analyzing the new, federal education bill and addressing issues the [designator] committee needs to revisit. She said: I can't emphasize enough why we need this delay. We have really been working hard; this is probably one of the more "brain drain" committees I have ever been on.... We've tried to get good measurements, but our problem has been that we want to measure things that ... we're unable to measure. It's just the same thing that [Mr. Leal] is talking about with the ... parent and community involvement - how can you measure that? So we've been having some problems. But we've been working hard at ... trying to define measurements that will be able to be statistically viewed. Anything that you can do to move this bill along - to give us that extra ... two years of work that we really need - I would definitely appreciate. ... We could go ahead and make designations, but they wouldn't be very valuable. ... With that, you would lose the credibility of the whole system. So I would appreciate this bill getting legs and running a four- minute mile as soon as possible. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. CHAIR DYSON thanked Ms. Hubbard for her work on the [designator] committee. Number 2090 LARRY WIGET, Ph.D., Executive Director, Public Affairs, Anchorage School District, testified via teleconference. He noted that he had provided written testimony and [an Anchorage School District (ASD)] resolution in support of delaying the school designations. He echoed the sentiment of other witnesses' support of the delay. The ASD is working closely with [EED], he noted, and has representatives on the School Designator Committee. "We're working ... also with the feds and other organizations around the state ... and country to get further clarification on the true impact of the No Child Left Behind bill," he said. "We are very, very supportive of the delay [for] all the reasons that have been [voiced] by others." Number 2121 CHAIR DYSON began discussion of what would become Amendment 3. He offered his intention to amend the delay date to 17 months from now, instead of 29 months from now - delaying it one year instead of two. He asked what impact such an amendment would have on the process. DR. WIGET replied that the idea of status sticks in his mind - what "we" know about students now, versus what information will be available two years from now. More testing will provide better data. He added that it will take time to work through the details in the ESEA. His response and that of the [Anchorage] School Board is to move the date more in alignment with the [HSGQE], he concluded. Number 2185 CHAIR DYSON offered Dr. McLain and Mr. Leal an opportunity to comment on his proposed amendment. DR. MCLAIN said he would recommend the 2004 date - not just for alignment with the HSGQE, but to allow alignment with federal [dates]. The 2004 date allows [EED] to obtain answers to the questions being asked about parent involvement, for example. He offered that these types of questions are being asked by other states. He said: It's a recommendation of the national PTA as well. ... I suspect that there will be a lot of statisticians, psychometricians kind[s] of people, [and] committees ... that'll be working on this. ... I would respectfully ask that you allow us that amount of time. This is a very important piece, and I think that what we gain in terms of doing it right ... makes that two-year [delay] valuable. We will continue on with the federal pieces. We will have consequences. It is very public; people know about this process now. Number 2240 MR. LEAL offered that a shorter timeline would force [EED] to abandon the [designator] committee recommendation earlier than it might have to. He indicated his uncertainty about the impacts of the federal legislation. He said, "They talk about flexibility, and I don't know if we're going to be given the flexibility to implement the system ... that the [designator] committee ... has proposed." Compressing the timeline will make it more necessary for [EED] to abandon the [designator] committee recommendation and simply go ahead with what will work with the ESEA, rather than petitioning the federal DOE to grant a waiver or accept Alaska's system. Number 2279 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked Chair Dyson why he wants to make the delay shorter. CHAIR DYSON replied, "After I make the amendment, we'll have that discussion." Number 2301 CHAIR DYSON moved to adopt [Amendment 3], on page 2, line 5, where it says, "Beginning [in] September 2004", to change the year to "2003"; and on page 2, line 12, where it says "January 1, 2005", to change the year to "2004". REPRESENTATIVE JOULE and REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA objected. Number 2327 CHAIR DYSON explained: There's three or four things that bother me.... I have a theory ... - and it's based upon my six years here and six years on the legislative body of the city where I live - that public policymakers never, never, never, never do the right thing at the right time. And the rare times that we have some idea what the right thing is, we either can't get it through the process or can't get the public support to have it happen. So then we're always doing something less than the best thing at far less than the opportune time, and continue delaying getting the results from what you want. When we were having the debate on ... the high-stakes tests here, ... it was heated and [there was] a great deal of discussion about it. And three different teachers ... who taught here in ... Juneau ... collared me at one time or another during those days and weeks that that was going on. And one of them said, "This is the healthiest thing that's ever happened ... in ... ten or twelve years.... You guys are firing a cannon shot across the bow of the educational establishment, and the kids are all of a sudden straightening up and saying, 'Oops - somebody's going to test me here ... I'm going to have to do more than just have 12 years of seat time....'" TAPE 02-18, SIDE B Number 2371 CHAIR DYSON continued: The teachers said, "And it's doing the same thing for us. All of a sudden, we as a faculty are coming together and ... working on making sure that our kids are proficient, because there's a test. And we all hope that ... we would do it just out of a sense of professionalism...." All ... six of us are going to face a test next fall, and it's good for us. ... I don't think that another 29 months from now, having ... the [designations] in effect -- I think we're delaying the impact ... of the good that's wanted to be done by the high-stakes tests. And I may be wrong. I suspect most of you will be back here next ... year, and certainly if I am, and ... it is looking like ... a year from now that ... 17 months is not enough, and it needed to have been 29 months, then I will use all my influence ... to get the ... date changed again. So, that's, kind of, my [reasoning] for wanting to do it. And ... I ... have neither the education, nor the experience, nor the exposure of our experts. Number 2313 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE explained his reasons for not supporting [Amendment 3]. He pointed out that some members did not support the high-stakes test legislation. He agreed that the debate was heated. He said this [heated debate] occurred because some members thought that the original timelines for implementation were too short. He said: It's like building the second story of a house first, before you even put down the foundation. And that's precisely why I didn't support the initial high-stakes [testing legislation] as it was originally ... implemented. So we moved the test - backed it out a couple of years. To me, that's a little bit more palatable, but ... we've already built the second ... floor, and we're starting to build the first floor. ... We still haven't laid the foundation. And we're getting closer. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE offered that he has listened to EED personnel. He also has listened to witnesses who testified at this hearing who have volunteered their time, are immersed in education, and understand what the [state] is faced with. These volunteers, a body of experts, are recommending to the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee to delay the designation. He said: I would adamantly argue that we keep the [designation] with the original date [provided in HB 352]. ... I do think we need to ... finish laying down this foundation, because we do need to have that ... as a complete package, where there's the [designation] and the high school qualifying exit exam.... So, I would be speaking against the amendment. Number 2225 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted his appreciation for Chair Dyson's "greater experience and wisdom" in these matters and his willingness to revisit the delay next year. He asked, "What will the department do differently if they are faced with 17 months as compared to what they will do if they are faced with 29 months? And I think that's an important thing to know what steps they will take and how they will be impacted by that." Number 2181 DR. McLAIN said the federal bill with which [EED] is seeking to align has deadlines that correlate with the 2004 date. He said: My general goal would be to allow us the kind of time to do exactly the sort of negotiations and friendly arm-twisting that Mr. Leal made reference to.... We would still, between now and 2004, be following through with the Title I ... school improvement sites and working on developing those consequences and supports. ... We will ... be refining - very specifically and immediately - the "in crisis" alignment with the feds' ... "school improvement site" criteria. That would be our first piece - and then working to see what kind of flexibility we can get out of them, so that we can make the rest of the system as much of what Alaskans would like to see. ... I really do appreciate Representative Joule's comment; these people ... give up ... a lot of ... time. I want to give them the chance to be able to complete this process. We have a lot of ownership. Number 2115 MR. LEAL noted that the major change without the delay would be that the [designator committee] would probably abandon its efforts to create a model that uses two-thirds growth, and it would proceed with its best reading of the federal guidelines, without assuming any flexibility from [the federal DOE]. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked what would be lost in that process - as far as effort and time for the department - if it were looked at in 17 months, with the option of extending it to 29 months. Number 2066 MR. LEAL acknowledged that he is new to [EED], and this is his first time following legislation through [the process]. He indicated he might have a better perspective next year. He said it has taken a considerable amount of his time to prepare for the various hearings. CHAIR DYSON offered that he'd heard Mr. Leal and Dr. McLain say that [EED] is working to include the improvement piece; one result of the proposed 17-month delay could be the abandonment of the [designator] committee's work to have two-thirds of the [designation] be based on improvement. "Did I hear you correctly?" he asked. MR. LEAL replied yes. Number 1990 CHAIR DYSON acknowledged that he wasn't nearly as close to the [designation] process as Mr. Leal and Dr. McLain have been, but offered that he didn't see that 17 months would be an inadequate amount of time for the [designator] committee to continue its work. He remarked, "Jobs expand ... to fill the time required." He offered that he hadn't lobbied anybody regarding [Amendment 3], and said there is no pressure from him, as the chair, to pass it. CHAIR DYSON turned attention to Representative Joule's comment about the foundation of education. He explained that he understands the foundation to be that students are learning what they need to know in order to [pass the high-stakes tests]. The premise of the high-stakes testing, he said, is that it isn't testing "a whole bunch of new stuff," but is testing the things for which there is widespread agreement among Alaskans and pedagogical experts. CHAIR DYSON noted that this isn't new. He expressed his opinion that the committee has done its job and come up with something reasonable. The schools that have not been preparing students have something to answer for, he concluded. "We ought not to have had to tailor education significantly different at all, just because the tests are there," he said. "They should have been the kinds of things that kids were learning ... just because it was a good school system." Number 1900 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA referred to a conference several years ago at which teachers presented the steps required in teaching and learning different things at different ages. She said that some of the lessons being learned about how people learn - what steps they take - are new. She added, "It's a huge, huge bite that we're asking a department and a state and these schools to bite and accomplish and digest all in one time." REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA noted that she has areas of expertise where she feels comfortable, but isn't an expert on the amount of time [the designation process] will take. Her publishing work is an indication to her that a job that might be perceived as a quick one, for example, never is. She offered deference to people with years of experience in this field. She concluded, "It's not that I don't believe that ... your commitment is not sincere, but I'll have to ... respectfully disagree." Number 1803 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated his concurrence with some of Chair Dyson's remarks. He offered that the [implementation of school] designations has been a growth process. The Quality Schools initiative has not occurred in a vacuum, he observed. Some aggressive deadlines had been set that required "some pressure relief." He offered his opinion that ease of the task should not be considered as a criterion for determining whether something is the right thing to do. School and/or curriculum reform have been issues ever since he can remember, he offered. "If you don't have a deadline, the tension to do something relaxes," he noted. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed his understanding that [tasks] must be prioritized for this to be accomplished. He noted his preference for the earlier date [provided in Chair Dyson's amendment]; it will help in dealing with the federal [DOE] more aggressively. He offered that he believes the federal government is seeking direction from the states; a more aggressive date will put [DOE] "on notice" as well. He conveyed his understanding that Alaska is not behind most states, but is "well in the pack." DR. McLAIN said, "We're ahead of many states." CHAIR DYSON offered, "And that's to your credit." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted his appreciation for this, and his goal to not relax [in the state's efforts]. He spoke in favor of Chair Dyson's amendment. Number 1694 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that he did not take exception to [Amendment 3]. He asked Chair Dyson what criteria he would use to reconsider extending the deadline to 29 months. CHAIR DYSON indicated that if the federal [DOE] keeps moving the target, that would be a legitimate reason to extend the delay. He offered that he would be impressed by testimony from members of the designator committee that not enough time was available to accomplish an excellent job. Number 1600 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dyson, Coghill, Stevens, and Kohring voted for [Amendment 3]. Representatives Cissna, Joule voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted by a vote of 4-2. Number 1590 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE moved to report CSHB 352 [HB 352 as amended] out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 352(HES) was moved out of the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|