Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/19/2014 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| HB341 | |
| HR9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 341 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HR 9-DELAY IMPLEMENTATION OF ED STANDARDS
9:37:26 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 9, Urging the commissioner of education and
early development and the state Board of Education and Early
Development to delay implementation of statewide education
standards.
9:37:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HR 9, labeled 28-LS1224\U, Mischel, 3/18/14,
as the working document.
9:38:15 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
CHAIR GATTIS asked to have the motion restated, including the
version.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HR 9, Version U, labeled 28-LS1224\U,
Mischel, 3/18/14 as the working document. There being no
objection, Version U was before the committee.
9:39:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HR 9, said this resolution came about as a result of
frustration. The state considers the cost to the state when
considering policy changes but it doesn't consider the cost to
local municipalities or schools. She pointed out the
significant changes ranging from teacher evaluations,
standardized testing, and implementing new standards. These
changes may adversely affect school districts depending on the
curriculum the districts are currently using and how the new
standards differ. The original version of HR 9 reflected her
interest in just delaying or halting the process to allow
districts time to evaluate costs. She reported that the task
force contacted districts and initially found frustration
mounting, but since then some adapting has occurred. Still,
some districts expressed concern that they may not have enough
time to get everything in place quickly enough. Thus, the
proposed committee substitute, Version U, requests a cost
analysis for implementing educational standards, noting that the
costs will vary between districts. Secondly, Version U requests
that the department and the State Board of Education help
districts transition to the new requirements. This will help to
assess whether districts can implement new curriculum and new
methods of teaching so districts can accurately assess student
levels rather than student scores reflecting that the districts
didn't have enough time to change teaching methods, which were
extensively revised.
CHAIR GATTIS suggested the standards imposed may represent
unfunded mandates.
9:43:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said a major aspect is that teachers
are being asked to teach at a higher standard and to have them
do so means the department and districts must provide massive
in-service teacher training. She expressed concern that
teachers will not be sufficiently ready. Teacher training
represents a high cost for the state and the department does not
currently have the funding for this training. Further, she
emphasized the importance of having the university provides
training so new teachers will be using best practices. She
suggested it might be good to have some delay in implementing
the new standards.
9:45:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON added that it isn't just the more
rigorous standards, but the student testing has also changed and
is more in-depth testing so the analysis is different, too. She
characterized it as being similar to changing from multiple
choice tests to in-depth essays. In addition, techniques for
teaching styles have also changed. She has received positive
feedback on the changes, especially for teacher evaluation, but
the time required for implementation is an issue. She suggested
that perhaps delaying implementing new testing to allow for a
transition year. She said, "We are teaching to the test." In a
sense, the training in most professions leads to passing the
test. She would like to ensure that the teachers and students
have adequate time to make the changes. Finally, the state
formula allows changes to occur every six years. She asked
whether the districts have budgeted costs to change their
curriculum. She maintained her concern on whether
administrators have time to go through the process to make the
changes.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON maintained interest in ensuring
appropriate training for the teachers.
9:49:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered her belief that changes should
be suspended pending broad community feedback. She suggested
that the legislature should have a 10-year cost evaluation
period, including costs for the waiver, implementation, aligning
the curriculum to the CCSS, teacher training, assessment costs,
and individual district impacts. In addition, she expressed
interest in the classroom time necessary to implement the
standards. She maintained her interest in delaying the changes
for stated reasons and to obtain feedback on a national level.
9:51:37 AM
CHAIR GATTIS opened public testimony on HR 9.
9:51:49 AM
STEWART MCDONALD, Superintendent, Kodiak Island Borough School
District (KIBSD), recalled a paper in which he has written an
article about the changes being implemented today in schools and
the effects that are experienced. He said patience is
important, especially when student scores drop, due to
transition. The drop is a necessary part of the forward
movement. As teachers practice the new standards it can be
sloppy and tough; however, delaying the progress will be
hurtful, he said. Further, attaching performance to funding is
a mistake. It is important to continue to move forward, he
said.
9:55:19 AM
PEGGY COWAN, Superintendent, North Slope Borough School District
(NSBSD), said the district embraces the new national standards.
The NSBSD has been committed to the rigor reflected in the new
state standards. She acknowledged the intent is for students to
be capable as students in other states so uniformity is
important. She clarified that the NSBSD is not in favor of
standardization. She emphasized that implementation will be
applied in a relevant manner and context to North Slope
students. She expressed concern about the costs, but stated the
standards represent the foundation of reform. If the standards
are delayed the teacher evaluations also will need to be
delayed. Moving back would be demoralizing to the teachers who
have spent years being trained and significant time developing
units. Thus, it's important to continue the momentum in
implementing the standards. She urged members to stay the
course to ensure that Alaska's students are competitive in the
state and in the nation.
9:59:13 AM
SUNNY HILTS, President, Association of Alaska School Boards
(AASB), expressed similar concerns, but said the district has
been working for two years to realign the curriculum to meet the
standards. Currently, districts face morale challenges due to
the uncertainty of funding. She offered her belief that
changing course right now on the standards would be further
discouragement. Although shift was difficult, the teachers and
the district were physically tested, and the process was costly,
the district made it. Everyone made this effort to provide the
best education for students. She emphasized that delay will not
give them that best education, will mean returning to inferior
standards, and create confusion. She hoped the committee will
encourage districts across the state to move forward with the
program and implement the new standards. She requested the
state provide assistance to districts during this process. She
concluded by saying that the [Kenai Peninsula Borough School
District's] teachers are ready and they have been looking
forward to this for several years.
10:01:03 AM
MIKE COONS offered his belief that if students can't meet
today's standards that there aren't assurances they have the
ability to pass the new [statewide education performance
standards, described as college and career readiness standards
adopted by the State Board of Education]. He expressed concern
about how this may affect children's self-esteem and ego, and
said that teaching to the test is not a good practice. He
considered the new standards to be another federal unfunded
mandate. He stated that he fully endorses HR 9.
CHAIR GATTIS closed public testimony on HR 9.
10:02:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded to comments by first pointing
out the committee substitute [Version U] is before the
committee. Initially, the intent of HR 9 was to delay
implementation, but the committee substitute, Version U, calls
for costs to districts to implement the changes and to ensure a
smooth transition to allow all districts to implement the
changes. Some smaller districts have more difficulty adopting
the new performance standards due to limited resources and this
will provide for transition time to ensure that students are
tested on their knowledge, she said.
10:03:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification on the
length of the transition time.
[HR 9 was held over.]