Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/21/2001 10:21 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 133
An Act relating to a two-year transition for
implementation of the public high school competency
examination and to establishing an essential skills
examination as a high school graduation requirement;
and providing for an effective date.
DR. BRUCE JOHNSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, applauded the Committee
members who had vested time and energy into gaining a
comprehensive understanding of the issues facing students.
From the Department's perspective, the discussions have been
instructive for everyone concerned about Alaska's standards-
based reform endeavor.
The Department of Education & Early Development states that
two critical components of our standards-based reform effort
require additional consideration.
· First, Alaska must provide sufficient time for the
transition from the old credit-based educational system
to the new standards-based educational system, based on
student results. Broad-based acceptance and early-on
successes with the reform effortare critical for long-
term gains.
Dr. Johnson pointed out that from the defensibility
standpoint, the "legal" clock started ticking in the fall of
2000, when schools, school districts and families learned
the results of the first administration of the High School
Graduation Qualifying Examination.
Dr. Johnson stated that the high school test and the
standards give Alaska a great opportunity to better educate
all students to higher levels of performance. He stated
that the State should not risk rushing the high stakes
portion of the reform effort.
· Second, the State must ensure that the system of
accountability is fair to all concerned. He commended
the Senate and House for acknowledging that waivers for
students entering Alaskan high schools late in their
schooling, as well as students, who experience unusual
and unique circumstances, are good public policy and
appropriate for special populations.
Dr. Campbell noted that the goal is aimed at creating a
system of high standards, assessments and accountability to
build an educational environment that maximizes the
opportunity for every child to become a winner. To that
end, the Department remains concerned that all special
education students are going to be held to the exact
standards of all other students despite the unique
challenges and differences that those students have with
learning. If held to the exact standard, without an
Individual Education Program (IEP) team's authority to
adjust the learning targets to recognize the student's
disability, the State would be limiting the opportunity for
many students to earn a diploma.
Dr. Johnson urged Committee members to adopt a philosophy of
"doing no harm" and pleaded to avoid unintended
consequences. The State can do that by being patient and
approaching our standards-based reform incrementally.
Dr. Johnson suggested that Alaska could learn from the
progress of other states on the path toward meaningful and
lasting educational reform. The Department has found that
the states getting the most press for having successful exit
exams also allow local IEP teams great flexibility to
determine accommodations and modifications for the special
education students. In a number of states, special
education students who are totally exempt from the exam
still receive a diploma.
Dr. Johnson pointed out that in Alaska, current law provides
no flexibility. By mandating that students with
disabilities meet the identical requirements as other
students despite their identified disability, we can predict
that special education students will not fare well on the
exit exam. He urged that the State be flexible, falling
on the side of caution and fairness in the early stages of
the accountability reform effort.
The results are predictable for students with disabilities,
particularly those students already in the educational
pipeline, as those students are often afforded opportunities
for assistive devices and modifications in their individual
learning plans.
Dr. Johnson assured members that the systems to monitor
districts to ensure students with disabilities are held to
the highest standard possible would be instituted. Through
the bill, many specific reporting requirements are built
into it to prevent wholesale labeling of students as
"special education" in order to better guarantee a diploma.
If necessary, the Department could strengthen those
requirements as the accountability system evolves.
Dr. Johnson urged members to amend the bill by adding
language which would allow students with disabilities to
complete an alternative assessment program, one required by
the students' individualized education program that conforms
to the maximum extent practicable with the State performance
standards on the high school competency exam.
CARL ROSE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA STATE SCHOOL BOARD,
JUNEAU, noted that he would address his comments to the
special education portion of the legislation. He discussed
the tremendous needs for funding being leveraged behind the
principle of the bill. Mr. Rose reviewed the issues of
accommodations. He pointed out that students have received
accommodations throughout their school life and he asked if
that accommodation should be removed at the end of their
school life by not allowing the IEP to continue. Through
federal law, it is a requirement. Mr. Rose noted that
special education is funded at 20%, which is inadequate. To
fill the requirement, the money comes from regular
instruction and is a federal mandate. Mr. Rose stressed
that the accommodation is consistent and principally based.
Mr. Rose reiterated that education "knows" that their
funding is being leveraged. The issues need to be
separated. He pleaded that the work be done correctly.
Vice-Chair Bunde MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 22-LS0607\T.2,
Ford, 4/17/01. [Copy on File]. Representative Davies
OBJECTED.
Vice-Chair Bunde explained that the change would not be a
change in substance but instead in technique. The amendment
suggests that the Department would put forward regulations
for the use of waivers and then they would report back to
the Legislature after the regulations are in place. The
regulations of the Department should reflect the intent of
the Legislature.
Representative Croft questioned who in Alaska would be the
primary population that the waiver would affect. Dr.
Johnson replied that it would be those students that arrive
into Alaska late in their high school career, such as
military transferred students and immigrants that arrive in
Alaska with no English capacity.
Representative Harris inquired if the language sufficiently
dealt with the military student concern. He inquired what
"rate and unusual" circumstances would encompass. Dr.
Johnson explained that language would end in regulation.
The report would clearly outline what was heard from the
general public in terms of what is necessary.
Representative Harris questioned where in the bill that
would be addressed. Dr. Johnson referenced Page 6, Item 5.
Representative Harris asked the difference in Amendment 1
and the removal of Section 5. Dr. Johnson advised that
Amendment 1 would remove Section 5, requiring the Department
to come back with the report, then the Legislature would
proactively move forward.
Representative Croft summarized that the concern was that
the issue would affect military preparedness. He stated
that Amendment 1 would delay the implementation of the
standard. Dr. Johnson acknowledged that was of concern.
He advised that there was military concern over the fairness
of Alaska's exit exam bill.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that he did share the concerns voiced
by Vice-Chair Bunde and Representative Croft on how to
adequately address fairness to military families. He
questioned if that could be adequately addressed with the
adoption of the amendment. Vice-Chair Bunde acknowledged
that it was his intent to allow the waiver. He suggested
that it could be addressed either through the waiver or
through a "reprobacity" clause.
Vice-Chair Bunde stipulated that it would not be "nebulous"
without closure. He assumed that there would be closure
next February. He stated that it would not threaten
national defense. Co-Chair Mulder noted that the concern
rests within the Legislature and the public having certainty
about what the regulations are and that there should be
public policies beyond the Department's adoption.
Vice-Chair Bunde believed that it was possible that the
Department could have removed something that the military
would be unhappy about.
Dr. Johnson stated that the Department could operate in the
manner referenced by Vice-Chair Bunde. He stated that
nothing could be completed over the summer. He reiterated
that the earliest that the Board could draft regulations
would be December 2001 through March 2002. The Board meets
quarterly on regulations. The earliest that there would be
draft regulations would be December. On most of the
comprehensive critical issues that the State Board deals
with, there is a six-month period of public comment. He did
not foresee the State Board rushing through the concerns
because they are serious.
Mr. Rose encouraged the Committee to provide the necessary
oversight.
Vice-Chair Bunde noted that without Amendment 1, it would
take a year to get the regulations in place. With the
amendment, there would be a report back, allowing the
Legislature to approve the report by February 2002. Dr.
Johnson stated that it would be unlikely that the School
Board would have anything together for the Board meeting by
September. He reiterated that the earliest would be
December 2001.
Representative Davies voiced his concern that the statutes
do not include the request for the waiver process. He asked
what the intended process was. The Department cannot start
the official process without statutory authority.
Representative Davies asked if it was intended to revisit
the statutes in one year. Vice-Chair Bunde stated it was.
He saw the process starting during the September meeting,
providing a report to the Legislature and continuing the
regulatory process into February.
Representative Davies pointed out that the Board wanted a
six-month comment period. He suggested that would allow for
another year for implementation of the competency exam. Dr.
Johnson explained that extra time could add to the
Department's legal defensibility. The earliest that the
Board could take action on regulations would be December.
Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out that there had been
considerable discussion regarding the statutory authority.
He added that statutory authority becomes available the day
that the Governor signs the bill. Dr. Johnson replied that
should be left up to legal interpretation. It is important
that there is an opportunity for public comment given the
weight of the issue. He reiterated that the Board rarely is
successful addressing such issues in three months.
In response to comments made by Co-Chair Mulder,
Representative Davies disagreed that the process was an
appropriate place for the Legislature to become involved in
the regulation. He objected to the micro-management. He
added if the regulations were placed into statute, it would
be unlikely that everything would be included in terms of
what the Department needs to make the regulations work.
Representative Hudson advised that the military typically
issues their orders in the winter for a move in the summer.
He noted that during that time, there are hundreds of
families in motion. Up until now, there has been some
assurance that their students would be able to fit into the
educational flow. He stressed that he would not want to see
any legislation that would adversely impact that flow.
Representative Hudson commented that if the amendment upsets
that rhythm, how would the State be able to give assurance
to those families.
Vice-Chair Bunde interjected for the record that the
discussion should not be focused on the waivers. He agreed
that there should be waivers. He commented, what is being
addressed is the process. He asked if the Legislature
trusted the Department to reflect the legislative intent.
He urged that the process be done in concert.
Representative Croft acknowledged that the process is
"cumbersome", noting that the legislative process was
designed to be that way. The fundamental question on
Amendment 1 is whether the waiver process is in place or
whether there is one. He pointed out that was a fundamental
difference.
SENATOR LYDA GREEN noted that the amendment would remove the
requirement that the Board "shall" adopt regulations. The
amendment would place that language to the Department:
"The Department shall report back to the Legislature
with regulations for".
She stated that language concerns her and that the
requirement for the waiver should be in statute.
TAPE HFC 01 - 90, Side B
Co-Chair Williams noted that SB 133 would be HELD in
Committee for further consideration.
Recessed: 11:00 a.m.
Reconvened: 11:35 a.m.
HOUSE CS FOR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 133(HES)
An Act relating to a two-year transition for
implementation of the public high school competency
examination and to establishing a secondary student
competency examination as a high school graduation
requirement; relating to certain reports regarding
academic performance of schools; and providing for an
effective date.
Vice-Chair Bunde WITHDREW his motion to MOVE to ADOPT
Amendment 1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.
SB 133 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
HOUSE CS FOR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 133(HES)
An Act relating to a two-year transition for
implementation of the public high school competency
examination and to establishing a secondary student
competency examination as a high school graduation
requirement; relating to certain reports regarding
academic performance of schools; and providing for an
effective date.
Vice-Chair Bunde MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 and asked that a
vote be taken on the amendment. He stated that there had
been enough previous discussion.
Representative J. Davies pointed out the timing issue. He
stated that the waiver process needs to be in statute in
order that the process can be started.
Vice-Chair Bunde WITHDREW Amendment 1. There being NO
OBJECTION, the amendment was withdrawn.
Vice-Chair Bunde MOVED to ADOPT 1A to Page 6, Line 14,
deleting the language following:
"And must require that a student satisfy the
performance standards developed under AS 14.07.020(b)
to the maximum extent possible".
Representative Croft explained that the amendment was a
joint effort with Vice-Chair Bunde and that he supported the
amendment. There being NO OBJECTION, the language in was
deleted and the amendment was adopted.
Representative Lancaster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2. [Copy
on File]. Representative Harris OBJECTED.
Dr. Johnson stated that the amendment was supported by
Department of Education & Early Development.
Representative Croft discussed the impact of the amendment.
He asked how a blind student needing to use Braille would be
affected. Dr. Johnson replied that would be an
accommodation and would be permissible by the local
districts.
Representative Croft discussed modifications and
accommodations for various students. Dr. Johnson advised
that a reading test could not be read aloud to the student.
Representative Croft asked if Amendment 2 would change that.
Dr. Johnson explained that without the amendment, the
Department would have to come to the Legislature and request
if their IEP team believed that modifications were
necessary.
Vice-Chair Bunde maintained that the committee substitute
would not allow accommodations for special education. He
stressed that the amendment would modify the test to
accommodate the student. Dr. Johnson acknowledged that it
would be that type of modification. Vice-Chair Bunde
stressed that the amendment would create an IEP diploma.
Senator Green discussed the IEP diplomas. She pointed out
that only a small minority of students, less than 11%, would
be affected by the amendment. Those students have a variety
of learning disabilities. The language clarifies that an
appropriate method would be used to test the knowledge that
the student has obtained. She pointed to Page 3, Line 19,
which addresses the "portfolio", one method that can be used
to assess students. She expressed concern that the
successful completion of a student's high school career
would be inhibited. Dr. Johnson argued that differential
diplomas are being created that would have meaning over
time.
Representative Whitaker noted that there is concern that the
diploma would be denigrated for the other 90%. Senator
Green observed that the intent was to give the test to every
student. The full and completed exam on an IEP would be the
original exam with accommodations.
TAPE HFC 01 - 91, Side A
Senator Green stated that severely disabled students would
never take an exam. She noted that these students are doing
double duty in the first place. Tests provide information
that can be used by the school districts and departments.
Dr. Johnson stressed the students would receive
acknowledgement on their diploma and transcripts and would
not be denigrated if the amendment were passed.
Representative Whitaker asked how the accommodation would be
achieved. Dr. Johnson clarified that a student would have
to meet a passing score.
Representative Davies emphasized that cognitive skills could
be high even if a student had an accommodation. He gave the
example of reading without glasses and the use of glasses as
an accommodation. He commented that having a document read
would still require assimilation. Representative J. Davies
pointed out that a many citizens and politicians have
documents read due to failing eyesight. He maintained that
high standards are important, however, stressed that there
is a small subset of kids that cannot demonstrate competency
in a normal way.
Dr. Johnson agreed with Representative Davies assessment. He
noted that children with learning disabilities have at least
average intelligence. The intent is to hold students to the
highest standard possible under the IEP and to assure that
it is not a dumping ground for those that cannot achieve a
diploma.
Representative Hudson concluded that most of the students
would achieve a diploma only if they demonstrate competency
under the State standards. The amendment addresses the
child with disabilities. At present time, the child with a
disability would be able to get a diploma if they passed all
portions of the exam. Representative Hudson referenced Page
3, Lines 19-20, and questioned the definition of the
"portfolio of work". He clarified that the House version
holds the standard high and does allow accommodations.
Dr. Johnson clarified that the discussion centers on when
the performance standard would be modified for a disability,
especially the ability to read. A student must be able to
read the printed word without modifications to receive a
diploma; otherwise, they could receive a certificate
according to the proposal by Vice-Chair Bunde.
Vice-Chair Bunde observed that parents do not want their
special needs child to be left with mediocrity through
lowering of the standards. He addressed problems with IEP.
The special needs parents are concerned that schools will
not raise their children up if the standards are too low.
He maintained that the exam demonstrates the ability to
read, write and do math at the junior high level. He
stressed that students are graduating without basic skills.
Representative Hudson questioned how the child that has a
physical disability and cannot read would be prevented from
receiving a diploma. He stressed that hope must be held out
for children with disabilities. Vice-Chair Bunde noted that
any physical accommodation for the physically impaired would
be made through an accommodation. He reiterated his
concerns with the level of the standards.
Senator Green referred to Page 3, Section ©. She noted that
the Legislature does not control the IEP team.
Vice-Chair Bunde advised that the portfolio is an empty
vessel at this time. The Department has the option to
recommend and assess the use of a portfolio.
Representative Davies stressed that if the amendment is not
adopted, students with above average intelligence would be
eliminated if they have disabilities. He stressed that the
essential skill set is the real issue. He commented that
the Legislative Body continues to confuse the high standards
with the essential skill set.
Vice-Chair Bunde argued that there are many students
currently graduating that are functionally illiterate.
Representative Whitaker asked the research used for assuming
that 10% IEP students would grow or that the 90% would
decrease. Vice-Chair Bunde stated that was based on parents
needs in the school districts, attempting to get their
special need student criteria met.
In response to Representative Whitaker, Dr. Johnson stated
that there are approximately 135,000 students in the State,
K-12. He noted that the legislation addresses approximately
9,000 students. Dr. Johnson noted that with each
administration, there are more and more students with
disabilities creating demands and that there are 9,000
graduating, 10% with disabilities and that (200-400)
students would not pass.
GREG MALONEY, DIRECTOR, SPECIAL EDUCATION, TEACHING AND
LEARNING SUPPPORT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & EARLY
DEVELOPMENT, affirmed the number and observed that the
number is expected to increase. He noted that all children
would be expected to take the test with or without the
appropriate accommodations. If they fail, they would go to
the IEP team, who would then decide if accommodations should
be used. The child would have incentive to take the test
with endorsements and parents would be part of the IEP team.
He added that parents do have procedural safeguards if they
disagree. There are three processes which the parents have
the right to undertake if they disagree:
· Mediation;
· Complaint investigation; and
· Due process hearing.
Vice-Chair Bunde felt that IEP endorsements would be flagged
and that federal law stipulates that an IEP student cannot
be flagged.
Dr. Johnson maintained that the concern could be resolved
with the waiver. He stated that was a large enough group of
individuals that they would not be able to identify a
student as a child that is disabled. He stated that it was
not a big problem. Once the Department determines to modify
an exam for a student, it is up to the Department to defend
that position.
Senator Green noted that there are students that are using
endorsements to signify accomplishments. Students may not
know the level to which they can ascend, which keeps them on
a continuum of hard work and high performance.
Vice-Chair Bunde responded that the amendment would be
limited to two small groups. He maintained that the intent
was not to make challenged children's time more difficult.
SB 133 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|