Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
04/05/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB206 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 206-HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSM'T/POSTSECONDARY CLASS
8:04:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 206, "An Act establishing a career assessment
requirement in public schools; and relating to postsecondary
courses for secondary school students."
8:05:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to page 1, line 6, and offered Conceptual
Amendment 2 which would change the high school WorkKeys
assessment from grade twelve to grade eleven.
8:06:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected for the purpose of discussion.
CHAIR SEATON recalled that this section of the bill was not
removed because the Department of Education and Early
Development (EED) advised that current regulation requires
recording the WorkKeys assessment in a student's cumulative
file, and not on his/her transcript.
8:07:23 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, EED, confirmed that normally a
cumulative file is not transferred to an employer; in fact, even
when a university requests information from a high school, only
the transcript, or summary, of a student's high school career is
supplied.
8:08:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON then asked for the department's opinion on the
appropriate time for students to take the assessment test.
MR. MORSE advised the committee the department's position is
that a student should take the test in grade eleven;
furthermore, if a student retakes the test, regulations allow
the district to pay for the test if the student shows
improvement. He reiterated that taking the test in grade eleven
gives the student focus for grade twelve; in fact, students who
do well may want to move on to the Scholastic Aptitude Test
(SAT) or the American College Test (ACT).
8:09:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the amendment would require other
changes to existing statute, or changes to other language in the
bill.
MR. MORSE affirmed that the language on page 2, line 12, should
include "their highest score," to ensure that the highest score
would be recorded on the transcript. He observed that this
could be handled in regulation, but having the clear intent in
statute is well advised.
8:10:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 2, which read:
On page 2, line 12,
Following "student's"
Add "highest level of"
8:11:37 AM
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 2 was adopted.
8:11:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, continuing the discussion of Conceptual
Amendment 2, observed there are two goals when administering
this type of testing: (1) testing in grade eleven is to prepare
and inform the student and teachers of the student's
preparedness in order to focus for the student's senior year;
(2) testing in grade twelve is to inform employers or
postsecondary schools of the student's highest level of
achievement for employment or for further schooling. In order
to have one test meet both goals, the state can require testing
in grade eleven by statute, or testing in grade twelve by
statute, and by regulation offer earlier testing.
Representative Gardner opined this action may meet the goal of
replacing the "high stakes" High School Graduation Qualifying
Examination (HSGQE) and inform employers and postsecondary
schools of the student's mastery of basic education. She
supported administering the assessment test in grade twelve and
allowing, by regulation, testing "in eighth grade if they want,
and keep going up." However, she pointed out that Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 2 supports her argument for
having the highest score on the transcript.
8:13:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON acknowledged that every student is different and
college bound students may need to focus on ACT or SAT tests in
their final year of high school.
8:15:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON suggested having the WorkKeys assessment
administered in grade ten in order to provide two years for a
student to organize his/her further study.
8:16:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee the department is using the
Worldwide Interactive Network, Inc. (WIN) and KeyTrain
assessments as developmental performance assessments beginning
in grade eight; however, the purpose of the more expensive
assessment, WorkKeys, is to obtain certificated levels which
correspond to curricula established by the earlier assessments.
The idea is that students will have from grade eight upward to
work on skills.
8:17:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked at what grade levels
administration of the WIN test is required.
8:18:18 AM
MR. MORSE stated the requirement in regulation is for students
in grades six and eight to take the WIN assessment. He noted
that WIN and KeyTrain are interchangeable and accomplish the
same goals; either is a curriculum assessment to guide students
to the right level of study.
8:19:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined an assessment should be provided
in grade ten.
CHAIR SEATON suggested asking the department to address her
recommendation through regulatory provisions. In addition, the
committee can ask the department to provide an analysis on how
the districts adjust their curriculum in response to the
administration of WIN at grades six and eight, and WorkKeys at
grade eleven.
8:21:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON assumed the assessments test local
standards.
8:21:58 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Chair Seaton, said the WIN and
KeyTrain assessments that are required in grades six and eight
are part of a national curriculum that is aligned with WorkKeys,
thus the assessments are not based at the district level.
8:22:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to the court ruling on Moore
v. State, and said the court directed the legislature to
establish educational standards across the state. She asked how
that will be accomplished by the department.
MR. MORSE responded that the required assessments in grades six
and eight will begin to standardize levels of education across
the state. Furthermore, requiring the WorkKeys assessment in
statute will lead districts to appropriately prepare students
for the tests, and will result in more standardization.
8:24:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised administering the WIN test in
grade eleven would still inform a student what they need to
focus efforts on in his/her senior year, but there is also the
potential for students to accept their score and not strive for
a higher level. She maintained her objection.
8:25:03 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Munoz, Edgmon,
Keller, Buch, and Seaton voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment
2. Representatives Gardner and Peggy Wilson voted against it.
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 5-2.
8:26:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he cannot support HB 206 because he
wants to keep the HSGQE in place. He reported on the results of
an informal survey that indicated 75-85 percent of constituents
want to have this type of exam in place. Representative Keller
referred to page 2, line 14, and remarked:
And if you look at the first line of what is repealed
... [he was reading from AS 14.03.075] "A student may
not be issued a secondary ... diploma unless the
student passes...." That's raising the bar, and what
we replace it with is, the school shall require the
student to take a test. And I think that is the wrong
message, especially in the context of the possibility
of the performance scholarship failing....
8:28:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the exit exam is still in
the bill.
CHAIR SEATON explained that the exit exam remains in place, but
the requirement to pass the exam above a certain score in order
to graduate is removed. This change will remove the "high
stakes" portion of the exam.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she is against the exit exam;
however, she was unsure of the effect of its removal in the
light of the Moore v. State ruling.
8:31:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for the percentage of students who do
not pass the exit exam, receiving instead a certificate of
attendance.
MR. MORSE directed attention to the document in the committee
packet titled, Questions from (H)EDC from 3/19/2010 Regarding
Workkeys and the HSGQE, page 2. Therein was an analysis of the
class of 2008 showing that 270 students received a certificate
of achievement. He stressed that the State Board of Education &
Early Development (state board) advises that it is unwise to
remove the HSGQE, and recommends a comprehensive study of the
state's assessment and accountability program with awareness of
federal requirements as well. Furthermore, Mr. Morse affirmed
that the ruling on the Moore lawsuit indicates that grade eleven
and grade twelve students who have failed the HSGQE need to have
an individualized learning plan; in fact, all of these students
in each of the five affected districts do have learning plans in
place.
8:34:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the HSGQE has gotten easier
to pass.
MR. MORSE said changes have not been made since the test was
used for accountability. After its inception in 2000, there was
a statutory change to assess basic competency skills,
particularly in the area of mathematics, and the "cut scores"
were reestablished. There have been no changes since 2005, when
special education students were held accountable.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER recalled teams of teachers initially set
the cut scores.
8:37:02 AM
MR. MORSE explained that the initial standards were established
by individuals from the industry, and parents. The process
concludes with a mean score to determine "at what point in
taking this test has a student passed enough ... to say they've
met those standards."
8:37:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the state board has met
since the Moore decision.
MR. MORSE said no, and pointed out that the judge has issued an
order, not a decision, in the referenced lawsuit.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON remarked,
If we're in compliance with what ... the court
ordered, then get rid of [the exit exam].
8:39:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
legislation was in place when the exit exam was established.
MR. MORSE recalled that NCLB was not in place when Alaska
established and amended HSGQE, but by the time HSGQE was
implemented, NCLB was also being implemented, and was followed
by Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) testing for grade level three
through ten in all schools.
8:40:04 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that prior to HSGQE, there were no
measures to hold school districts accountable for student
achievement. However, since the implementation of HSGQE, the
federal AYP requirements have been put in place. He questioned
whether the ability to assess the progress of students and
school districts in meeting the educational goals for Alaska is
being served by the federal assessments, or if HSGQE is still
necessary.
MR. MORSE said prior to NCLB there were other assessments, but
NCLB creates a consistency across grades three through ten and
provides accountability and clear information to educators about
the performance of students. However, the role of the HSGQE is
to assess the individual student, rather than the school.
Although various assessments are providing robust information,
the state board is going to be "careful and cautious" about
replacing information gleaned on individual students.
8:42:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON observed that the WIN test would
provide information on students' abilities.
MR. MORSE agreed that the WIN curriculum provides information to
the teacher, but does not tell were students are positioned
relative to state standards, thus the other assessments are
necessary.
8:43:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented on the high stakes element of
the HSGQE, and opined that it is not really high stakes in the
term of proficiency. From the perspective of a postsecondary
institute or an employer, it is not high stakes if they are
faced with high school graduates who cannot perform. Setting a
known standard would be helpful, and he recalled the development
of the HSGQE.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON maintained that the test is not
working, given the level of remediation required in
postsecondary schools. For example, the high school exam only
requires a grade eight level of proficiency in math. She
concluded that the HSGQE is not effective, and should not be
kept.
8:47:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled testimony that the state board
supports keeping this test, but she read a quote from Mr. Morse
who said the following at a previous meeting:
State board supports keeping the High School
Graduation Qualifying Exam not that we ought not look
at something down the road.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed her support for the bill.
8:47:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that 86 percent of
sophomores pass the English and writing portion and 50 percent
pass the math, thus the exam is not high stakes for them. The
original intent was to have a rigorous test that would
demonstrate competency at high school graduation.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ confirmed that the passage of HB 206 keeps
the HSGQE in place, but eliminates the requirement to pass in
order to graduate. She asked why the test would still be given.
CHAIR SEATON related that the HSGQE continues to serve a
purpose.
8:49:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER understood the test remains in place in
regulation, but not in statute.
CHAIR SEATON said no, the test remains in sec. 2, of HB 206.
The bill requires a competency examination, but not necessarily
the present one. He turned to page 2, line 15, and read:
(a) Each public secondary school in the state shall
require students to take a competency examination in
the areas of reading, English, and mathematics. The
department shall determine the timing, form, and
contents of the examination and shall score completed
examinations.
CHAIR SEATON stated that the language does not say that school
districts or the department can stop giving the current exam,
but that any testing can be used and included in students'
transcripts.
8:51:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER concluded it means that the legislature
is no longer requiring that schools administer the HSGQE,
although the department may choose to do so, or may use other
assessments.
CHAIR SEATON advised that the language on page 2, lines 15-18,
directs that there must be a competency examination in the areas
of reading, English, and mathematics, with the scores recorded
on the student's transcript.
MR. MORSE clarified that the statute allows flexibility as to
what test the department uses; however, the test must assess the
state's performance standards. The test used could be the
HSGQE, or the standards-based assessments used for NCLB.
Additionally, the statute allows the student to retake the test
if necessary. He advised the reference that allows for student
access to the test in grades 11 and 12 is still needed. In
response to Chair Seaton, he referred to language found on page
2, line 22, through page 3, line 22, that addressed retesting
for students and students with a disability. Mr. Morse pointed
out that new language in the statute on page 2, line 20,
"measure college readiness," will cause the department to
reexamine assessments to ensure they comply with this additional
requirement.
8:55:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the department could
retain the high stakes aspect of assessment through its
regulations.
MR. MORSE deferred the question to legal counsel. He stated his
belief that the department must follow the intent of the
legislature.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the requirement for an exit exam to
graduate can be generated by a local school district.
MR. MORSE indicated yes.
8:56:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked for an estimate of the cost to
develop and administer the HSGQE.
MR. MORSE estimated that the costs during the development years
ranged from $2 million to $3.5 million. The current assessment
for retake students costs about $1 million, and has been much
more in past years. He offered to provide the exact numbers.
Furthermore, students who did not pass the exam are able to
return at any age with their certificate of achievement, and
retake the test to earn a diploma.
CHAIR SEATON asked where it is stipulated that the HSGQE must be
administered in grade ten.
MR. MORSE said it is in regulation.
8:59:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON suggested part of the problem with the exam is that
it is given in the spring of grade ten. It does not appear that
HB 206 will require an exam in grade ten, and he asked for
confirmation of the department's position.
MR. MORSE confirmed that the department and the state board
could change its regulations and require the test in a higher
grade, but there would be development costs.
CHAIR SEATON acknowledged that one of the problems is that
college readiness is not being determined by the existing "cut
scores" on the HSGQE.
9:03:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether the higher educational
standards inspired by the passage of the GPS would affect the
exit exam.
MR. MORSE agreed that an assessment needs to be reviewed and
changed to reflect the current educational levels. He added
that adding college readiness to the assessment "aligns better
with the GPS."
9:04:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER also alluded to the passage of GPS and its
possible effects on the HSGQE during the next five years.
MR. MORSE recalled that the current statutory language speaks of
"essential skills of basic competency, or something to that
regard. To me that's not college readiness." The state board
and the department are going to take a comprehensive look at the
assessments that will lead to an educational system where more
kids are going to college, and where students in grade twelve
are leaving for postsecondary institutions without needing
remedial courses.
9:06:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER observed the HSGQE was designed to measure
basic fundamental proficiencies, not college readiness. He
suggested that the state should determine whether the GPS
legislation, if enacted, improves the basic competency of
students.
MR. MORSE agreed that the intent of the GPS is to raise
standards to which students strive. He assumed the result would
be the student mastery of a higher level of skills reflected in
the HSGQE.
9:07:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON cautioned that changing the HSGQE to
measure higher levels of competency, and retaining the
requirement for high school graduation, would bring up the
original problem whereas many students seeking a high school
diploma-not a college scholarship-would not pass.
MR. MORSE affirmed that would be accurate if the cut score were
changed. However, the cut scores could remain the same, even
though GPS-directed students would be scoring at higher "scale
score levels" on the test. He said, "You're going to find
yourself in this dilemma, if you change, and make this the
higher, high stakes test, you're going to have more students
that don't get a diploma, until you make sure your system has
driven for higher expectations of all those students."
9:09:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON observed HB 206 has been well reviewed,
and he listed many of the educational topics addressed during
discussions on the bill. He recommended that the committee
summarize its work in a narrative which could guide further
discussion by the department, the proposed task force, the state
board, and others.
CHAIR SEATON related that the committee received from the House
Finance Committee 15 questions regarding work done by the
educational task force two years ago. He suggested that issues
discussed during the hearings on HB 206 could be attached to the
response to those questions. However, if HB 206 remains in
committee, the two final issues are not part of the record in
BASIS.
9:13:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stated her opposition to moving the bill
forward because of unanswered questions, such as the effect of
the elimination of the high stakes portion on recent graduates.
She agreed that there are also good reasons to eliminate the
high stakes portion of the test. Also, there are concerns about
how the GPS legislation ties in with the high stakes testing
requirements. Representative Munoz said, "It seems [the bill
is] still a work in progress, and I think it might be premature
to move it out."
9:15:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON opined the bill has been reviewed from many aspects
and suggested that an amendment to delay implementation may
solve the immediate problems. He offered Conceptual Amendment 3
to create a delayed effective date of July 1, 2012.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for the purpose of discussion.
He then stated that extending the date of effectiveness is not a
positive or constructive action. He said, "There is no harm in
waiting and seeing, for example, how we do on the performance
scholarship."
9:17:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether removing the high stakes
aspect could lead to the parent of a child who did not graduate
during the period the requirement was in effect, suing the
state.
MR. MORSE said any response to Representative Peggy Wilson's
question would be speculative. Regarding the amendment that
would delay the effective date of the bill, he theorized that
prospective seniors may delay graduation for one year in order
to graduate free of the exam. In any case, "people will play
games."
9:20:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON restated her question.
MR. MORSE said he would ask for a legal opinion.
9:20:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to the document in the committee
packet titled, "Questions from (H)EDC from 3/19/2010 Regarding
Workkeys and the HSGQE," page 2, Class of 2008 Analysis, and
estimated that since 2005, over 2,000 students may have left
high school with only a certificate of achievement.
CHAIR SEATON observed that changes in statewide policy may be
indicated, even though those changes disadvantage some.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER maintained his objection to the amendment.
9:22:16 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Edgmon, Buch,
Munoz, and Seaton voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 3.
Representatives Keller, Gardner, and Wilson voted against it.
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
9:23:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH moved to report HB 206, 26-LS0765\C, as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
9:24:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON objected.
9:24:54 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner, Wilson,
Edgmon, Buch, Munoz, and Seaton voted in favor of HB 206.
Representative Keller voted against it. Therefore, CSHB
206(EDC) was reported out of the House Education Standing
Committee by a vote of 6-1.
9:26:03 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|