Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/26/2014 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| 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 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HR 9-DELAY IMPLEMENTATION OF ED STANDARDS
8:06:47 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the only 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. [Version U was before the committee.]
8:07:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented the committee substitute (CS) for HR 9 and
explained the intent of the resolution. The Task Force on
Sustainable Education [formed with passage of HR 8] conducted
hearings throughout the state. Communities expressed concern
that too many changes were occurring, including changes to
standards, the new curriculum, teacher development, and school
assessment based on attendance and outcomes. It wasn't a matter
of whether the districts wanted to do these things, but rather
that the multitude of changes being made were just too much.
Since then, teachers have begun to feel more comfortable with
teacher evaluation and understand the merits of making the
changes. Although she understands that many districts have
invested time and resources into implementation, she favored
conducting a cost analysis to ascertain district costs not just
the department's costs, noting some other states have found
implementation too costly. She questioned whether the new test
should be given next year or if it should be delayed another
year to allow districts more time to establish the new
curriculum. She suggested the local communities will need to
weigh in since [implementation costs] could adversely impact
smaller communities.
8:11:06 AM
CHAIR GATTIS remarked that she has received feedback from school
administrators and teachers who have indicated an interest in
implementing the new standards. She asked whether this
resolution will pivot direction and change to something new.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered no; that the standards are in
place and districts have a choice. She noted the Anchorage
School District has adopted the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS). She directed attention to the testing and teacher
evaluation aspect. She emphasized that having a third party
review the system as a whole may be necessary to consider
infrastructure needed to meet the requirements and to review the
costs for teacher development. Given the emphasis on
standardized testing, the biggest question she has is whether
districts are prepared to administer the new tests and if the
districts have sufficient preparation time to put the new
curriculum in place and obtain necessary teaching materials.
She feared that student scores will drop since the standards are
being raised. Although she did not object to more rigorous
standards, she questioned whether teachers will be able to mesh
the specific standards to the curriculum and teach those
portions.
8:13:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further clarification of the
effect of delaying the standards, if any, on the "No Child Left
Behind (NCLB)" waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that the standards wouldn't be
delayed. The resolution would require a third-party review of
the entire system to determine whether sufficient time to
perform testing and teacher evaluations. Again, the standards
are in place and the districts are working on the aforementioned
two issues; however, the state will determine when the initial
new examination will be given.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further clarification on the new
test and if it is based on the WorkKeys assessment.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered the Standardized Base
Assessment (SBAs) currently being taken will no longer be given
since they are based on the old academic standards being
replaced. The state has determined it will form its own test
and will develop cut scores based on the new standards. She
said the initial test is planned for 2015 and will replace the
current Grade 3-11 testing outside WorkKeys.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that the
proposed test would not be a pass or fail test, but an
assessment test.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered absolutely. In response to a
question, she answered that [HR 9] Version U is currently before
the committee.
8:16:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the title of Version U
includes the language to "delay implementation" in the title.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON agreed an amendment is in order.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification on whether
the governor's education bill included language that teacher
evaluations would be based in part on student performance. He
asked for further clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that a slowdown may be
necessary. Each district will need to evaluate its curriculum
to determine if the curriculum matches the more rigorous
standards. She acknowledged that this will be much easier for
larger districts to accomplish since they have dedicated staff.
She highlighted that her goal is to for districts to continue to
work toward implementing the new teacher evaluation and testing
assessment, but HR 9 will capture implementation costs and not
rush the transition. She reported that the test has not yet
been developed for 2015.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification on whether
the sponsor would like to delay teacher evaluations that include
student progress or if HR 9 addresses delaying the five-star
school rating system.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained the two major parts of the
five-star rating system. First, districts must put in place a
new teacher evaluation system; and second, implement the student
assessment for student testing in grades 3-11. The outcomes of
those tests are related back to the classroom, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the proposal under HR 9
would delay the teacher evaluation portion.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered it would delay full
implementation of the statewide education standards.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the proposal is to delay
the new teacher evaluations.
8:20:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III reiterated the language "delay
implementation" is in the resolution's title. He asked for
further clarification on the timeframe, since HR 9 resolves to
provide a phase-in schedule for full implementation of the new
standards. He asked whether this delay would be an
indeterminate timeframe delay or if the sponsor anticipated a
specific time period for the department to conduct the
assessment and arrive at costs. Second, he related his
understanding from previous testimony that many districts are
already fully into implementation. He further asked whether the
department would assess and identify costs for districts already
fully implementing the standards.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON suggested the proposed amendments to HR
9 would answer some questions.
8:21:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HR 9,
Version U, labeled 28-LS1224\U.1, Mischel, 3/24/14, which read,
as follows:
Page 1, line 2, following "delay":
Insert "the full"
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected, noting she doesn't have
Amendment 1.
CHAIR GATTIS asked that Amendment 1 be distributed.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON maintained her objection.
8:23:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained that the title is being
altered from a "delay" of the "full implementation" so if
districts are moving forward on implementation they should
continue to do so. The third party can still assess whether the
districts can meet the 2015 assessment date or if it will be
advantageous to delay full implementation.
8:24:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said the language indicates a delay of
the full implementation, which she interpreted to mean delaying
everything.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON agreed that the original version of HR
9 reflected her initial interest in stopping implementation;
however, the next amendment she will offer will specify a third-
party analysis. She explained that Alaska's school districts
range from very small to large districts. She pointed out the
NCLB waiver created this [new standards] process and the choices
are probably good choices. However, she would like to slow down
the process to ensure that teachers and children won't be judged
on a system that districts haven't had time to put in place.
She supported increasing the curriculum level for students, but
also wanted be sure students are adequately evaluated. All of
this will take time to implement, she said.
8:27:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that the Administration
Regulation Review (ARR) committee has been holding a series of
hearings since testing often comes through the regulatory
process.
CHAIR GATTIS asked members to focus on Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated that the ARR committee has
focused on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the lack
of educators involved in this process. She expressed concern
that [the change in standards] does more than change standards
since it impacts the curriculum and tests. She has received
numerous concerns about the new curriculum, she said, and has
subsequently removed her name from the resolution as a cosponsor
and will be a "no" vote. She asked for further clarification on
whether this resolution is to stretch out the time a little
longer for the implementation of the Alaska academic standards.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered no; that this is to delay the
process to allow time for a better evaluation of all facets.
She said it is important to evaluate the aspects and to maintain
appropriate standards. She said many states have done the same
thing, including Tennessee, Texas, and Indiana. In addition,
she has been interested in determining the overall costs to
districts. She hoped to have a third party outside state
government review the process. At this point, many things have
been put in place but an evaluation hasn't been done to identify
what "all these pieces mean" and "is that where we want to go."
She related her understanding everyone agrees that changes to
[academic] standards are necessary. The districts determine the
curriculum to meet the standards, she said.
8:31:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted Amendment 1 is before the
committee and the discussion should be focused on the amendment.
8:31:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III expressed concern that it appears that
Amendment 1 does not remove the implication for delay since it
adds "the full" as a modifier to "implementation," so the title
suggests the legislature wants to delay the process. He
reiterated his concern that this might suggest the standards
should also be delayed.
8:32:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt an amendment to
Amendment 1, to add "partial" so it would read "to delay partial
implementation" of statewide education standards. She said she
is open to suggested language.
CHAIR GATTIS agreed that movement has begun and it is important
to continue on the path.
8:33:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that the title must reflect the
language in the resolution. He suggested that the pending
amendment to Amendment 1 be set aside until the committee
determines the resolution's content.
CHAIR GATTIS agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON withdrew the amendment to Amendment 1.
8:34:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD withdrew Amendment 1. There being no
objection, Amendment 1 was withdrawn.
8:34:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 28-
LS1224\U.2, Bullock/Mischel, 3/25/14, which read as follows:
Page 2, lines 12 - 13:
Delete "until the state Board of Education and
Early Development identifies"
Insert "pending the determination by an
independent third party under contract with and under
the supervision of the House Task Force on Sustainable
Education of"
Page 2, line 16, following "assessment,":
Insert "and the receipt of that determination by
the House Task Force on Sustainable Education,"
CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion purposes.
8:35:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained that Amendment 2 changes the
process the State Board of Education and Early Development uses
to conduct an evaluation to a third party evaluation. She
offered her belief that a third party can review the system and
ensure that the state has the ability to implement standards
fairly. In fact, a third-party evaluator might recommend
something else [besides moving forward with the new academic
standards] due to the issues, the cost, and the districts'
viewpoint. She stressed this would allow someone outside the
education system to make a determination. "At the end of the
day we want our children to be learning to the best of their
capabilities," she said. Further, she emphasized the importance
of ensuring that the system being put in place allows that to
occur.
8:36:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out the independent third party
is not identified in the amendment. She asked for further
clarification on who will select the third-party evaluator to
identify any associated costs.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that a Request for Proposal
(RFP) would need to be issued. She directed attention to page
2, lines 10-17 of HR 9 and indicated the third-party evaluator
would consider the costs of curriculum alignment, technological
improvement, teacher preparation, new standards-based
assessment, and costs to provide a phased-in school for full
implementation of the new standards.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that [third-party evaluator]
travel costs will be expensive. She suggested that if the
Amendment 2 passes the resolution would likely need a referral
to the House Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON agreed; however, she envisioned that
the third-party evaluator could obtain significant data from the
department, but she surmised the evaluator would also need to
speak to the superintendents. She envisioned such a process
would identify statewide needs and determine the estimated costs
to implement the new state standards.
8:39:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what type of third-party evaluator
would likely bid on the RFP.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded companies exist that evaluate
school systems. In response to a question, she declined to
specifically mention companies by name since anyone can bid on
the RFP.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the Task Force on
Sustainable Education (TFSE) has a budget to consider this type
of undertaking.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered yes. She estimated $230,000
of $250,000 in [Task Force on Sustainable Education] funding
remains. She anticipated that these funds would cover the
evaluation costs.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for further clarification on the
reason the EED should not handle this.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON suggested that the third-party report
could perhaps validate the work the EED has done. However, she
questioned how the department could evaluate itself since the
state developed the state academic standards.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related his understanding that she didn't
have faith that the department could properly evaluate itself.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered no. She said a number of
questions have been brought to the department, such as whether
sufficient wireless broadband communication exists in schools or
the types of testing available that have led her to think the
data exists but the department can't distill it. For one thing
districts will be evaluated on the new standards, yet she
questioned whether districts have adequate resources to
implement changes.
8:41:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether a corresponding decrement
will be taken in the EED to offset the $250,000 in funding for
the [Task Force on Sustainable Education].
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that the implementation and
costs fall on the districts, not on the state.
8:42:34 AM
CHAIR GATTIS reframed the question, which is since a third party
will perform the evaluation whether the EED's budget will be
reduced since otherwise the department would evaluate the
process.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered no. She viewed the third-
party review as determining whether additional work is expected
of districts that it not currently part of the formula funding.
8:43:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III expressed concern about removing the
department from the process, as well as delaying the
implementation pending determination by an independent third
party. He offered his belief that this might create disconnects
since it tells the commissioner to delay implementation until
the [Task Force on Sustainable Education] creates a third-party
report. Thus, the department would not have any control over
continuing to implement the standards and the process may be
halted, he said.
8:44:19 AM
CHAIR GATTIS interjected her concern for the mixed message that
appears to be in the resolution; however, the intent is to have
some legislative oversight over the process. She further
expressed concern that it sends the wrong message. She said the
students and teachers must "step up to the plate." Although six
months ago she would have agreed with the resolution she has
subsequently found districts have made impressive changes and
have risen to the challenge. However, she supported the intent
of Amendment 2 since evaluating the costs and processes is also
important.
8:46:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON raised a point of order.
8:46:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON maintained that a "disconnect" doesn't
exist since the department provides the information and will
determine when the assessment tests are taken. She emphasized
that it's the legislature's responsibility to ensure that
students have the tools they need. She viewed the third-party
evaluation process in HR 9 as providing assurance that the state
is taking the right direction.
8:47:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III related his understanding that HR 9
seeks a report on the status of the implementation of the
college and career readiness standards. He suggested the
department could provide the legislature with information on
progress made in each of the districts rather than creating a
completely separate third-party report.
8:47:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, referring to page 2, line 12 of Version
U, expressed concern that the language in this resolve urges the
commissioner to "delay full implementation of the college and
career readiness standards" and the third-party contract
identifies "all related improvements and adaptations necessary"
including "technological improvement, teacher preparation, and
new standards-based assessment." The second part of Amendment 2
would require "the receipt of that determination by the House
Task Force on Sustainable Education" in addition to the third-
party report. He suggested that this resolution may impose
multiple roadblocks to the educational system improvements the
legislature has been continuously seeking. Further, based on
other evaluations, he surmised it appears to be a $6-12 million
project and not a $100,000 third-party evaluation project. He
favored asking the commissioner to respond to a number of the
questions rather than to have a mini-contract perform analysis.
He concluded by saying that he could not support Amendment 2.
CHAIR GATTIS asked for further clarification as to whether the
legislature would be imposing roadblocks. She understood him to
mean the legislature has been working on accountability, higher
standards, and that [Amendment 2] might create a roadblock.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed; explaining that the legislature
has been attempting to move forward with improved education
processes. The sequences being proposed in HR 9 appear to delay
the legislature's goals for improved education.
8:51:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD appreciated the intent of Amendment 2;
however, she suggested the State Board of Education would be
tasked with further scrutiny. She expressed her disappointment
in information the EED has supplied. For example, at one June
2013 hearing, the legislature was advised that the new Alaska
Standards were about 95 percent aligned with the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS), whereas yesterday the department
indicated it was about 40 percent aligned. She emphasized that
teachers have reported implementation is completely
impracticable due to the diversity in schools and villages. She
expressed concern that the proposed changes have adversely
impacted teacher morale. She said this effort appears to be a
dramatic federal overreach into education.
8:53:31 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked to have comments focused on Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD responded that her comments have been
focused on the amendment in regards to the [Task Force [on
Sustainable Education (TFSE)] and identifying who is responsible
for reviewing the system in its entirety. She stressed the
importance of having the educational system reviewed and for
parental and public involvement. She hoped the system would be
audited to determine whether this is the direction that should
be taken by the state.
8:54:18 AM
CHAIR GATTIS removed her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected.
8:54:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON remarked that HR 9, Version U, isn't
intended to create a roadblock. She suggested that an
evaluation should have been done by the State Board of Education
[and Early Development] on curriculum, improving teacher
development, and providing assessments. She emphasized the
importance of affirming the direction the new academic standards
is taking, understanding the costs, the state and districts'
role. She stressed the need to have the third-party evaluation
proposed in Amendment 2 to be sure that districts are adequately
prepared and avoid the necessity of directing districts to make
significant changes two years from now. She favored using state
funding to obtain the best outcome, which is the intent of
Amendment 2.
8:56:36 AM
CHAIR GATTIS wondered if the [Task Force on Sustainable
Education] could continue to work on these issues if HR 9
doesn't pass. She asked whether the TFSE needs the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered no; but offered her belief
that just having the discussion has been good.
CHAIR GATTIS expressed an interest in holding HR 9 over.
8:57:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD withdrew Amendment 2.
8:57:29 AM
CHAIR GATTIS opened public testimony on HR 9.
8:58:04 AM
KRIS ZAVOLI, Senior Director for State Government Relations, ,
Western Region, National Office of the College Board, , stated
her opposition to HR 9, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
My name is Kris Zavoli, Senior Director for State
Government Relations at the national office of the
College Board. I have been coming to Juneau, Alaska
in this capacity for 15 years. During that time I
have observed improvement as measured by our own
college readiness indicators as evidence that state
policy makers have raised their expectations for
students in order to make them more successful and
competitive in today's world.
Many states have chosen to raise their expectations
for students. Some did it by adopting the common
core. Alaska is one of four states that did not adopt
common core. Instead they raised standards on their
own.
This week I met with several state legislators and the
governor's office to share good news about the
progress the students in Alaska are making with
College Board programs namely AP, SAT and PSAT.
During my data deliveries, I learned about this
resolution to delay implementation of Alaska's new
standards.
I believe this action will be a serious set-back and
will arrest the positive momentum I have witnessed in
student achievement in this state. It will be
detrimental to the excellent work the state has done
during the last two years preparing for
implementation.
Monday night I had dinner with the Chancellor John
Pugh and Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Joe Nelson at
U of AK Southeast. We discussed the Alaska
Performance Scholarship and the need to get more
students ready for college and career readiness. They
also described their initiatives in working with
teachers to provide professional development so they
can begin implementation the new standards.
I urge you not to reverse the college and career
readiness progress in Alaska by voting no on this
resolution.
9:00:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what evidence she used to support
her view on significant improvement in the past 15 years in
student performance and college readiness.
MS. ZAVOLI answered that she has observed the growth in the
number of Alaskan students taking the PSAT [Preliminary SAT]
exams, the investment the [Department of Education and Early
Development] has made in providing district funding to allow
sophomores to take the PSAT exam to assess student readiness for
more rigor, and that the number high school students obtaining
college credits has increased from 16 percent to 25 percent.
These are all indicators of improvements in Alaska, she said.
Further, she emphasized the very strong growth in advanced
placement [AP] high school courses. Finally, she noted that the
University of Alaska (UA) will undertake an upcoming two-day
professional development process to help prepare teachers to
teach college courses in high school.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for further clarification that her
comments are based on the state's participation with "college
board" products [such as the PSAT].
MS. ZAVOLI answered that her comments are also based on the
national data, which she offered to share with the committee.
[HR 9 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS for HR9.pdf |
HEDC 3/26/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HR 9 |
| HR 9 Amendment U.1.pdf |
HEDC 3/26/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HR 9 |
| HR 9 Amendment U.2.pdf |
HEDC 3/26/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HR( |
| HR 9 Amendment U.2.pdf |
HEDC 3/26/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HR 9 |