Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/17/2002 08:00 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 464-CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAMS CHAIR BUNDE announced that the last order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 464, "An Act relating to statewide school district correspondence study programs." [Before the committee is CSHB 464(HES), Version 22-LS1494\S.] CHAIR BUNDE moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1, which reads as follows: Page 1, lines 9-12: Delete all material and insert: "(1) shall specify that once the department has approved an initial statewide correspondence program application, the district will not be required to submit a new application (A) more frequently than every five years if the program is designated as distinguished or successful under AS 14.03.123(a); or (B) more frequently than every ten years if the program is designated as distinguished or successful under AS 14.03.123(a), and the program is accredited by the Northwest Association of schools and Colleges." Page 1, line 13, following "monitored": Delete "at periodic intervals as established by the school district" Insert "by a certified teacher; the monitoring must include at least monthly student-teacher of teacher-parent contact, and quarterly review of the student's work or progress in the Individual Learning Plan;" Page 2, line 4, following "the": Delete "purchase" Insert "review, selection." Page 2, line 5, following "materials": Delete "purchased by the school district or Alyeska Central School" Insert "before they are introduced into the correspondence curriculum" Page 2, line 8, following "work": Insert "by certified teachers" Page 2, line 9, Delete all material. Page 1, line 5, following "study": Delete "(a)" Page 2, line 9: Insert a new bill section to read: "*Sec. 2. AS 14.07.050 is amended to read: Sec. 14.07.050. Selection of textbooks. Textbooks for use in the public schools of the sate, including a district offered statewide correspondence study program, shall be selected by district boards for district schools." Page 2, line 7: Insert a new bill section to read: "*Sec. 3. AS 14.08.111(9) is amended to read: (9) establish procedures for the review and selection of all textbooks and instructional materials including textbooks and curriculum materials for statewide correspondence programs before they are introduced into the school curriculum; the review includes a review for violations of AS 14.18.060;" Page 2, line 7: Insert a new bill section to read: "*Sec. 4. AS 14.14.090(7) is amended to read: (9) establish procedures for the review and selection of all textbooks and instructional materials including textbooks and curriculum materials for statewide correspondence programs before they are introduced into the school curriculum; the review includes a review for violations of AS 14.18.060;" CHAIR BUNDE explained that Amendment 1 ensures that students attending correspondence schools are held to the same standards as those who attend public schools. The original legislation suggested that there had to be monthly teacher-parent contact; however, often the parent is the teacher and thus there is daily contact. Chair Bunde explained that Amendment 1 would provide for a quarterly review of the student's work or progress by a certified teacher, which he likened to the parent-teacher conferences in the public school system. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS requested that Chair Bunde go through Amendment 1. Number 0327 ED McLAIN, Ed.D., Deputy Commissioner of Education, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development, explained that the first section of Amendment 1 deletes language relating to program approval once every ten years, unless the correspondence program is deemed deficient or in crisis, and replaces it with language that allows approval every five years for programs that are deemed distinguished or successful and once every ten years if the program is also accredited. This language is present to encourage accreditation. CHAIR BUNDE interjected that this would provide correspondence schools with an advantage because correspondence schools wouldn't be subject to review every ten years, if the school chose to [become accredited]. Public schools are reviewed every year. DR. McLAIN related his understanding that under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) these programs would still be subjected to the criteria determining whether the program/school is distinguished, satisfactory, deficient, or in crisis. If programs are found to be in the first two categories listed, the program would continue to the next year whereas if the program was found to be deficient or in crisis, then the program would need to come back to the department to discuss its plans. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON related her understanding that currently every school has to be categorized and if a school is found to be inadequate, the school would be reviewed. DR. McLAIN pointed out that the designator bill and ESEA would require all schools in the state to be identified in one of the four categories. The prior state statute and ESEA dictate that there be some actions that the schools and the department would need to undertake depending upon ... [tape change]. TAPE 02-17, SIDE A CHAIR BUNDE clarified that ESEA is a federal regulation and the school designator will be part of the No Child Left Behind plan. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised then that all schools have [to be categorized]. DR. McLAIN replied yes. In further response to Representative Wilson, Dr. McLain explained that currently regulation requires statewide correspondence programs to submit an annual application, which is time consuming. The current proposed regulations have changed the annual application to every five years so long as the school maintains its successful or distinguished category. Therefore, this amendment would parallel the increase in freedom in the proposed regulations. CHAIR BUNDE informed the committee that not all public schools are accredited, and therefore the department would like to encourage more schools to become accredited. DR. McLAIN agreed, and added that currently the state's larger high schools are accredited while many of the elementary schools aren't. From the current information, two of the correspondence schools have candidacy status and the others aren't accredited. Accreditation is extremely valuable in terms of having credits and transcripts available and accepted by other schools to which the student wishes to transfer. Number 0217 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS surmised then that there are no correspondence schools that are accredited at this time. He asked if the bar is so high that it would be unlikely that the correspondence schools would be accredited. DR. McLAIN explained that two schools, Galena's Interior Distance Education of Alaska (IDEA) and Personal Alternative Choices in Education (PACE), have candidacy status, which is the first step in accreditation. The other correspondence schools haven't applied or have let their accreditation lapse. Sometimes the lapse in accreditation is due to the cost, he mentioned. Number 0338 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to what is so great about accreditation, especially when the students of accredited secondary schools have fallen below expectations for passing the exit exam. DR. McLAIN informed the committee that when the department reviewed the percentage of students who demonstrated proficiency with the High School Qualifying Exam, it was found that statewide, accredited or not, the 44 percent of students demonstrating proficiency in math was substantially higher than the overall [percentage of proficiency] in all three of the larger correspondence programs. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked again what accreditation brings to the school. DR. McLAIN specified that accreditation allows a student's transcript to be accepted by other accredited schools. Dr. McLain acknowledged that there is paperwork [showing that the school has met the standards] to obtain and maintain accreditation. He argued that accreditation is especially important for innovative programs. Number 0725 CHAIR BUNDE returned attention to Amendment 1 and informed the committee that the section dealing with page 1, line 13, is a change he made to the department's amendment. This portion of Amendment 1 changes the monthly student-teacher contact to quarterly review. DR. McLAIN explained that the department's original regulations spoke to monthly review of work. However, public comments on that matter were that it would be onerous. Dr. McLain said that he wanted to demonstrate that the correspondence program is a program because there seems to be a perception otherwise. The regular contact would seem to help the aforementioned perception and gain credibility. Dr. McLain acknowledged that Amendment 1 drops that [monthly review of the student's work or progress] and as deputy commissioner he requested that the committee reconsider that because it wasn't included lightly. Without the monthly review, the quarterly review wouldn't be enough and leave children to fall behind without time to make mid-term instructional corrections. Number 1009 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if this language would lead to additional need for certificated teachers to monitor monthly and quarterly reports. DR. McLAIN specified that this language speaks to what occurs inside the local district; there's no language included here about the department monitoring. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS clarified that he was interested in whether this legislation would require more teachers for oversight. DR. McLAIN explained that the department doesn't specify the minimum pupil-teacher ratio. However, in general a typical brick-and-mortar school has pupil-teacher ratios of 15-1 to 30- 1. The pupil-teacher ratios in these [correspondence] programs are generally higher; it depends upon the design of the program. The department is simply suggesting that there be a monthly minimum. CHAIR BUNDE announced that the committee wouldn't take action today because it will soon lose its quorum and thus will meet on this next week. Returning to the legislation, Chair Bunde related his understanding that the two largest correspondence schools, Galena and Nenana, haven't found the proposed regulations to be onerous. Number 1333 DR. McLAIN returned to Amendment 1 and the sections dealing with page 2, line 4, and page 2, line 5. These amendments provide that the local school board has the duty and the authority to establish procedures through review, selection, and use of correspondence materials purchased by the school district. Existing statutes, AS 14.07.050 and AS 14.08.111, relate to the selection of text books and the district's review of curriculum respectively. This amendment makes HB 464 consistent with the aforementioned statutes. CHAIR BUNDE explained that correspondence school parents have an account from which the price of the materials chosen are deducted. The only difference is that in Galena students are shipped a computer whereas in Nenana the parent purchases the computer and sends in the receipt to be reimbursed. Number 1632 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Alaska State Legislature, spoke as the sponsor of HB 464. Representative James remarked that this legislation has been a struggle in the legislature and in the public arena. She surmised that this struggle is due to the new phenomena of computers, which has created a different system of education. Furthermore, there is the federal mandate to leave no child behind. If the state is to follow that mandate, then students should have the opportunity to do whatever works and the state has a responsibility to be sure that every child is learning. Therefore, the question becomes where the line is drawn with regard to pupil-teacher ratios; that is when is it appropriate for a certificated teacher to be involved. She agreed that oversight and passage of the benchmark exams and the High School Qualifying Exam are necessary. Regarding the amendment, Representative James turned to the area of accreditation and said that were she convinced of what accreditation does for a school, she would want every school in the state to be accredited. She pointed out that with this amendment this would be the only place in statute where accreditation is mentioned. She said she would be willing for accreditation to be included if it was available for other schools as well. CHAIR BUNDE said that if the accreditation portion was eliminated, it would eliminate a tool from correspondence schools. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that Amendment 1 inserts the language specifying that the once a correspondence program application is approved by the department the program won't be required to submit a new application more frequently than every ten years if the program is designated as distinguished or successful under AS 14.03.123(a), and the program is accredited by the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges. She questioned how much more successful do "we" want them to be. CHAIR BUNDE surmised that Representative James would rather eliminate subparagraph (A) from the new material being inserted on page 1, lines 9-12. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she wasn't that hung up on the five year requirement, but believes that deleting all of subparagraph (B) would be appropriate. CHAIR BUNDE inquired as to the wish of the committee. Number 2310 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that accreditation is voluntary and thus he didn't see a problem with including it. CHAIR BUNDE noted that part of the challenge has been that there has been a significant level of discomfort between the department and the correspondence people. Chair Bunde said that he didn't want to add to the level of distrust. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she didn't want to make the rules for review any stricter than those for charter schools. DR. McLAIN answered that correspondence schools and charter schools aren't an exact apples to apples comparison. For instance, charter schools are required to have a specific academic council review and set policy and direction, which isn't currently required of the correspondence programs. Furthermore, charter schools, not correspondence programs, are required to obtain local school board approval as well as the approval from the state board. The application renewal for charter schools was recently changed to every ten years, he mentioned. CHAIR BUNDE announced that next week discussion of the amendment would continue. [HB 464 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|