Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/21/2002 03:04 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 352-SCHOOL PERFORMANCE REPORTS CHAIR DYSON announced the next order of business to be HOUSE BILL NO. 352, "An Act extending the dates for assignment of performance designations of public schools and the dates for reports and monitoring based on those designations; and providing for an effective date." Number 1392 ED McLAIN, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner of Education, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development (EED), presented HB 352 to the committee. He offered that HB 352 changes the effective date for the school [designations]. He noted that HB 352 had been heard by the [House Special Committee on Education] earlier, and that he was available to answer questions. CHAIR DYSON inquired, "Why do we need to change the date?" Number 1421 DR. McLAIN replied that the [governor's] letter of transmittal offers three reasons for the change of date. First, the change will allow EED to gather "growth scores" in addition to the status scores. Only status scores - student test scores - currently exist; the School Designator System (SDS) Committee strongly recommends that the system accounts for both status and growth. He offered that this would be a way to adjust for a school that has low [status scores] but is making good progress. This would prevent that school from automatically being penalized as a school that is "deficient" or "in crisis"; the progress the school is making with its students would be recognized. This use of growth requires EED to gather data to establish a growth line. The state has been conducting assessments for a number of years, he noted, but the assessment instruments have changed over the years, and no "apples-to- apples" comparison exists. DR. McLAIN noted that the second reason for the request is that the change will allow EED to align the state's program with United States HR 1 [the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)]. United States HR 1 is a comprehensive education reform bill, he stated; at the heart of the resolution is a school [designation] component. He said, "It has in it the expectation that there be one system; we fully support the idea of one system." He spoke against having both a state designation and a federal designation. Two systems would be confusing. He said EED wants to work with the federal system to ensure full alignment, which will take additional time. Number 1503 DR. McLAIN stated that the third objective is "capacity building" at the district level, the [assessment materials] provider level, and the state level. The department fully supports [the designation system's] becoming data-driven; this will require capacity building, he said. Many districts do not have the in-house capacity to do some of the necessary analysis; this was evidenced as the disaggregated data [was reported] in the past year. He concluded that these were the three primary goals in the request for the date change. Number 1550 MARK LEAL, Director of Assessment, Teaching and Learning Support, Department of Education and Early Development, added that the state doesn't have a statewide database of assessment data; EED is currently establishing this. The State Board of Education and Early Development passed regulations this year to allow for the assigning of unique student identifiers, so EED can manage student test scores. The old system required districts to report test data to EED for the school report card and other purposes, he said. A statewide database with unique student identifiers will allow EED to obtain test data directly from the test contractor and to verify this [data] with districts. Time is required to build this capacity, he concluded. CHAIR DYSON asked whether 16 months - a delay to 2003 - is enough time to accomplish these goals. Number 1600 DR. McLAIN responded that the proposed date aligns with the implementation of the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE); EED believes this to be appropriate. The rulemaking committee process for U.S. HR 1 will take another [congressional legislative] session for establishment. If there is no delay, only status scores will be used. He offered that it is EED's best recommendation to be able to incorporate the growth data; this will give a much better picture. Status scores are currently [available to the public]. Some schools are already under Title I improvement plans, he noted. He emphasized that this delay is not a matter of doing nothing for the next two years; a variety of pieces are in place. The department wants to do this right, he concluded. Number 1650 MR. LEAL added that 2004 is the targeted date because the state's assessments end at the tenth grade; students who pass the HSGQE in the tenth grade don't have to retake the test. Students who don't pass continue to take the test. He noted that EED is planning to capture that information in the percentage of students graduating; by aligning the date with the HSGQE implementation, the [indicator] number will include the later years of high school. Number 1687 CHAIR DYSON inquired about the length of time needed to build the necessary capacity apart from the alignment with other dates. MR. LEAL responded, "We can do pieces of it right now." He indicated that certain pieces could be in place in 16 months. He added, "It just depends on what ... pieces of it ... we're willing to live with, or live without." Number 1709 CHAIR DYSON expressed his understanding that many schools don't have the necessary capacity to do what the state requires regarding analysis. He asked whether 16 months isn't adequate time to build the necessary capacity in terms of staff skill levels. DR. McLAIN replied that it is not a matter of skills alone. The individual student identifiers are being established; some natural difficulties will be encountered in this process, he offered. He said, "There will be the kicking in of the waiver process and getting those pieces put on line with the high school qualifying [exam]. None of these happen in isolation." The request for the delay to build capacity will allow for these pieces to be built up together as a unified piece. He noted that an earlier date will allow for the inclusion of different components [in the school designation]; because of the high- stakes nature of this, however, EED prefers to [include growth data]. Number 1770 CHAIR DYSON offered his understanding that EED is seeking to rate schools using one-third [of the designation], based on the scores, with another portion showing improvement. MR. LEAL referred to the sample Alaska School Report Card prepared by EED. He explained that the school designation portion will include one-third based on status and [two-thirds] based on growth; this is the recommendation of the SDS Committee. He added that this is a value-added kind of system. Number 1810 CHAIR DYSON inquired what will prohibit a principal or superintendent from intentionally lowering the initial scores to ensure that the growth scores will be high. DR. McLAIN replied that the status scores are already being published. He offered his opinion that a school that would intentionally lower scores would subject itself to public scrutiny. He stated that published status scores are carefully reviewed [by the public]. Added impetus [for having accurate status scores] is furnished by Title I schools' reporting requirements and identification of schools in need of improvement. Some Alaskan Title I schools are currently on school improvement plans, he said. He offered his understanding that Title I [designations] are based solely on status scores. Title I schools would be ill-served to "muck around" with [test scores]; he said "school improvement site" schools would be the primary schools looking at this new system. Number 1880 CHAIR DYSON sought confirmation that Dr. McLain had said a baseline score already exists and would therefore be impossible to tamper with. DR. McLAIN responded, "They have the status scores." Number 1889 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if federal money is designated for Title I schools in need of improvement. DR. McLAIN replied yes; there are requirements for how that money is spent. Results of these expenditures for improvement plans are monitored. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned the establishment of a fund [for Title I schools in need of improvement]; he expressed his understanding that there is no money currently in the fund. He acknowledged the current debate over rewarding schools for poor performance and asked how the Title I system encourages schools to improve rather than simply take money. Number 1925 DR. McLAIN stated that this is the very issue he addressed with Title I federal personnel upon discussing the consequences and incentives for Title I schools. He offered that he was not prepared to fully outline those steps for the committee, but said these schools do have an obligation to show progress. Without appropriate progress, these schools will lose some [autonomy]. Number 1951 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL observed that there is [a zero] fiscal note for extending the date. He asked whether there is a cost for not allowing for the extension, or any savings by not extending it. DR. McLAIN replied that there is certainly no cost in extending the date. He suggested it could be argued - although he is not extending this as a reason for passage - that any fiscal impact might be a savings. One of the reasons for the delay is the alignment of designations with federal requirements. He offered that EED doesn't want to have to backtrack in its planning as the federal rulemaking committee establishes rules. To the degree that this backtracking is avoided, a savings will be realized in money, time, and [effort]. He pointed out that Mr. Leal works with the SDS Committee; the committee and EED assessment personnel are constructing regulations in the event that the designations are implemented in 2002. If the delay is granted, then the committee can redirect its efforts and public relations toward the new date. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated, "I don't want the discussion relaxed on what do we do next once the [designation] hits. I think that's going to be one of the fears as we look at extending the date. ... I want to know how you're going to aggressively take that discussion on." Number 2020 DR. McLAIN noted that he shares that concern; he identified the details of the [designation] as being his focus. He stated that if no delay is granted, the designations will be based on status scores that are already published. Those scores will be part of the state's implementation of the federal requirement for adequate yearly progress. Everyone will know the stakes involved with the adequate yearly progress designations, he said. No one will be able to claim a lack of understanding of the process or of the importance of the achievement scores. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated his intention of staying aware of this discussion. Number 2072 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for clarification regarding the weight given to status scores and growth scores in the school designation. MR. LEAL clarified that status scores represent one-third and growth scores represent two-thirds of the designation. Number 2093 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA referenced discussions with property owners in her district who are concerned about the impact of the school designations on property values. She said, "I have proud, older neighborhoods ... [that] are very diverse." She stated that as far as she is concerned, these neighborhoods get high ratings for neighborliness, but they have some challenges. Administrators have commented, she said, that these schools in older neighborhoods are experiencing decreasing student populations. This gives these schools more room, which then is used to house special-education programs. The presence of these students, while welcome in the school, affects the school designation. She asked how EED was planning to address this concern. Number 2159 MR. LEAL replied that EED is still working on that. One way to address that concern is by looking at growth; there is the expectation that all students will grow. He acknowledged that EED hasn't yet dealt as effectively as it would like with the issue of special schools that serve as magnets for special programs. The committee is still wrestling with how to address these schools; he has been working with the designator committee since August, Mr. Leal said, and has been struck with how fair the committee wishes this process to be. He offered that the biggest cost incurred without the delay is the cost associated with the integrity of the system. Components to assure fairness would not be in place, he added. Number 2204 CHAIR DYSON pointed out that he has received comments from people in real estate that these designations will cause property values to fall, with an ensuing decline in the salability of homes. He observed that when moving, most families want to know about the quality of the schools in a prospective community. He asked for comments on this. DR. McLAIN said this issue is being addressed nationwide. This is why Alaska and other states are seeking a value-added component to show the effectiveness of a school program without penalizing it for its current status. This is one reason for more complexity in the designation, rather than simply publishing student scores. He noted that the correlation between [test] scores and socioeconomic status is such that it necessitates a need to show the impact a program [is having on its student population]. He added: It is exactly when we say "we don't yet have the answers" that we ask for the delay. This is a very complex [issue]. Not only in our state, but across the country, this is ... a million-dollar question. We [have] ... some of those same questions and concerns. It's a reason for really wanting to do it right. It is a piece that the committee is aware of; ... it's a piece that our consultants - who are national on this - are aware of, and it's a piece that we're working on. That would be ... the best that we can do for you right now. Number 2285 CHAIR DYSON noted that during his years serving on the Anchorage assembly, he witnessed the city being sued due to planning personnel's knowledge of natural hazards in a particular area without public disclosure of this information. He asked: If a school is still deemed to be in crisis with the inclusion of growth scores, and the state has knowledge of this but does not publicly disclose this information, is the state failing in its responsibility to tell the truth? And could parents who had invested in $150,000 homes there make an issue of it because they hadn't been told about the scores? Number 2338 DR. McLAIN suggested the reverse could happen where the state has published the designations and property values have decreased. He said that in the upcoming overview of U.S. HR 1 [in the House Special Committee on Education on February 27], members will be informed of a component of the federal legislation that makes this piece look "relatively tame." There is a requirement in U.S. HR 1 to designate dangerous schools. He said, "You can only imagine the reaction of people around the nation as they're trying to figure out both the liability and the technical challenges ... of doing that." CHAIR DYSON asked if personnel from the Department of Law had any light to shed on this matter. SUSAN COX, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, offered that she has not seen this arise as a liability issue in Alaska. It would be a long shot to blame the state, but efforts are always afoot to identify regulations affecting property values, she stated. TAPE 02-14, SIDE B Number 2450 MS. COX told members she was unfamiliar with HB 352. She noted that it is possible for someone to blame public authorities for the diminution of his/her property value based on governmental action. In cases where zoning and other regulations have resulted in this decrease, people have wanted the government to reimburse them for that loss. She offered her understanding that pending legislation in the House addresses this topic. It is an open question whether the labeling of a school could result in liability for the state. Number 2358 CHAIR DYSON inquired who in the Department of Law could advise members [on this matter]. MS. COX replied that the Department of Law has two attorneys who work full-time on EED matters; she expressed uncertainty about whether these attorneys had yet explored this issue. She said that they would be the people to whom she would turn [for answers to these questions]. Number 2347 CHAIR DYSON said, "The question is: When the government has a bunch of information and does not give it out, ... when do we incur liability?" MS. COX offered that part of this [liability question] would depend on what is mandated by statute. If a statute requires disclosure and that disclosure is not given, that makes a difference. If the government accumulates information and there is no requirement to give it out, then there is not necessarily any liability incurred. Obviously, the government is required by law to give public access to information; it does not necessarily have a duty to disclose unless the legislature requires it, she concluded. Number 2320 MR. LEAL explained that status information is currently published in the school report card. The disaggregated test results are published for districts; EED is publishing the information that it has. He clarified that growth will be used to show a school's effectiveness; it is not being used to hide a school's inadequacy. A school would need to have a certain level of status and a certain element of growth to be considered an adequate school, he stated. By the same token, a school would be in crisis if it were "off the chart" in status; it would take an unimaginable amount of growth to transcend the "in crisis" designation, he said. He noted that this was discussed in the [House Special Committee on Education hearing on HB 352]. Growth is not being used to mask something but to make something fair, he concluded. Number 2270 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referenced AS 14.03.120. He said this mandates annual reporting to the legislature, the governor, and the public; it also encourages students and parents to be involved in that discussion. He offered his opinion that [HB 352] would not change that in any way, and that the public discussion would remain at a high level. Number 2255 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how EED justifies using only one- third for status scores for the school designation and using two-thirds for growth scores. "Why isn't it reversed?" she queried. MR. LEAL answered that this is because status results are strongly correlated with low socioeconomic status. Many times schools in poorer areas have lower status scores; it isn't that these students are unable to learn. He said the message [EED] wants to send schools is that schools should take students where they are, and add value to their education. He offered to work on a more polished answer to this question; the consultants with whom the SDS Committee is working have had success in other states to focus the issue on helping all students grow, rather than focusing on simply raising the average. Number 2161 CHAIR DYSON turned attention to an amendment and asked if EED concurred with it. [He received an off-microphone comment from EED personnel indicating the department's concurrence and that this amendment corrects a typographical error.] He said, "This is the department's amendment. ... For the record, the department approves of this and requests this?" [Department personnel answered yes.] REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read: Page 2, line 11: Delete "AS 14.23.123(f)" Insert "AS 14.03.123(f)" There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 2062 CHAIR DYSON called an at-ease a 3:59 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 4:03 p.m. CHAIR DYSON offered Amendment 2, which read: Sec. 14.33.110. Purpose of school disciplinary and safety program. The purpose of AS 14.33.110 - 14.33.140 is to (1) implement and maintain community-based standards of school behavior that are developed by students, parents, teachers, school administrators, and the community; (2) facilitate the creation of a standard of school behavior and safety by local communities for the schools in those communities; (3) protect and support teachers who enforce standards of student behavior and safety in the classroom established under AS 14.33.120; and (4) ensure that all schools and school districts receiving state funds, that may not have already done so, implement and maintain an effective school disciplinary and safety program. Sec. 14.33.120. School disciplinary and safety program. (a) Each governing body shall adopt a written school disciplinary and safety program. The program required under this subsection must include written (1) standards for student behavior and safety that reflect community standards and that include, at a minimum, basic requirements for respect and honesty; standards required under this paragraph must be developed and periodically reviewed with the collaboration of members of each school, parents, teachers, and other persons responsible for the students at a school; a governing body may require that standards developed under this paragraph be consistent for all schools in an attendance area or the district; and (2) standards relating to when a teacher is authorized to remove a student from the classroom for (A) failure to follow student behavior and safety standards; or (B) behavior described under AS 14.30.045 (1) or (2); (3) procedures for notifying teachers of dangerous students consistent with AS 47.12.310(b); (4) standards relating to when a teacher, teacher's assistant, or other person responsible for students is authorized to use reasonable and appropriate force to maintain classroom safety and discipline as described under AS 11.81.430(a)(2); (5) policies necessary to comply with provisions of state and federal law, including 20 U.S.C. 1400 - 1485 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act); (6) standards to address needs of students for whom mental health or substance abuse may be a contributing factor to noncompliance with the school disciplinary and safety program; (7) policies for implementing a student conflict resolution strategy, including the nonviolent resolution or mediation of conflicts and procedures for reporting and resolving conflicts; (8) procedures for periodic review and revision of the school disciplinary and safety program. (b) A school district shall report information relating to school district disciplinary and safety programs as required by the department, including incidents of disruptive or violent behavior. Sec. 14.33.130. Enforcement of approved program; additional safety obligations. (a) A teacher, a teacher's assistant, a principal, or another person responsible for students may not be terminated or otherwise subjected to formal disciplinary action for lawful enforcement of an approved school disciplinary and safety program, including behavior standards, adopted under AS 14.33.120. (b) A teacher, a teacher's assistant, a principal, or another person responsible for students who (1) receives information about a student under AS 47.12.310 (b) or receives information that may affect the safety of students or staff shall notify the student's teacher or a school administrator; and (2) in the course of employment, observes a student committing a crime shall report the crime to the local law enforcement agency; in this paragraph, "crime" has the meaning given in AS 11.81.900. Sec. 14.33.140. Civil liability for enforcing disciplinary and safety program. A teacher, a teacher's assistant, a principal, or another person responsible for students is not liable for civil damage resulting from an act or omission (1) arising out of enforcement of an approved school disciplinary and safety program adopted under AS 14.33.120; and (2) arising out of and in the course of employment unless the act or omission constitutes gross negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct. ------------------------------ Sec. 14.03.120. Education planning. (a) A district shall annually file with the department, and make available to the public, a report that (1) establishes district goals and priorities for improving education in the district; (2) establishes community based behavior standards developed under 14.33.120 (3) [(2)] includes a plan for achieving district goals and priorities and behavior standards; and (4) [(3)] includes a means of measuring the achievement of district goals and priorities and behavior standards; and (5) includes a plan for achieving broader community and parent participation in the development of goals, priorities, and behavior standards. (b) The department shall summarize the reports submitted under (a) of this section as a statewide report, provide a copy to the governor, and notify the legislature that the report is available. (c) A district shall make efforts to encourage students, parents, teachers, and other members of the community to participate in the preparation of the report submitted under (a) of this section. (d) Annually, before the date set by the district under (e) of this section, each public school shall provide, in a public meeting of parents, students, and community members, a report on the school's performance and the performance of the school's students. The report shall be prepared on a form prescribed by the department and must include (1) information on accreditation; (2) results of norm-referenced achievement tests; (3) results of state standards-based assessments in reading, writing, and mathematics; (4) a description, including quantitative and qualitative measures, of student, parent, community, and business involvement in student learning and maintenance of student behavior standards; (5) a description of the school's attendance, retention, dropout, and graduation rates, including the number and percentage of students who received a diploma under a waiver from the competency examination required under AS 14.03.075 (a), as specified by the state board; (6) the annual percent of enrollment change, regardless of reason, and the annual percent of enrollment change due to student transfers into and out of the school district; (7) if Native language education is provided, a summary and evaluation of the curriculum described in AS 14.30.420; and (8) the number and percentage of students in each school who take and who successfully complete an alternative assessment program in reading, English, or mathematics; and the number and percentage of pupils in each school who successfully complete the alternative assessment program but who do not reach the state performance standards at the competency exam level in reading, English, or mathematics; a school may not report results under this paragraph unless the school complies with the family educational rights and privacy requirements of 34 C.F.R. 99. (e) By a date set by the district, each public school in the district shall provide the report described in (d) of this section to the district's governing body. Along with the report, each public school shall submit a summary of comments made on the report by parents, students, and community members. By July 1 of each year, beginning in 2000, each district shall provide to the department a report on the performance of each public school and the public school students in the district. The district's report must (1) be entitled "School District Report Card to the Public"; and (2) include (A) copies of the reports and summaries of comments submitted under this section by each public school in the district; and (B) a compilation of the material described in (A) of this paragraph by each public school in the district. (f) By January 15 of each year, beginning in 2001, the department shall provide to the governor and make available to the public and the legislature a report on the performance of public schools in this state. The report must be entitled "Alaska's Public Schools: A Report Card to the Public." The report must include (1) comprehensive information on each public school compiled, collected, and reported under (d) and (e) of this section for the prior school year; (2) a summary of the information described in (1) of this subsection; the summary must be prepared in a manner that allows school performance to be measured against established state education standards; and (3) for a report due by or after January 15, 2003, the performance designation under AS 14.03.123(b) received by each public school during the prior school year. (g) In this section, "district" has the meaning given in AS 14.17.990 . Sec. 14.03.123. School accountability. (a) Beginning in August [2002] 2004, and during each of the following 12-month periods, the department shall assign each public school in each district the performance designation of distinguished, successful, deficient, or in crisis based on multiple student measures, including student achievement and parent and community involvement. The state board of education and early development shall establish this process by regulation. (b) A public school assigned a performance designation of deficient or in crisis shall develop a school improvement plan under (e) of this section. The department shall inform the governing body of each district of the performance designation assigned to each public school in the district. (c) The state board shall adopt regulations to allow a district to appeal the performance designation assigned to a public school in that district. (d) The department may establish a program of special recognition for those public schools that achieve a distinguished performance designation. (e) A public school that receives a designation of deficient or in crisis shall prepare a school improvement plan to improve student performance based on a process established by the state board of education and early development. The public school shall undertake an improvement process under that plan to lead to a designation of successful or distinguished. The school improvement plan must be prepared with the maximum feasible public participation of the community, including, if appropriate, interested individuals, teachers, parents, parent organizations, students, tribal organizations, local government representatives, and other community groups. The district shall consult with and assist the public school in the preparation of the school improvement plan. The school improvement plan must be approved by the local school board. The commissioner may provide technical assistance to a public school or the district at any time during the preparation and implementation of the school improvement plan on the request of an interested person and the approval of the district. (f) Beginning August 1, [2002] 2004, and periodically during each of the following 12-month periods, the department shall monitor the progress of the implementation of each school improvement plan prepared under (e) of this section. (g) The department may use existing staff or contract with one or more qualified persons to assist a public school that is deficient or in crisis under this section to improve student performance. Qualified persons to provide assistance under this section include educators, business leaders, members of the governing body of that district, and community leaders. The provisions of AS 36.30 do not apply to a contract awarded under this subsection. (h) Notwithstanding any other provisions in this title, if the performance designation of a public school has continued to be deficient or in crisis for two consecutive school years, the chief school administrator, if the district employs a chief school administrator, the president of the governing body, and the principal of the public school shall, at a public meeting of the state board of education and early development, present a written report on the performance of that public school. (i) The state board of education and early development shall develop, by regulation, measures that may be progressively implemented by the commissioner to assist a public school to improve student performance in accordance with this section. (j) In this section, "district" has the meaning given in AS 14.17.990. [End of Amendment 2] CHAIR DYSON suggested that someone object [for purposes of discussion]. Number 2050 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA objected. CHAIR DYSON announced that it wasn't his intention to have a vote on Amendment 2 at this hearing. He said he wants members and [EED personnel] to review it and comment on it [at a later date]. He said: Here's what happened. A year or two ago, I got a bill passed to require each school to go through some process where they interacted with the community about what were acceptable behavior standards ... for the school. So, the community gets input on it - and safety standards. What does the community want? ... The second part of that bill said if a teacher enforces the ... agreed-upon standards and uses the agreed-upon procedure for enforcing ... the behavior standards, the teacher can't be penalized - because we've had some schools where ... powerful school board members got teachers run out of town or [fired]. ... What we found out is that we didn't have an adequate enough ... way of recording and reporting which schools actually went through the process. So what I'm laying before you here ... strengthens that the school has to report that they went through some process to get community input and agreement on what the standards are and establishes that as another part of the criteria for rating schools.... This is ... certainly in addition to what the bill that's before us does. And it's curing an old and slight problem.... So, I wanted to lay this before you so you both can think about it before we vote on it, and we can get a chance for input. CHAIR DYSON acknowledged his uncertainty that Amendment 2 is the best way to accomplish [the correcting of the aforementioned problem]. He announced that this would be brought up, at the earliest, at the March 4 meeting of the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee. [HB 352 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|