Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/12/2001 02:40 PM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CHAIRWOMAN LYDA GREEN called the Senate Health, Education & Social
Services Committee meeting to order at 2:40 p.m.
[THE FOLLOWING IS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT.]
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: ... our meeting today and see if we can't get
some information out here so we can work toward a better bill. My
name is Senator Green, Chair of HESS. Senator Wilken, Senator
Leman and Senator Ward are also here. The legislation we have
before us today is SB 133, which on two other occasions we've
talked about, where we are trying to head and if - Senator Ward,
would you like an explanation?
SENATOR WARD: Briefly, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Okay, very good. If you would - the first thing
we're going to do - this a little bit out of order because it makes
it, I think, a little bit simpler. On the first page we do have
some intent language, which is self-explanatory. If you will then
go to page 4, and the transition language for 2002 and 2003 is
included in that Section 7. This would take us through 2003 and
this is basically the language very similar to what Senator Leman
had. It would show the successful completion of the exam on the
diploma and - I'm not sure - we have also shown it on the
transcript because I do think that the transcript becomes a very
important document in the whole process. We have also allowed, on
line 9, every student will be required to take a competency exam or
an alternative assessment approved by the student's IEP program
team in the areas of reading, English and mathematics, and to meet
academic requirements established by the state and the school board
of the borough or city school district or REAA in which a student
is enrolled. As we currently have in law, the Department of
Education and Early Development shall determine the form and
contents of the competency examination and shall score completed
examinations. We've included language - a competency examination
may not be administered during a day in session. We will probably
- you might want to highlight that. We will probably be doing some
modification language on that [indisc.] to pass that assignment to
the board and/or the department to clear the way to possibly do
some creative investigation as to when the test can be given so
that it does not interfere with straight class time and end up
interfering with the lives of many of the students in the building
versus just those who are taking the test. And then, of course,
they would receive the endorsement.
We'll go back to page 2. In the discussion - on line 3 we'll be
creating a high school essential skills examination. That language
replaces secondary pupil competency testing. There's some minor
changes in - from pupil to student and we're simply calling this a
high school essential skills examination in the same areas, reading
English, and mathematics or receives a waiver from the department.
And, the re-exam provisions that - welcome Senator Davis. Let the
record show Senator Davis has joined us. On line 15, page 2 then,
the department has the ability to go back in and provide for re-
exam by the students. And then in Section 3 we add language,
again, concerning when the exam may be given and final examination
results shall be recorded on each student's transcript.
Then we have language beginning on line 28 concerning a child with
a disability, who may not be able to perform on the exam, can
complete an alternative assessment program required by the
student's IEP team or required in the educational plan developed
for the student under 29 U.S.C. 794 and meets other requirements
for graduation imposed by the board. And that is - I want to make
it clear that is the state board of education, not local board.
The language following is something we had talked about that some
folks have talked to us about that are needed - additional pre-exam
study materials, a uniform procedures of the way an exam - or a
script for how the test is to be administered, which is fairly
common with this kind of testing. It's not off the cuff language
but it should be very uniform from area to area. And then it goes
back and reiterates some of the definitions - child with a
disability, IEP team and .... The additional duty is given to the
board, on line 26, regulations implementing the high school
essential skills exam - [indisc.] of this statute. And that would
begin in the year - it would be effective in 2004.
Bruce Johnson is here and - is Phil Reeves here? Okay. I have the
language. I didn't know if you wanted to explain it or not. Are
there questions for me or shall we have Bruce come forward and give
the department's acceptance and/or approval. Oh, Senator Leman.
Number 433
SENATOR LEMAN: Madame Chairman. I'm just trying to sort through
those things that I consider to be drafter's preference and,
perhaps, your preference and those that are substantive. One is
changing the word pupil to student. Is there any particular reason
for doing that other than - is that more consistent with what we're
calling these people?
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: I think that's just drafter's preference. I
think it is a more mature - I think the pupil in elementary may be
totally appropriate. I think student for high school is probably
age appropriate.
SENATOR LEMAN: I don't have any objection to either of those.
When it's an appropriate time, I do have some thoughts on this and
if you'd rather hear from the department before you hear from me or
from others on the committee ....
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: If you want to put your question forward, you
can and then we'll....
SENATOR LEMAN: I don't really have a question. I just have a
statement to make ....
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Okay.
SENATOR LEMAN: ...whenever that appropriate time is. Right now?
In Section 2, I think that several of the changes are okay. I'm
not sure that I would change the name of this to the high school
essential skills examination. I don't like to back off from what I
view as this being a community-based standard for an exam. Now, on
the other hand, I do agree that the exam needs to be reworked a
little bit. I don't agree with those who are suggesting that it's
a massive failure and I read a report this weekend and somebody
wrote that - that it was - oh, the commissioner - you can go back -
go back to the commissioner and tell her after I praised the
department for what I thought was pretty good work on it. I went
out on a limb - she goes and ....
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Let's all recall that she didn't write the
article and we have each had interpretations, perhaps, given to our
words that were somewhat different from what we may have said so,
with all due respect, let's stay on the ....
SENATOR LEMAN: Good advice. But I'll just say that I'd really
like to stay on track of saying that we, as a community, the State
of Alaska and the community that is working on this, want to
establish standards that are reasonable for our students to measure
up to and when I see us reworking this ostensibly to produce a,
perhaps, a lower denominator in quality, then I'm concerned about
that. I would like to see more of our students pass the exam and I
believe there are some things we can do to the exam to make it more
appropriate. Changing the name, I'm not sure, gets there.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Okay, well let me - something that I've kind of
learned in the process of this whole discussion, which has really
been good in that respect, is that it doesn't matter what we call
this exam. We can call it anything we want to but the exam, as we
have seen it exhibited and the product we know that is out there,
is not the product that is going to be out there in the future.
With or without this legislation, that product is going to be
different. The focus of the legislature had to do with, again back
to that definition of we need to test, what we require students to
enroll in and [indisc.], and that's what this examination is going
to be geared toward, not that very high ideal that most of us
probably in our pre-college curriculum studied. This is going to
be what is required for students to take and as - and then one of
the good conversations that we may need to get into is the - we go
back to the board and the department and say do we need to upgrade?
Do we need to revise what the state is requiring and, subsequently
require the exam to go along with it? But first this exam has to
match what we require in this state of our students to take. If
you don't like this title, then that's fine. The title to me is
not the important piece. I do think there needs to be a
distinction between the original and what we're morphing to so that
we know there's a difference and we could call it high school
competency phase 2 - I don't know. If that's the problem, you
know, or however we want to retool that title is fine. Thank you,
go ahead.
Number 819
SENATOR LEMAN: I was - I just wanted to make sure, I understand
that there are some changes being made in the test. I just don't
want to give a direction to the department to make those changes
more massive than I believe need to be made to accomplish our
objectives and I'm concerned that in changing the title, and
perhaps some of these other directions, that this essentially
becomes what an 8th grader should be able to pass instead of what a
senior in high school should be able to pass. We've reduced -
we've lowered the common denominator and it's an exercise that
costs money and I'm not convinced that it's going to tell us a
whole lot if we back out too far. Those are my concerns and I'm
just expressing them now. I know this isn't mark-up time and when
it's time for amendments, I'm just saying that this is an area that
interests me and I'd like to see some changes here.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: There is some literature that we had attached to
each of the pieces that went out and it had to do - it's that part
- it's the double circle that Bruce had with us here a few weeks
ago and then - oh, it's this thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, is
this the committee that worked on the content? And this is a
phrase that's kind of a term of art versus limiting. It had to do
with the big circle and we're concentrating on this in this exam
versus the - if you were to survey every high school in the state,
you could find a vast array of every language of probably, in some
high schools, probably trig and calculus and certainly those who
are doing AP studies or doing stuff at the college. And, for some
students that would be a - their competency level but for what we
require in this state, and until we change our requirements, the
exam has to be what we require. So, this is the basis of it. As I
understand it, it's kind of a term of art, not something, as I
said, that needs to be lowered, it just needs to be examining what
we're doing, so carry on.
SENATOR LEMAN: I think I've stated my opinion well enough, I don't
need to restate it. The only other thing that I would suggest is -
that I can see right off is Section 1, the intent language. Unless
intent language is really necessary to establish something, I
normally don't like to see intent language put in statute and, as
many hearings as we've had, as much discussion as we've had here
establishing the legislative record, I don't know that we need to
have it but it's just something that we ought to at least think
about before we put intent language in. Otherwise, you did good
work.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Thank you. Well, one of the things that I was
kind of - had hopes of including in this, and perhaps we still can,
if we have enough time, is to do something in the area of figure
out how we get schools to move toward endorsements in other areas,
such as certainly high academic excellence, vocational ed, art, and
things that schools provide specialties in. If there's some way we
can encourage that more then there should be additional
endorsements on diplomas, which some districts, by the way, I
understand, are already doing. It's a way in which we applaud and
congratulate students. Senator Wilken, did you have your hand up?
Number 1132
SENATOR WILKEN: I did. Thank you, Madame Chair. Just to hear
some details, I'd like to hear from the department but ....
SENATOR DAVIS: Can we hear from the department first before we
begin? I have some concerns about this also but if we're going to
do all ours first and never hear - last week you said we'd hear
from the department today and we're about to run out of time.
SENATOR WILKEN: So, if I could just get the timing so I can
understand what they're saying to us?
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Okay.
SENATOR WILKEN: As I understand from reading this, for the next
two graduating classes, for those two years, there is something
that will occur. First, they'll have to take the test, they won't
have to pass. They'll have to meet academic requirements. The
department, in the meantime, will continue to develop the test, and
I'm looking at page 4, Section B, and then Section C - there's
going to be an endorsement on the student's diploma and transcript
and then I just - I'm confused as to what happens after 1/1/04.
Does the endorsement stay with us - the endorsement concept?
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Yes.
SENATOR WILKEN: Okay, let's see where that's addressed in the bill,
so perhaps someone can help me with that, from the department.
And, I think - does that timing agree with what the bill says? Is
that where we are? So, other than the endorsement, we'll get that
from the department.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Sure, okay.
SENATOR WILKEN: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Bruce, do you want to come join us please? And
if you have anyone else you want to bring with you that's fine.
DR. JOHNSON: Madame Chair, members of the committee. Senator
Green requested that the department react to SB 133. We've spent
some time considering it. I would say conceptually the department
feels strongly that this is headed in the right direction. We have
felt for a long time that we're going to have to recognize that we
have some students in our state that are going to have difficulty
passing a high school graduation qualifying exam at whatever level
we establish and it's beyond those one or two percent of our
student body that really needs an alternate exam altogether.
There's another group of students that work hard everyday in school
and are deserving of recognition for that and, at least those that
we hear from believe very strongly that it must include the word
diploma so we're very pleased that the issue of special education
has been addressed.
Obviously our feeling is that 2006 is better than 2004 but 2004 - I
think we can comfortably say that we can get the work done that's
necessary to the examinations by 2004 - that we can accomplish
that. The work that's ongoing right now will continue on April
19th and 20th and then into the early fall so that we would have,
as Senator Green outlined - in this model there are the targeted
skills that we really would hope that every student would have and
that we would target our instruction accordingly. That's the full
circle. That's 23 or 24 credits. It's reaching as high as you can
in mathematics, you know, taking four years of rigorous English,
doing foreign language, all of those kinds of things are the
targeted instruction but what we're going to hold every student
accountable for, in terms of the state definition, by the
examination, is a level of performance in reading, writing, and
mathematics. And so you really need to think of that as a subset
of this larger targeted instruction that we would hope for all
students.
SENATOR DAVIS: Excuse me. What he's holding up, do we have that?
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: You should have it. I know it was part of our
information that came - well - committee a couple of weeks ago, and
then it was attached to something I passed out.
DR. JOHNSON: So, if you recall that we had a flow chart which
outlined the content review process right now, and that in order to
reestablish what those foundational or essential skills are that we
want to hold every student accountable for, we need to do some
additional work. The newspaper article that Senator Leman was
referring to - I don't know what the commissioner said but one of
the things that we felt all along is that our exams are good, that
they were well constructed, but what we've determined, after a
thorough review with a different set of Alaskans, some were the
same but many of them were different people, a better cross-
section, that we may have been targeting too high, that we had
expanded this inner circle almost to the outer circle and that may
be beyond what we want for every single child, even though it's
desirous to have that for every child it's not something that we
want to deny a diploma over. And so - what we're doing is
constricting that somewhat and so what we're going to end up with
is a good test in each of those areas over a narrower set of
performance standards that we think that the Alaskans working with
us believe are key to later success in life. So that's what that
process is all about. So, I got sidetracked a little bit but I
thought maybe it was appropriate to bring that into play.
So, 2004 will give us an opportunity to do that. Now whether we
have the new exam online in 2003 or not until 2004 largely will
depend upon what that committee tells us on April 19th and 20th.
And, depending upon how much work there is to be done, it may take
most of next year to get it done. We might have a single meeting
next year and be able to launch and be in a much better position to
introduce a new exam in reading, writing and mathematics more
quickly.
The idea of a waiver, and we've had an opportunity to talk with
Senator Green regarding her intent on the waiver process - we're
not viewing that as a appeals board that the state board would sit
in judgment, individual student by individual student, or that we
would appoint an appeals board to do that work. Instead you would
do it through regulation if there are extraordinary circumstances
that perhaps would require that a waiver be given. Some of the
things that have been talked about, and obviously the state board
would take this issue up if it came through the process as part of
this new statute and have broad based public comment, but you take
an immigrant student that moves into America and to Alaska for the
first time in their senior year. Do we really want to hold that
student accountable if they bring a school record along that is
good up to that point? They simply don't have the English
language. Is it fair for that student to say we're not going to
issue a diploma until you can take these exams in the English
language? Maybe there's a translation of those exams for that
waiver, you know, that we would do that even though we recognize in
doing that that it requires huge amounts of work in order to make
that defensible. On the other hand, if we wanted to do it on a
lower scale, a local scale, to transfer that and if the student
performed well they could then acquire the exam even though it
wasn't in the English language. A student who was sick for a
prolonged period of time, it may - or even during several of the
administrations of the exam maybe another situation where a waiver
might be appropriate so the student can get on with his or her life
with a diploma under their belt - but obviously they have the
transcript and this does talk a lot about transcript - both
endorsements as well as recording scores on transcripts are there
for people to judge whether or not that student is ready to take
the next - the job that they have available or to enter the
University or a college or some sort of technical skill.
So, conceptually we believe this is headed in the right direction.
We've thought for a long period of time that it would be much
better if we weren't holding young people accountable first, but
rather holding schools accountable initially and then bring this in
after the fact. That's not how it's evolved in Alaska and
therefore we've been working with the competency exam on the front
end with school designators and the accountability for schools
coming a bit later. But the two pieces together should produce a
desirable result over time.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Senator Ward.
SENATOR WARD: Thank you. The student starts in kindergarten and
goes all the way through 12th grade getting the proper amount of
credits and gets Ds or Cs all the way through it and passes and
doesn't pass this test - just flat doesn't pass it. The way you
read this bill, would you consider a waiver to be able to address
that student?
DR. JOHNSON: Through the Chair, Senator Ward. I would think that
a waiver for that student would depend upon whether or not there
were extraordinary circumstances that have occurred.
SENATOR WARD: What if there was no extraordinary circumstances,
you had a student that could pass a course and passed it from
kindergarten through the 12th grade but didn't pass the test. That
student, with no extraordinary circumstances - they just couldn't
pass the test but yet they passed all the other things. That one
would not get a waiver?
DR. JOHNSON: Through the Chair, Senator Ward. I don't know that I
can answer that today because the state board would take that
concept out to public comment to see what the public will was
regarding that type of student. You, perhaps, are referring to a
student who just doesn't test well, a student who might get tense
during the time of examinations but are able to show their level of
competency in other ways, other than a paper, pencil exam.
SENATOR WARD: If I might, Madame Chair. I'm not going to belabor
it too much. I got it - just a feeling that there may be about 10
percent of the students, for whatever reason, and I don't know - I
hope it's a whole lot less than that. But just kind of looking at
what's happened to math and everything else, it seems to me that
we're going to have a percentage, whatever it may be, that passes
what the high school says is needed but they don't pass that test
and if there's no waiver for them, I'm kind of having a problem on
the other side because that student that just came in from a
foreign country can get a waiver and get a high school diploma and
they can go into the service because they have that high school
diploma but the other people can't because you've got to have a
diploma to get in the service. I mean, you have to. Only the army
gives a little waiver and that's for about a third of the year and
then they switch from GED to regular diploma and all the other
services require a diploma. And I'm talking about a waiver where -
and there's nothing unusual about these. They just seem like
ordinary students, the only thing is they can't pass the test, or
won't, I don't know which one.
DR. JOHNSON: Through the Chair, Senator Ward. I think you're
right. There are a percentage of students that would fall into
that category. Like you, I'm not sure whether that's 5 percent or
10 percent but there where will be some. I guess I would sincerely
hope that through the benchmark results, and so forth, that there
will be a very modest number of those students and I think it will
be up to the state board to determine whether multiple assessments
are doable. Obviously we know they cost huge amounts of money to
do - it costs a lot to do a single exam. If we're talking about
multiple assessments, it's going to cost even more unless we allow
that to occur at the district level and allow them to develop that
so that that student has another opportunity to demonstrate the
competencies that they do have to go into their adult life and then
receive a diploma. That would be a conversation, I'm sure, that
the state board would be having around the state through the
development of regulations with this waiver process.
SENATOR WARD: Madame Chair, just one last thing. But see, so
somebody that just moves here and didn't spend 12 years of public
school in Alaska getting through the system, they can't pass it -
there would be no mechanism for them to get a waiver - I mean if
they weren't special needs or something. They just were ordinary
students that were - but they could pass all the other stuff but
they couldn't get a high school diploma because they didn't qualify
for a waiver. I guess it's that percentage I'm a little concerned
about because this society out here doesn't treat people without
high school diplomas very well any longer. It's not like when
we're all getting out of school. You could still get by. Now it's
pretty tough.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Let me ask you a question Bruce. With the
essential skills being the focus of this, would you expect that, in
fairly short time with the test geared to essential skills, and
that being the block of work students are required to have and to
learn, and then for those who are under an IEP, they can have it
with accommodations, without accommodations, and our alternate
assessment - and that would certainly be in regulatory language,
that's not in our bill but it's the standard the department uses
now, would you not expect the performance level and everything to
be going up every time this is given with the essential skills set
as the - what we're working towards?
DR. JOHNSON: Madame Chair, members of the committee. Certainly I
think with targeted instruction and the extra instruction that
would go into each student that wasn't performing at a level that
likely would lead to a diploma, I think that we would see the
percentage of students in jeopardy of not receiving a diploma to
continue to be reduced. I think that's true in other states that
have experienced this over time. I think young people, if they're
motivated, I guess maybe that's the one caveat, there are some
students that will choose not to allow themselves to acquire the
knowledge that's necessary to pass these exams at whatever level
they ultimately are established, but I think you're absolutely
correct, that it would be a narrow group of students.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: I know that in some of the discussion, and folks
have written in making recommendations and talk about - and I think
there are probably other alternates out there too - but you get
into the portfolio and a method by which you get a real complete
picture of a student that includes the transcript and the test and
their - whether it's community, school, work, volunteerism,
extraordinary, you know, behavior, and at least attempts to do
things, and then I don't know how that works into this. Now is
that a thing that the board could bring in - a portfolio without us
mentioning it per se?
DR. JOHNSON: Madame Chair and members of the committee. Yes, the
board could bring in a portfolio. One of the things that I think
that we would have to recognize is that we could not evaluate that
on a statewide basis, that the cost around something like that is
horrific and the reliability around it is somewhat questionable.
But it's certainly something that the board could put in place
through regulation and if a student was going to qualify for a
waiver from the requirement of meeting the demands of the high
school graduation qualifying exam, is there would have to be a
portfolio. That's something that they could put in place and the
evaluation of that portfolio would be done locally.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Okay.
DR. JOHNSON: So, yes, I think that could occur so that there is a
good record of that student's accomplishments while in high school.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: I know, several people had suggested that in
various messages. Are there further questions for Bruce? Senator
Wilken.
SENATOR WILKEN: Thank you Madame Chairman. I have sort of a
string of questions so if I could just go through them. First,
Bruce, on page 2, line 3, I need to touch briefly on it when you
started this - were the essential skills. How much of the work
done over the last two years to get us to where we are today will
have to be scrapped, thrown out, reassessed, in order to do
something called essential skills as opposed to a competency test?
DR. JOHNSON: Through the Chair, Senator Wilken. At this point,
the committees that we're working with believe that our performance
standards are on target. In other words, our performance standards
that describe this level of work is on target in reading, writing
and mathematics. What they're now doing, and we'll finish up on
the 19th and 20th of April, is defining which of those performance
standards are part of this group. And it could well be that all of
the performance standards in reading would fall into this group,
and then it's a matter of the level of difficulty that's involved
with each of those standards - the level of difficulty as
determined by the questions asked and understanding. So that's
what they will be working on. So we don't have to scrap our
standards at all, we're not anticipating having to rewrite those.
We are going to identify this subgroup of essential standards.
Then what we will do is look at all of the test items that are
currently in the bank, that we've approved for Alaskan use, to
decide whether or not there are sufficient test questions to
develop a new version of the test around this new set of essential
standards. If that's true, then nothing has been lost, at all.
It's just the creation of a new exam that focuses on the essential
standards. If there are not sufficient test questions, then what
we need to do in subsequent administrations of the test, is embed
new questions around these essential standards so that we can get
the sufficient pool to develop the new test around just these
essential skills. We believe we can accomplish that by two
thousand and - by the spring of 2003 if everything were to go well
for us.
SENATOR WILKEN: So, if someone said to me, well by changing from a
pupil competency test to an essential skills exam, you're dumbing
down the test. In two or three sentences, how do I answer that?
DR. JOHNSON: I would say what we're doing is not dumbing down the
test. In fact, you may find that the actual passing score would go
up but the passing score is established over a narrower set of
performance standards.
SENATOR WILKEN: Thank you. Same page, line 7 we speak about a
waiver. How do we limit, how do we keep a waiver from just being -
get it in the mail and we approve it and we move one and we look
back four or five years from now and suddenly 15 percent of our
students have waivers and we wonder what happened. How do we put a
limit on waivers?
DR. JOHNSON: Through the Chair, Senator Wilken. You've raised a
very interesting question and one that I don't know that there's
any precise answer for it at this juncture. What we could do is,
through our school report card and so forth, report back the number
of students that are receiving diplomas in a particular school
through the waiver process. I'm familiar with Indiana, where when
they report their results, they report the results of those that
meet all the local requirements and their high school graduation
qualifying exam equivalent. Those that receive it through a waiver
and those that - they've got one other level as well. So, they
report it that way. And so, the legislature there and the public
then can govern whether or not school districts are using the
waiver process beyond a level which is acceptable.
SENATOR WILKEN: And Madame Chair, you know I just sit here and
think there are 133,000 students and growing, and let's just say
one out of ten, we now have 13,000 letters and 13,000 individual
stories to deal with. Are we building a great big bureaucracy to
deal with something called a waiver and every one of them is
challengeable in court?
DR. JOHNSON: Through the Chair, Senator Wilken. We're not
suggesting as a department that we take on that responsibility
other than developing the regulations which specify the conditions
under which a waiver should be considered by the local school
district. And if they fall within that category then they could do
that without - you know, the state, they would report to the state
but not ask us for approval, because I think that would create a
huge, huge bureaucracy.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Let me interject a question here. In the event
that what Senator Wilken has said occurs, and we have what -
everyone would assume is miscarriage of the intent, does the
department and or the board have the authority to address that and
use that in that in their assessment of that school district and
the school designator program and go back and say, are you out of
your mind, you know, what are you doing in that district? This is
unacceptable. Could you answer that?
DR. JOHNSON: Through the Chair, Senator Wilken and members of the
committee. I think the school designator system would give us the
best evidence of that. It could be amended to include this
concept, should it come into law. And, if you remain in crisis as
a school, then you must develop a performance plan that then must
eventually be approved by the state board of education if you're
not showing growth over a two-year period. So there would be that
opportunity for that level of interaction if school districts were
simply - or schools were using this as a backdoor, rather than
doing the hard work of teaching young people the essential skill
standards that we think are important and that they could then
demonstrate through their exams.
SENATOR WILKEN: If we look at line 7, it says, or receives a
waiver from the department. So, would not the department then be
the determinant of that individual waiver from 53 different school
districts and have to defend their decision?
DR. JOHNSON: Through the Chair, Senator Wilken. I guess that is
an appropriate interpretation of what's written here. In our
conversations we've been talking about doing it through the
regulatory process and not setting up the bureaucracy at the state
level. If this language doesn't do it, if this stays in place,
then, you know, maybe we need to be sure that that's how this is
written.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Okay, Senator Wilken, I do want you to know that
number one on my list of proposed amendments is tighten up the
language on waivers, solicit suggestions on how airtight this
language must be. And so we - Bruce and I had this conversation
briefly this morning and it's certainly one that we'll - we're
trying to see if they can contribute some language and then we'll
certainly be looking at it and, in fact, we talked about that on
the teleconference Saturday, that it was one of the areas where we
need to build fences and bars and be sure that the process is
designed for, and carried out, as we have intended. And that's one
of the very important things in us getting it on the record here is
that we have, as part of our record, what we intend for the state
board to bring forward in the proposed regulations.
SENATOR WILKEN: Well I'm glad we're going to talk about that some
more because I can see the effort over time becoming - with a
parent or parents - their effort is to figure out how to get their
kid a waiver instead of getting their kid to pass the test. Next
question, if we still stay on page 2, lines 15 through 22,
specifically 15 and 16, I've taken a great deal of comfort in
telling people that you have 11 opportunities to pass the
competency test and now we seem to have taken that out and we've
said, under procedures established by the department. He is just
questioning - why did we do that and sort of leave this open to
where it may only be three opportunities or it could be 23
opportunities. Madame Chair, why did we change that paragraph?
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: I don't know. It just happened in the process
of it being drafted and when I got it, I bought it. Well, one of
the things again, that we can do is not be as specific in statute
but in our conversations with the department, right here, say we
think that there is a - multiple retesting and reexamination is
perfectly logical and reasonable and I know one of the things that
I think a lot of people have been critical of is the fact that
there was the expectation that if you did not pass the exam you
could continue to come back, and people have viewed that as
demeaning and [indisc.]. I'm not sure it's a bad thing for some
people to take - you know, be in their 19th year when they get
their diploma but there was no intent in doing this. It was
probably just the drafting process. I'll take full responsibility
but I don't recall having done it.
SENATOR WILKEN: I just like the fact that you can say, you take it
once as a sophomore, twice as a junior, twice as a senior and then
you get six more opportunities even after you're out of high
school. You have 11 times to pass this test so once that leaves
this building we don't need to talk about that anymore and I think
11 is more than generous, but I mean, I'll - so I would, perhaps,
hope that we go back and visit that a little bit. Moving on down
to same page 2, I don't quite understand - alternative assessment,
endorsement, endorsement with accommodation - now, and this has
been, of course, the sticky wicket through this whole thing. What
do we do to deal with the five or six percent of special ed
students? But when we talk about alternative assessment, we're
talking about a different classification of special ed, which I
think are more developmentally challenged. I'm kind of in an area
I don't know much about but - how do we roll in now the special ed
students under your proposal? Talk me through how they're
accommodated and what their diploma looks like.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Okay. In current, I think when Greg Maloney was
here on Saturday we went through the review of the current method
by which students on an IEP may be evaluated. That has to do with
an examination without accommodations, an examination with
accommodations, and or an alternative assessment. The IEP team -
this is getting out of my area of expertise real quickly but, the
IEP team, with an intensively-impacted student, spends their entire
life developing the goals and that they have an expectation of that
student meeting and they determine how they're going to assess
that. It would be no different with this final test. The, in all
probability, the written part, reading, writing, and math test,
would be inappropriate but there are certain skills they have said
this child must have and the student must be able to do this and
whether it's being able to live independently or to write a check
or to count coins - that may be their, you know, one of the types
of things they have to do and they would assess that graduation
goal that they have set. That's what they do their entire career.
Now for students who are high functioning, nice intelligence,
however they have a learning disability, by their senior year...
TAPE 01-12, SIDE B
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: ... they would be ready to take the exam. Some
have had some type of accommodations their entire school career and
have been encouraged to do so in order to complete every course
they have ever taken, therefore we would not set up a different
roadblock to them just because it's a broad scale exam. In the
previous two, three years, there has not been a provision for those
students and that's what we continued to hear about - that there
was no plan in place - there was no escape valve for those
students, and they took the test and passed it or failed it -
period. They could not use their accommodations if they went past
- I mean because many of them were on unlimited, you know, extra
test time. Well, this is an untimed test so that doesn't even give
them, you know .... But there are other things that many of these
students do regularly that - I can't even think of anything -
whether it's in the location - a quiet room. There are many things
that learning disabled students require in order to let you know
what they have a grasp of, and we want to give them - this allows
the IEP team to say, those are the things they'll be using.
Number 2311
SENATOR WILKEN: I think that all through the full process, the
under belly, the soft spot, has been the special ed - the 5 or 6
percent. That's been the thing that, to me, we've come to the end
of the road. We don't have a rabbit trail to follow to find a
solution, but you started us down that. And then, there's a book,
Participation Guidelines, that's just hot off the press, and we
looked at making decisions about students with disabilities and I
learned a lot by reading that. I wonder if Greg could come and
take what's in here and have us understand what's said here in your
bill, or this bill, so that when this leaves this committee, the
five of us are confident that we've taken care of that 5 percent
and that's not such a soft spot in this legislation anymore.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: I'm sure he can return. He was here Saturday
and he talked quite some time. I'm not sure he answered to the
extent you're talking about but we can certainly have him back here
Wednesday, and in the meantime, what we can do, if there is
language in that booklet that you see as being valuable, we can
either make a reference to it or we can have - because see, so much
of this, Senator Wilken, is already out there. They work with this
all the time and we're just saying you use the references you're
already using to handle and work with disabled kids. And we don't
have to put it in this because it's the standard - one, that's
required by federal law, the IDEA. There's not a lot of leeway in
what they do, you know, you have several ways to test for
knowledge.
SENATOR WILKEN: That might just be comfortable, with this special
ed component. Okay, moving on to page 4. There was some concern
about the - on line 3 - January 1 '04 date - perhaps consider that
be February 1, '04 because some semesters end after Christmas, so
it's just a technical thing. I'd throw that out. Some school
districts end their semesters before Christmas, some after
Christmas. None of them end after February 1.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Okay. Let me ask you a question. Are you
telling me that students get a diploma of some sort in January and
not in June or May?
SENATOR WILKEN: What I'm saying is they graduate in December, in
some school districts, but in other school districts they graduate
in January because the semester ends ....
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Okay, so you'd be more comfortable with February
1?
SENATOR WILKEN: February 1.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Okay.
SENATOR WILKEN: Then, if you look down to line 23 - 22, 23, 24 -
I'm confused about how the endorsement stays on the diploma after
'04.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: You're right. I asked the question. We don't
have it after '04 and that's just - I'm not exactly sure. Yes,
this needs to go back in, that was just an oversight. Because if
you go back to page 2 and my - I think when I was working on this,
this would be a number grade on the student transcript, not just
pass fail. It would be a percentage. So if you were a 99 percent
pass, it would show on your transcript in math, English, and or ...
and down on line 27. However, but I think on the graduation
diploma, it would appear as an endorsement if you pass.
SENATOR WILKEN: Oh, so you're saying on the transcript would be
the score of your exit exam?
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Yes, which to me is, again, the document that
stays with you. This is, I think, a higher standard than whether
or not your diploma has three gold stars on it.
SENATOR WILKEN: If we can get that through, I'd support it but I
suspect we're going to have some people talk to us about that -
about having the score on the transcript.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: But we have grades for everything else we do - I
mean, I think - this is the one where you have, where people's
attention becomes very tuned in to the fact that I am going to be
responsible for information that's going to be on my transcript
when I go to college, when I try to get a job when I'm 25 and 30
and on. Hopefully, at some point, they'll quit asking for your
high school transcript and go through your Master's or your
doctorate or something, but - anyway, no, I think this is more
important than the diploma actually, but we can certainly add
diploma language, that would be fine.
SENATOR WILKEN: Thank you for your indulgence.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Senator Leman, have you developed any questions
during our further discussion? You were way too busy rewriting the
whole bill.
SENATOR LEMAN: I've been holding my tongue and I've followed the
advice of my colleague across the way who asked us to listen more
and talk less.
SENATOR DAVIS: I appreciate that. I have a comment to make.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Go right ahead.
SENATOR DAVIS: I would like to put the department on the spot,
since you're here, and I want you to go back and walk me through
this SB 133 altogether. What I wrote down is what you said is
that, we feel that you're headed in the right direction, and here
we have a piece of legislation that we're trying to mark up and
make sure that we have what we have. I feel totally confused at
this point. I know that this bill has come a long ways from its
inception because it's not worked - we started off with givens but
what we got here I don't quite feel comfortable with it. I want to
hear from the department how - what we're going to be doing between
now and 2002 and 2003. I know 2004, all students will have to pass
their exam with the exceptions that you have made in this bill,
they would have to pass that. But you say you're going to revamp
the test and I thought when we did the test, we already agreed that
each year they would have to be reviewed, there would have to be
changes made in it so we already own that track. Why do we need it
in regulation or in a statute when it's already done? I can see
the way we're headed now. We're going to have all of these school
districts all up in air, confused as to what's supposed to happen
with them, because they thought they were going on this track that
has been set for them and all of a sudden now we're coming back and
saying we're going to go with the essential skills, or whatever the
term that's going to be used here. You say you're doing that
simply because you had a few people to review - it was the math
test that they were reviewing and they are not even reviewing the
other two. It was just the math portion of it, wasn't it? They
did them all? And then coming up with these essential things that
we should have in order to graduate, so we're going to change it -
you said it's not dumbing it down - I see it as dumbing down what
we are already doing because I thought we were trying to keep the
students on the track that we had them on in order to pass the test
the way it's designed except for the changes that would have to be
made. I don't know why we have to have all this in statute for you
to do that. I thought you were able to do it under present
regulations and statute that we already have in place. What you
are saying now, you wanted some direction on how to do the special
ed. I thought you already had a way to do that. If you don't,
then tell me that you don't so I'll understand that it needs to be
in statute but it's my understanding it was just a matter of
deciding how you were going to provide the accommodations and the
various components because special ed parents want their students
to be able to have a diploma based on what they are capable of
doing, what has been designed in the IEPs, and the work that
they've done over the years - not just to have something given to
them simply because they were special ed kids. I don't get that so
if you would walk me through this - this bill. Walk me through
this - how this is going to help you get what you're going to get
and be there by 2004 and you're not going to need any more money to
do what you're going to do because it's already in place. That's
pretty much what you said.
DR. JOHNSON: Through the Chair, Senator Davis. Let me start by
addressing the special needs portion of this, which is Section 3 on
page 2.
SENATOR DAVIS: That would be fine but I would prefer if you would
start up at the top, if you don't mind. You said that we would be
okay with the essentials, the term that's used there.
DR. JOHNSON: Yes, through the Chair, Senator Davis.
SENATOR DAVIS: And the rationale stating that they're going to go
beyond that and not change the test considerably would be what?
DR. JOHNSON: The rationale ...?
SENATOR DAVIS: We don't have to change the test but they can
continue to take it with the way it is now but we'll just change
the name? Is that what you're saying?
DR. JOHNSON: Through the Chair, Senator Davis. No, that's not
what I intended to say. We can keep giving the test as it exists
today but we do have committees that are outlined in this flow
chart in each of our content areas that are suggesting that the
emphasis on the test needs to be changed. That's where this came
from. The work of the committee then developed this concept of
essential. What is essential in order to graduate? And the
committees that are working on this today felt that we missed the
mark the first time around.
SENATOR DAVIS: I like that concept about what is essential and
what do you need but what I don't like is that you come back and
you change the name. What you're saying, to just review the
courses and make sure that we remove those that should not be
there, or decide whether they should be there or whatever, well
that's what you're going to have done and I don't know how long
it's going to take for that to happen. But you have people that's
working on that and you're going to have something back by April.
DR. JOHNSON: Through the Chair, Senator Davis. We won't have
anything back by April but we'll be able to determine by April is
whether or not we currently have enough questions in the item bag
that our publisher has developed and have been field tested in
Alaska and approved for Alaska use to develop a new version of the
test. That's what we do not know based on these essential skills.
And so we need to determine that and so, on April 19th and 20th, we
think we will come out of that two-day meeting with answers to
those questions. So, we'll know whether or not we can ask our
publisher simply to put a new version of the test together. If
they do that then we put a new version together. We use that in
the spring of 2002 and we then are able to establish the new
passing score in the early fall in time to apply that new passing
score in the spring of 2003.
SENATOR DAVIS: New cut scores in 2003?
DR. JOHNSON: Right - the fall of 2002, then the actual new passing
score used in the examinations in 2003. So what that would mean
for a student, if this bill were to pass, that a student graduating
in 2004 would have three attempts at that new reconstituted exam
because there the first two opportunities were based on the old set
of, what was then called, the essential skills.
SENATOR DAVIS: So why would you think we need to change the name?
That's the point that I'm trying to get to - I don't quite ...
DR. JOHNSON: Through the Chair, Senator Davis. We haven't
proposed, as a department, changing the name but we're trying to
add definition and appreciation and understanding for the public as
to why we're trying to move towards this essential skills or
foundational skills for the exam only. I think the drafter of the
legislation decided that maybe a name change would be helpful.
SENATOR DAVIS: Okay. You may go on.
DR. JOHNSON: The waiver concept that's on page 2 is one that is,
certainly from our perspective, not well defined at this point in
time but the board would be given the authority to go out through
the regulatory process and determine under what circumstances
waivers could be issued. And they would do that through their
normal public process, ultimately developing regulations that would
support this. If the state board were to sit in judgment, as
Senator Wilken said, if there were 10,000 appeals or requests for
waivers, you can only imagine that that's an impossible job. I
don't think that we can approach it from that perspective. I think
what we're going to have to do is through regulation saying, this
circumstance would allow for a waiver and if they would validate,
through an affidavit and letter to the commissioner, that the
student would - and again, I'm just talking conceptually about how
this might work, that those extraordinary circumstances are in
place, then that student would be eligible for a waiver. If they
weren't able to validate that, then they would not be. But we
would not sit in judgment.
SENATOR DAVIS: Madame Chair, could I just say before he continues,
that I would have a serious problem if you were saying that you're
going to set it out in regulations and then that's going to be left
up to each one of the school districts to come up with how they
would grant those waivers. That would be worse than having it left
to the department because we're going to have all kinds of suits on
us because one district might decide to give a waiver for [indisc.
- coughing] give it for y and all these different things and
everybody would be sharing that information - it would be a totally
chaotic situation. It'd have to be within one area of the
department - would have to be the one to do that. That would put
too much of a burden on the department. It would take too much
money to do it. You'd have to hire people just to handle the
waivers.
DR. JOHNSON: Through the Chair, Senator Davis. That's why I think
it would require the state board to do it through the regulatory
process and it would not be left up to an individual district but
it would be within the corral, or within a certain fence, that was
established in regulation that a waiver is available. Let me give
you an example maybe to help. In Indiana they grant waivers if the
student meets a certain grade point average in core classes that
are based on the standards in that state, and if they have a 95
percent attendance rate, and they have the endorsement from the
principal and faculty. So, with that, they're eligible for waiver
and they can get a diploma without meeting the demands of the high
school graduation qualifying exam.
SENATOR DAVIS: So you want to see that in the regulation - you
would have an A - B - C - D - you get these things or you would
just leave it? Okay. I can follow that.
DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Then moving on to the special education area.
Obviously we recognize that there are certain students in our state
that cannot pass a paper-pencil high school graduation qualifying
exam. They simply do not have the cognitive capacity to do that.
For those students currently, and it's outlined in the
participation guidelines that Senator Wilken referenced earlier, is
that they're eligible for another route, another assessment that is
individual to their IEP. But once they make that decision under
the current law, they cannot receive a diploma. That's a non-
diploma track in the current law.
SENATOR DAVIS: With this way it's going to give them a diploma?
DR. JOHNSON: This proposal here would allow those students, if
they met their IEP goals and the assessment that was developed
around those goals and, as Mr. Maloney probably indicated to you on
Saturday, is that those IEPs would have to be based on the
performance standards and the performance would be measured against
those - the student's individual performance would be measured
against those performance standards. But, if they met that, then
they would qualify for a diploma given this language.
SENATOR DAVIS: And you need this language before you would be able
to do that? You can't do it on the present language?
DR. JOHNSON: Through the Chair. Currently, Senator Davis, we
cannot do it under the current language. If I might just add,
there are about 12 to 13 percent of our students statewide that are
identified as special ed and that, you know, is from the more
severely disabled student to one with a modest speech and language
challenge that probably is corrected with six months of speech and
language therapy. So that's the full range. Obviously not all of
those students would need an opportunity outside of the exam to
acquire, but whether it ends up to be 5 or 6 percent or 10 percent,
I really can't adjust that at this point in time. But we do know
that most other states that we've looked at, in fact we're having a
very difficult time finding a single state that doesn't make some
accommodation and, I would add, modification for children with
special needs. One of the examples that we kick around in the
department, if I may prolong this just briefly, is that there are
students in the third or fourth grade that an IEP team decides that
a calculator is a necessary tool for them to learn mathematics.
And they use that throughout their career, in schooling and
graduate. Currently many of those students graduate with a high
school diploma. We developed our examinations in such a way that a
calculator is not necessary for any of those and, therefore, a
calculator is not an appropriate accommodation. It's not an
allowable accommodation under the current concept. This would
allow that student, if it was part of their daily instruction, the
use of a calculator to continue to use that calculator in the
testing situation and obviously it might provide the necessary tool
to enable them to get a passing score. If they didn't get a
passing score, then they would still have to meet their IEP goal in
order to receive the diploma. Those are the sorts of things that I
think we would see used routinely then as modifications. Those
really become modifications. It's like reading the reading exam to
a student is another example. We don't allow that currently. If
this were to come into play and that is how a student was taught in
their instructional program, then the examinations could be read.
It obviously alter the reading examination - clearly alters that.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: But you can still test comprehension from the
ideas and they have to give the answers back.
DR. JOHNSON: Right. What the test was originally intended to do
and designed for the greatest number. But again, I think that we
believe that language such as this is important, is necessary,
maybe indefinitely in Alaska, but certainly early on in our
program. I think that what you will see over time is an evolution
and, Senator Davis, you hit the nail on the head when you suggested
the department does have wide latitude in changing the exam, and we
do. That wasn't legislated. We will be doing that whether or not
this law goes into place or not. It's just that we can't get it
done in time to fairly apply the new examinations to the graduates
in 2002 - that's why we believe an extension is so key to fairness
for all students.
SENATOR DAVIS: So the department feels that you can have all of
this done by 2004? Without having to come back to say we haven't
met our goals?
DR. JOHNSON: Through the Chair, Senator Davis. We believe that we
can have our exams redone around the essential standards. We
believe we can accomplish that. We believe we can establish new
passing scores. We, I think, are becoming much more adept at
involving a cross section of people when we're making these
decisions than we did early on in '97, '98, and '99. We know we
need to do that. The involvement of the business community in this
continuous renewal cycle has been very enlightening to the
educators sitting around the table. Very enlightening. And we
intend to continue to do that. Obviously we can wear these people
out and they're taking time away from their families and their jobs
to assist us but they certainly are a spirited group that's working
with us right now and we would hope that we could continue that and
end up with exams that Alaska can be proud of, that are fair to
students and are achievable by the vast majority of students.
SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Bruce, maybe for - we only have about five more
minutes then we'll head out but - if you could kind of review, and
what was the name of the committee that did this work?
DR. JOHNSON: This is the Content Review Committee.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: It's been an ongoing committee that's been
reviewing the content of the exams.
DR. JOHNSON: If I may, Senator Green, we started with the
performance standards to be sure they were on target and now, on
April 19th and 20th, we'll be [indisc.-coughing] on time then
focusing on the exams themselves and the items that we have in our
pool.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Well, you know, without my realizing exactly who
that committee was, I was - kept receiving these packets and I
thought, this really looks good. Like I say, unknowingly, we
adopted most of the Content Committee's work and we'll have to give
- if this ever succeeds, we'll have to give them the credit for it,
if it's a good plan. No, if it's a bad plan we'll give them the
credit for it. I just want to go over what I have from Saturday.
The language on waiver needs to be addressed. We had mention on
Saturday of language on reciprocity for other states that have a
high school exam and how that would be - and I could take some
guidance from the department on that. And then I've received a
couple of three recommendations from I guess it's the department's
attorney and they're kind of tweaky things and we'll kind of review
those and then probably have a CS. I know Senator Wilken and
Senator Leman have been writing madly so I have an idea we're going
to have lots of ideas for additions to this and if either of you,
Senator Ward or Senator Davis, have anything you would like to
bring forward we - those things that we can get incorporated in the
meantime we will, otherwise we'll do it by amendment Wednesday.
And, this is - you guys are here this week, right? It's next week
you're out on a military bivouac or something?
SENATOR WILKEN: Wednesday.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Of next week?
SENATOR WILKEN: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN: Okay, so good. Okay, so we can have our full
committee on Wednesday then and hopefully we can get this draft up
and have a comfort level that everyone can live with. And so we
will have Greg Maloney back here. I might suggest in the meantime,
if you can get together with him and maybe define that language
that you're looking for as well and I'll be happy to do it as well
so.... Are there any other questions? What are we doing on
Wednesday besides this? Do we have anything else scheduled? Well
I'm sure there's a schedule out there somewhere that tells what
we're doing in committee on Wednesday and, with that, we're
adjourned.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|