Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/31/2004 01:38 PM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SSSB 248-HIGH SCHOOL COMPETENCY EXAMS/DIPLOMAS
CHAIR FRED DYSON announced SSSB 248 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, sponsor, stated that SSSB 248 concerns
children with disabilities, but it doesn't compete with SB 372.
They could easily work in concert. She explained that SB 248
takes a broad approach and makes it unnecessary to ask whether
or not a child has a disability because not all students with
disabilities have been diagnosed whether they have been tested
or not.
The purpose of SB 248 is to ensure that the high stakes exit
exam minimizes "false negatives" and clarifies the legislative
intent regarding severe cognitively disabled students. It
proposes using the portfolio system, which is similar to a
system developed in Indiana and provides an alternate method for
students to demonstrate proficiency.
With this approach, students are required to attempt the high
stakes test and retake it if necessary. But once the student is
a senior, they have the option of retaking the parts of the test
that they failed or developing a portfolio to show that they
have mastered the skills that are on the part(s) of the test
that they failed. In the portfolio the student must demonstrate
or include the following:
· That they have a 95 percent attendance record
· That they have a 2.0 GPA in all courses that are required
for graduation
· That the student has enough credits to graduate
· That the student has attempted and failed to pass the exam
· That the student completed remedial class in the failed
area(s) if available
· Letter(s) from the student's teacher(s) in the failed
subject area(s) stating that the student knows the
material required by the exam
· Documentation regarding the student's competency in the
failed area(s)
The student submits the portfolio to the principal and he or she
certifies that the material is valid and that the student meets
the competency standards on the exam.
SENATOR GUESS said that the state of Indiana simply monitors how
many of the portfolios are given to determine whether or not
there are any problems with the program but SB 248 has two
additional steps. First, the portfolio goes to the
superintendent who repeats the certification process and then a
state board panel reviews the portfolio. This final step is to
address the concern expressed by Senator Wilken about district
level decisions. The panel would be composed of the
commissioner, a state board member, and a governor appointed at-
large member. They would make the final determination as to
whether the portfolio demonstrates that the student knows the
material that's on the exam that they failed.
The portfolio would be just as high stakes as the exam, but it
would provide an alternate method of demonstrating competency.
"We're denying diplomas so I think it's important for this body
to realize the enormity of this task and take it seriously in
terms of trying to put together a statute and a process that
works for all students."
CHAIR DYSON asked how a portfolio would enable a student to
demonstrate reading or math skills.
SENATOR GUESS replied that she would look to educators for a
definitive answer, but the exam is about one way of giving
information back and there are multiple methods. Videotaping
might be included for example. In Indiana, the state issues
guidelines and then it's up to the student and their family to
figure out a way of demonstrating competency. If the school
elects to provide resources, that's a local decision.
CHAIR DYSON asked whether a student that is trying to
demonstrate reading competency, might read to a teacher or
proctor in some stress free environment.
SENATOR GUESS replied if the three experts all say that the
contents of the portfolio demonstrate the ability, she would say
yes. However, for ages 15 to 18 there is no requirement to be
able to read out loud. It says, "Analyze and evaluate how
authors use narrative elements and tone in fiction for specific
examples of purposes."
CHAIR DYSON commented that would demonstrate comprehension and
reading and discussion of the material with a proctor could
demonstrate that. But with regard to math, he asked how an
alternative method would be demonstrated in a portfolio.
SENATOR GUESS reiterated that she would certainly like to hear
from an educator, but her interpretation is that class tests and
schoolwork could be evaluated. She pointed out that although
tests used to be just one way, we now know that students don't
give the material back using the same method so most teachers
and professors provide multiple ways to show mastery of the
material.
SENATOR GUESS added that in addition to the portfolio, the
teacher has to sign off saying they taught the student and he or
she knows the standards.
CHAIR DYSON questioned whether both were required.
SENATOR GUESS replied the student has to have letter(s) from the
teacher(s) and they have to demonstrate that they know the
material.
CHAIR DYSON asked Commissioner Sampson to comment on the bill.
ROGER SAMPSON, Commissioner of the Department of Education &
Early Development, said the bill takes the broad approach of
addressing not only children with recognized disabilities but
also children with disabilities that aren't identified and other
special needs that don't fall under AS 94.142. He continued:
It is the broadest view that we have seen so far, but
with rationale as to why. It may be difficult to get
some level of consistency, it may not, but would
require substantial training on behalf of the
department and other recognized experts to both
teachers, administrators and parents if parents were
going to have a significant responsibility for
building those portfolios. And if we have turnover,
which we frequently do, that training would have to be
ongoing, annually at least. It's certainly very strong
support and advocacy for children. It just may be
difficult to get the consistency that we also desire.
SENATOR GREEN noted that when they originally discussed SB 133
this was one of the discussion points. They tried to address the
entire picture of the student's readiness to graduate because
there are other benchmarks for determining that there may be
undiagnosed special needs and the portfolio was one of many
methods that were discussed. This isn't a new idea, but perhaps
it's a good idea to discuss this approach again.
SENATOR GUESS responded to Commissioner Sampson's comments
saying that the best example for her is Indiana. They haven't
spent money on substantial amounts of training and there haven't
been court challenges requiring training. Although training
would be good, the bill doesn't require it in a legal sense, she
said.
With regard to consistency, she said there wouldn't be
consistency with the portfolio method because every portfolio
would look different. Consistency would be provided by the fact
that they must all meet the standards that are on the current
exam.
CHAIR DYSON asked if it's correct that SB 248 doesn't address
the cognitively disabled students that aren't able to obtain a
diploma under state law.
SENATOR GUESS pointed to page 4, lines 17-23 and said that
waivers are provided for students with severe cognitive
disabilities. "If a student with a cognitive disability did
everything that their district told them to do, they would get a
diploma," she said.
CHAIR DYSON asked for an explanation of the transitional
provision.
SENATOR GUESS replied the transitional language was her best
effort to accommodate her colleagues who don't want to postpone
the exam this year. Just as seniors are able to retake the exam
if it's necessary, this bill provides one year for this year's
seniors to develop a portfolio. A final decision on the
portfolio would be made not more than six months after it is
submitted.
CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Morse when he would have updated numbers
on how many seniors haven't passed all portions of the test.
TAPE 04-17, SIDE A
LES MORSE, director of Teaching and Learning Supports with the
Department of Education and Early Development, replied they
should have the results by late April. With regard to a previous
question, [SB 372] he said it would take just a few days to
analyze the data and determine how many of the disabled students
who have not passed the exam have actually attempted one or more
parts.
CHAIR DYSON said he would appreciate that. He then told the
commissioner he had difficulty believing the DEED fiscal note
and if he wanted to make any revisions before the next hearing
he would appreciate that.
He asked committee members to let him know who they would like
to hear from and what additional information they would like
when the bill is heard next.
SENATOR GUESS said she'd like the public to have an opportunity
to testify.
SENATOR GARY WILKEN said he would like a day by day account of
what happened in March with regard to the exit exam and the time
line and how things are moving ahead with the new contractor. He
was aware that early in March a group of 60 met in Anchorage to
decide on grade level expectations. That information was given
to the board in Juneau and they will pass it on to the new
testing contractor to come up with the new questions. He said he
was particularly interested in the process to evaluate and
validate the results of the meeting in Anchorage. He said
everyone should be aware of the timeline and the affect that it
may or may not have on the quality of the test.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON said Mr. Morse would be the one to do that.
CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Morse if he understood what Senator Wilken
wanted.
MR. MORSE said there has been a lot of activity in March.
SENATOR WILKEN said he wanted the information in writing, but he
could give a verbal summary.
MR. MORSE continued to say that in early March about 60
educators looked at grade level expectations. They also had
consultants from the National Center for the Improvement of
Educational Assessment who helped guide them through the
process. He said that Alaskans primarily drove this but there
were also three content specialists from the testing company.
Also, earlier that week he met with the testing company to lay
out timelines for the rest of the fiscal year for when things
had to be done in terms of the whole test development. The grade
level expectations that were reviewed by the 60 Alaskans were
sent to the State Board of Education on March 16 for approval
after which they were transmitted to Data Recognition
Corporation. He and a group of Alaskans that make up a technical
advisory committee representing several districts would meet
with Data Recognition Corporation in Anchorage over the next two
days. On Monday about 52 educators would meet with the company
to begin writing items for the test using the grade level
expectations.
CHAIR DYSON reiterated Mr. Slotnick's view that there is a need
to bring clarity to the existing law. It is likely that there is
a problem with the time for preparation and the Legislature
needs to make a policy call to give direction to the department
on alternative ways to demonstrate competency. He asked
Commissioner Sampson if he would like to add anything.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON emphasized that clarity is needed on the
interpretation of the statute as to how to deal with children
with disabilities as it pertains to the exit exam.
CHAIR DYSON held SB 248 in committee and adjourned the meeting
at 3:25 pm.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|