Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/07/2004 04:20 PM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 405-SCHOOL PERFORMANCE DESIGNATION/REPORT
The committee took up CSHB 405(HES).
CHAIR DYSON noted that his staff had prepared a committee
substitute (CS).
MS. KAREN McCARTHY, staff to Senator Con Bunde, said
Representative Gatto sponsored the bill. Senator Bunde's major
issue with the bill is to ensure that in Section 5, the
requirement for the department to provide a report to the
Legislature on the progress of each school toward high academic
performance continues. That report is required by AS 14.03.078.
CHAIR DYSON moved to adopt the proposed CS, version U [labeled
3-LS1443\U, Mischel, 5/7/04].
CHAIR DYSON objected for purposes of discussion.
MR. CODY RICE, Staff to Representative Carl Gatto, responded to
a question from Chair Dyson said this was the first he has seen
of the CS, but he has worked closely with Chair Dyson and
Senator Guess's office.
CHAIR DYSON asked what the original bill did.
MR. RICE said the original bill repealed and re-enacted the
school designator statutes to comply with certain mandates of
the No Child Left Behind Act, while at the same time, creating
simplicity and ensuring there were not two separate designator
systems that might be conflicting.
CHAIR DYSON asked if this brought the state's designator system
into conformity with the federal system.
MR. RICE said more or less.
SENATOR GUESS explained that the first version indicated the
getting rid of everything that was done in SB 36 and replacing
it with No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
MR. WES KELLER, Staff to Senator Dyson, said the word
"designator" does not appear in NCLB at all, but there are
designators given in the sense that if a school is designated as
lacking two years of adequate years of progress, it becomes
eligible for certain sanctions and concerns; the term
"designator" has been maintained.
MR. KELLER addressed the changes that were made in version U.
He referred to page 1, line 5, where a new section was added
that requires the department to publish a report of all the
district revenue received on the district website. The
information is currently available in the department and this
asks that it be placed on the website. The second change is on
page 2, line 29, adding the words, "and the weight of the
measures used to assign a performance designation," will ensure
that the designator assigned by the department under Section 4
of the bill, (indisc.) is reported to the public with reference
to the measures used to assign the designation. Subsection (d)
of AS 14.03.120 is the requirement for each school to report to
its community. This change is in the report card the school
makes to its own community.
MR. KELLER continued that the third change, on page 3, line 17,
was a drafter error. It probably isn't necessary because the
school is working with the district, the department on this
designator, so the school has probably already reported to the
governing body the designator and the weight of it. He asked
that this be taken out. He pointed to the next change, page 3
line 25, "in accordance with (f) of this section." A sentence
is deleted here also, as the sentence in version I was, "The
performance designation shall be based on student achievement
measures that include the results of statewide assessment from
the school year." Basically the way it was written, performance
designation is required but the meaning of the designation is
left up to the state board. This changes it, and also ties the
designator to the state accountability assessment standards, not
just the NCLB.
MR. KELLER explained that the next change is on page 4, line 1,
the word "standards" is replaced with "criteria." "Criteria" is
a better word if trying to understand what the designation
means. On page 4, line 2, a new subsection was added. High
achievement/low achievement designations based on accountability
require that the state accountability system recognize both the
failures and successes. When students are excited about what
they're doing, you want to recognize that, give them the
positives.
MR. KELLER outlined that on page 4, line 5, there is a
subsection requiring the school improvement plan be deleted, the
reason being there is a new paragraph (d) on page 4, line 12,
speaking specifically to the school improvement plan. School
improvement plans are a requirement of NCLB. The way NCLB is
written, there is just brief mention of school improvement
plans, with no guidelines or references whatsoever, whereas
paragraph (d) puts in some basic guidelines. He continued that
a new subsection was added on page 4, line 19. It requires the
department to establish a program of special recognition for
schools with high designators. Again, you want to recognize a
school with a high degree of success; there is nothing as
positive as a group of kids proud of their school.
MR. KELLER referred to page 4, lines 27 through page 5, line 1,
expanding the measures for the state accountability system. In
version I, the designator was based on improvements that the
student made and multiple measures. This CS proposes not only
to use the improvement that's going on in other measures, but
also to reference it very clearly to the state assessment system
that includes a competency test, benchmark tests, and
specifically addresses reading, writing, and arithmetic. In the
first part, the weight of the designators are tied to the
measures that are in this subsection. He said another change
was on page 5, after line 7, a definition of statewide
assessment system; it used to be in the old paragraph (a) but
it's been taken out. He said one more change was the one
mentioned by [Ms. McCarthy] regarding the "thick report."
CHAIR DYSON asked if there was any objection to these changes.
[There was none.]
CHAIR DYSON said he'd like [Conceptual Amendment 1] to omit
lines 16, 17, and 18 on page 3 and re-number accordingly. He
asked if there was objection to that. [There was none.] Chair
Dyson announced that the CS was amended to move lines 16, 17,
and 18 on page 3 and to renumber accordingly.
SENATOR GUESS asked about section 1. She agreed with Senator
Wilken that this is a great addition. She said she was confused
by the language, "submitted under (a) of this section and
include all revenue received by each school district organized
in easily sortable categories including ADM and district."
SENATOR WILKEN said he thought it said, "and include all
revenue" by districts organized in categories including ADM and
districts, so the categories are the [indisc.].
SENATOR GUESS suggested, "modified in categories."
SENATOR WILKEN continued that ADM and district are categories.
SENATOR GUESS referred to page 4, line 1, "criteria that will be
used for assignment of each designation," and to page 2, and
page 3, and asked what formula would result in a designation;
she wondered if there was a reason behind the conflicting
language.
MR. KELLER said "criteria" could be used in all places and it
would be the same thing.
CHAIR DYSON asked Senator Guess if she'd like to move a
conceptual amendment to change "weight" to "criteria."
SENATOR GUESS moved conceptual Amendment [2] so that there would
be consistent language in the description of the designator [in
Sections 2,3, and 4].
CHAIR DYSON asked if there was any objection. Seeing none, it
was adopted.
SENATOR GUESS referred to page 4, line 27. Because the bill is
specific about the reading, writing, and mathematics
assessments, she wondered if there would be a problem complying
with NCLB, given that science is coming up in '06 as part of the
accountability system.
MR. LES MORSE, Director of Assessment and Accountability for the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), said this
shouldn't be a problem. There will be a science assessment, and
that assessment will be for reporting purposes, but not part of
the designation system, according to what he's been told by the
U.S. Department of Education. In terms of reporting, the focus
of Alaska's statutes has been on reading, writing, and
mathematics, and the desire is to maintain that and work with
the federal government to avoid having the science be anything
other than reporting requirements.
CHAIR DYSON asked if the department has any problems with
anything that's been brought up.
MR. KEVIN SWEENEY, Special Assistant to Commissioner of
Education and Early Development, stated that the only section
the department wasn't aware of ahead of time was Section 1, and
he doesn't know if that will be a problem or not.
CHAIR DYSON asked that Mr. Sweeney check on this to let him
know, before the bill gets to the floor.
MR. SWEENEY confirmed he would do that.
CHAIR DYSON asked for the wish of the committee.
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS moved to report SCS CSHB 405(HES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes.
CHAIR DYSON asked if there were any objections. There being
none, it was so ordered.
The committee was recessed to the call of the Chair at 5 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|