Legislature(2013 - 2014)Anch Temporary LIO
08/14/2014 09:00 AM House ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Department of Education: Proposed 4 Aac 06.790: Repealing the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam and Requiring Students to Take Sat, Act, or Workkeys Assessments, in Accordance with House Bill 278. | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
August 14, 2014
9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lora Reinbold, Chair
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Geran Tarr
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Vice Chair
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Hollis French
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Carl Johnson, via teleconference
Representative Lynn Gattis, via teleconference
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: PROPOSED 4 AAC 06.790: REPEALING THE
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION QUALIFYING EXAM AND REQUIRING STUDENTS TO
TAKE SAT~ ACT~ OR WORKKEYS ASSESSMENTS~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH HOUSE
BILL 278.
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to the proposed
4 AAC 06.790.
REPRESENTATIVE RON HIGHLAND
Kansas State Legislature
Topeka, Kansas
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on the
proposed 4 AAC 06.790.
BARBARA HEENY (ph)
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on the
proposed 4 AAC 06.790.
SASHA PETIT (ph)
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on the
proposed 4 AAC 06.790.
LORI COPPENBERG (ph)
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on the
proposed 4 AAC 06.790.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:02:35 AM
CHAIR LORA REINBOLD called the Administrative Regulation Review
Committee meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. Representatives Hawker,
Tarr, and Reinbold were present at the call to order.
^Department of Education: Proposed 4 AAC 06.790: Repealing the
High School Graduation Qualifying Exam and requiring students to
take SAT, ACT, or WorkKeys assessments, in accordance with House
Bill 278.
Department of Education: Proposed 4 AAC 06.790: Repealing the
High School Graduation Qualifying Exam and requiring students to
take SAT, ACT, or WorkKeys assessments, in accordance with House
Bill 278.
9:02:41 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD announced the only order of business would be
regarding the Department of Education: Proposed 4 AAC 06.790:
Repealing the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam and
requiring students to take SAT, ACT, or WorkKeys assessments, in
accordance with House Bill 278.
CHAIR REINBOLD, referencing the timeframe of the proposed
regulations, reviewed that HB 278 was passed on April 25, 2014,
and signed into law on May 14, 2014; on April 2, 2014, the
Department of Education and Early Development (EED) signed a
contract with the Achieve Assessment Institute of the University
of Kansas (KU), for $100,308, to begin "the scope of work for
student testing on Alaska Standards"; on July 10, 2014, EED
signed another contract with KU, for $3.8 million, to develop
the test for the Alaska Standards; and on July 15, 2014, EED
signed a contract with KU for $705,000, "because of an incorrect
dollar amount." She questioned why state money has been
"committed in effort before the regulations have even been
adopted."
9:03:53 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development, responded that the contract for an assessment does
not require regulation, because the responsibilities of the
department, in regard to assessing its students, are already
listed in existing statute and regulation. He cited AS
14.07.020(b)(2), which requires the department to develop a
comprehensive system of student assessments. He said the
corresponding regulation is that the commissioner shall select a
standardization test that estimates the degree students have
mastered academic performance standards. He indicated that
securing a vendor contract is a procurement process like that
for any other vendor; it is designed to ensure fairness,
integrity, and the best value for the state's dollar. He
reiterated that the department underwent a procurement process
to find its vendor, but did not require regulation to do so.
9:05:26 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD offered her understanding that the Alaska State
Board of Education is not scheduled to discuss the regulations
until September 18, 2014. She noted there had been a public
hearing process, which ended on August 15. She indicated the
regulations had been reviewed by the Department of Law (DOL),
finalized, and sent to the lieutenant governor to be signed.
She offered her understanding that the earliest the regulations
would take effect would be in November or December, and she
asked if that is correct.
9:05:53 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY confirmed that 30 days after the lieutenant
governor signs the regulations, they become effective.
CHAIR REINBOLD said the regulations being discussed, 4 AAC
06.790, are associated with the high school qualifying exam, and
they would require students seeking diplomas to take the
Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT), ACT, [or] ACT WorkKeys
assessments in 11th or 12th grade, "and adopt by reference the
Alaska supplemental WorkKeys assessment, dated June of 2014."
CHAIR REINBOLD asked Commissioner Hanley to explain the
aforementioned $705,000 error on the contract with KU.
9:06:48 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that it was a clerical error on
the contract. In response to a follow-up question, he said the
amount to fix the error is a one-time expenditure.
9:07:26 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD directed attention to 4 AAC 06.717, the
regulation regarding college and career readiness assessments,
and said it seems to match HB 278. She directed attention to
subsection (b), which read as follows:
(b) The requirements under (a) of this
section are met if a student takes
(1) the SAT;
(2) the ACT; or
(3) the following sections of the
WorkKeys assessment:
(A) applied mathematics;
(B) reading for information; and
(C) locating information.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked what "takes" means.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that it means the student
participated and received a valid score.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked what a valid score would be.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that it is one that reflects the
input of the student accurately.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if there are any test scores.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said no, the legislature did not include
them.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked, "Would you consider these high-stakes
assessments or not?"
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no. He said the legislature
removed the high stakes exam - the high school graduates "HSG 3"
qualifying exam - and moved from passing that assessment to
participating in the SAT, ACT, or WorkKeys.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if a student would be considered to have
taken the SAT, ACT, or WorkKeys assessments if he/she wrote
his/her name on one of them.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no, because the student would not
have generated a score. In response to a follow-up question, he
said an incomplete test would be counted, because the student
may not have known the answers to all the questions; however,
the student would need to generate a score.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked what the purpose is in having students take
these tests.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that [the testing] is not driven by
regulation, but is driven by HB 278 - by the legislature.
CHAIR REINBOLD indicated that the [House] Education Committee
had "stripped out" language pertaining to college and career
readiness, because it believed that parents - not the state -
should pay for SAT, ACT, and WorkKeys. She asked again about
the purpose of the tests.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the HSGQE costs approximately $2.7
million, and the removal of that allowed for [a lower cost means
by which] to inform parents and students of the readiness of
students for success in work and education. He said previously
WorkKeys was required of all students in 11th grade. By
changing that requirement, the legislature provided an option
for students to take the SAT, ACT, or WorkKeys.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if the SAT, ACT, and WorkKeys assessments
were requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no. He said the state needed to
have a set of standards in place to prepare students for success
after high school.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked Commissioner Hanley if he is stating that
the assessments are not required for the NCLB waiver.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that is correct. He said he thinks
that was clear in the legislature when it removed the
assessments, because the legislature would not have been allowed
to remove them if they were required.
CHAIR REINBOLD noted that it was the department - not the
legislature - that signed the NCLB waiver. She asked again, "to
be clear," whether Commissioner Hanley was saying that his
position is that "the assessments are not required as part of
the No Child Left Behind waiver."
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered, "They're not."
9:13:05 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if the department would be collecting and
storing the scores from the assessments, since the state would
be paying for them.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered yes. He said the assessments would
be protected in the same manner in which other student data is.
He relayed that the data is not state data, but really is "data
at the local level to inform students and educators on student
readiness." He stated, "Currently our WorkKeys is already a
part of our data system, so it simply allows these other ones to
be a part it, as well." In response to a follow-up question, he
said the Online Alaska School Information System (Oasis) is the
name of the data system the school districts have used for
years.
9:14:54 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked Commissioner Hanley if he foresees a
situation in which a student refusing to take one of the
assessments could hurt his/her future.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY reiterated that if a student took even part
of the assessment, he/she would qualify for a diploma.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked Commissioner Hanley if he thinks it could
be beneficial to expressly write in statute that a child would
not be forced to complete the assessment.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said it seems clear already. He directed
attention to Section 3 of HB 278, which read as follows:
* Sec. 3. AS 14.03.075 is repealed and reenacted to
read:
Sec. 14.03.075. College and career readiness
assessment. (a) A school may not issue a secondary
school diploma to a student unless the student takes a
college and career readiness assessment or receives a
waiver from the governing body.
(b) A school shall award a certificate of
achievement to a student who fails to qualify for a
diploma under (a) of this section by the end of the
student's final semester of attendance but who has met
all other graduation requirements of the governing
body and the state.
(c) The department shall provide funding for the
fee for a single administration of a college and
career readiness assessment for each secondary student
within two years of the student's expected graduation.
(d) In this section, "college and career
readiness assessment" means the SAT, ACT, or WorkKeys
assessment.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY opined that the language is clear, but said
he could not speak to the legislature as to its interpretation
of "unless the student takes a college and career readiness
assessment".
CHAIR REINBOLD asked who the "governing body" is.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered it is the local school board.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked Commissioner Hanley to confirm that under
the law, a student who wants to graduate but does not wish to
take one of the assessment tests would have to go to the local
school board.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY replied, "That's the way the legislature
wrote this, yes."
9:17:31 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD moved on to the issue of an accelerated time
frame of the standards based test. She asked Commissioner
Hanley to confirm whether he had a hand in formulating the
language of HB 278.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that he was part of the governor's
conversations on the issue.
CHAIR REINBOLD indicated there had been some discrepancy between
the House and Senate in terms of [HB 278]. She indicated that
the HSGQE was replaced by the yearly standards based test. She
cited 4 AAC 06.737, the requirement to start the standards based
test, and noted that it had been accelerated by one year. She
asked Commissioner Hanley to explain.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the department has had
standards-based assessments (SBA) in place for several years,
and that is not changing. The shift is simply from one
standards based test to another, and the department had
considered 2016 as the date for that. He said the department
looked at the advantages of "getting out of some of the more
ominous and restrictive parts of No Child Left Behind and
pursuing a waiver from that and giving Alaska a little bit more
freedom." He relayed that "one of the components was to make
that adjustment to 2015," instead of 2016. He clarified that
that means the 2014-2015 school year. He said all
superintendents and school districts have known for about a year
and a half that the department is moving to the new assessment
in 2015. He concluded, "This is a cleanup of the regulations
that ... recognizes that date of 2015."
CHAIR REINBOLD offered her understanding that Commissioner
Hanley was saying that "this change does have to do with the No
Child Left Behind waiver." She asked, "So, essentially you are
catching up with your promise to the U.S. Department of
Education, in May of 2013, to make sure you started the student
testing this year, correct?"
CHAIR REINBOLD responded that the department is not "catching
up." He clarified that when the department applied for the
waiver from the U.S. Department of Education, it did what it
could, made some compromises, and agreed to implement certain
things, one of which was to establish an assessment on the new
standards in 2015. He reiterated that the regulation was
cleaned up to reflect the understanding and expectation of
stakeholders.
CHAIR REINBOLD, regarding the use of the terms "catching up" and
"cleaned up," said the bottom line is that the department made a
commitment to the federal department to have the assessments in
place by "this year." She offered her understanding that the
clean-up of the regulation makes the change from "2015 to this
year."
9:21:33 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked Commissioner Hanley if he foresees any
problems with the acceleration.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no. In response to a follow-up
question, he said the tests are in the process of being
completed, but are not done.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked Commissioner Hanley if he thinks it is a
good idea to be teaching a curriculum that may or may not be on
target with the yet unfinished assessment tests.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded, "We test what we teach, as
opposed to teaching what we test." He said he considers it a
backwards mentality to think that schools "teach for the test."
He said since 2012, the schools have been teaching to the
standards that the department deemed appropriate, so that
students will be prepared to be successful in work and careers.
He said it would be nice to have the tests completed sooner, but
it is not the driver of what is being taught right now.
CHAIR REINBOLD stated, "So you think it's fine that we're going
into these tests right now when we're not even certain that the
curriculum is aligned to these tests, is what I'm hearing from
you?"
COMMISSIONER HANLEY reiterated that the school districts have
known for over a year that there will be a new assessment. In
response to her previous statement, he clarified that he had not
said that the curriculum should be aligned to the test. He
stated, "The curriculum is aligned to our expectations for
students to learn at each grade level - those are the standards.
The test simply reflects what we teach. So, districts aren't
driven by what's on the test; they should be driven by what we
need our students to know, and that's based on the expectations
represented in this change."
CHAIR REINBOLD said obviously the curriculum needs to be aligned
to the standards.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that is correct.
CHAIR REINBOLD reiterated her question as follows:
Do you think it's a good idea to start a school year
with unknown tests required at the end of the year and
to be teaching curriculum that may or [may] not be
aligned to these tests?
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he did not know how to answer that
again. He reiterated that the curriculum is not supposed to be
aligned to the test; it is supposed to be aligned to the
standard. He said the department is always changing its
assessments to keep them current.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked Commissioner Hanley to confirm that what he
is saying is that the curriculum is not aligned to the test, but
to the standard.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered yes.
9:25:29 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked what would happen if the current time
schedule was kept so that the change could be more easily
adopted.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY asked Chair Reinbold what her expectation
would be if the change happened this year.
CHAIR REINBOLD reiterated her question.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the department has shifted vendors from
the previous one that provided the SBA to the new one that will
provide the state's new assessment. He asked Chair Reinbold if
she is suggesting the department keep the same assessment from
the past and test by its old standards once more.
CHAIR REINBOLD said she is concerned with the accelerated plan
because she is not sure that teachers and curriculum are ready.
She offered her understanding that teachers are not developing
the assessment or administering the test, but are being
evaluated on the test. She asked Commissioner Hanley to confirm
if that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the tie of teacher evaluations to
student learning does not take place for another two years. He
continued as follows:
It has to use multiple measures, so the statewide
assessment can only be one of those multiple measures;
we actually got it two to four measures. So, for the
portion that is tied to student learning, two to four
measures need to be used. We still have -- of the
eight teacher standards, only one changed, the other
seven are still in place ... - have always been in
place. The only one that's changed is the adjustment
to recognizing student learning in there, but that's
still two years down the road.
CHAIR REINBOLD opined that the two years is irrelevant. She
asked if the teachers are designing and administrating the
tests.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that KU is working directly with
Alaska stakeholders to customize a test for Alaska. He said
there have been "item writing workshops" for reading and writing
passages, so Alaska educators are writing the passages with the
oversight of professionals who ensure the right standard is
measured. He said the department is currently in the process of
receiving applications from Alaska educators who will review the
items that will be on the assessment. He further said over 500
educators have applied, and the department anticipates there
will be over 1,000. He said the Alaska educators will be
looking to make sure the tests are free of bias, accurate in
content, and have "sensitivity for the Alaska context." He said
the department is excited about the company it is working with
and the work being done, and it is involving a lot of
stakeholders to ensure a balanced test. He stated, "And that's
really the biggest difference between ours and a lot of other
tests. Well, obviously they're the ones that are being
developed by two consortia." In response to the chair's
restated question, he said teachers can use a lot of different
tools to measure a student's growth, but the state standards
test will not be written or given by individual teachers.
9:30:24 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD offered her understanding that Commissioner
Hanley was saying that teachers "do not even administer these
tests."
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded, "It kind of goes back to the
previous question that if teachers are teaching students towards
... our standards, they'll be prepared for the assessments.
They shouldn't be teaching them towards the test; they should be
teaching them towards the standard." He added, "Teachers and
other support staff ... provide the ... area and the space and
the time to give these tests." He said as part of its new
contract, the department has interim assessments that are
aligned to the summative assessment. He said the summative
assessments are optional, but do give teachers an understanding
and idea of where students are as they moved toward the end of
the year. In response to Chair Reinbold, he said these
assessments would be given statewide.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if they are being designed for both Alaska
Standard students and students under the [Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) Initiative].
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no. He clarified that only Alaska
Standards are being assessed. He said the department has the
expectation that all students will be taught and moved toward
proficiency in the Alaska Standards. He indicated that a
district could establish different standards that are equal or
higher than the Alaska Standards, but the assessments would
still be made upon the Alaska Standards.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked Commissioner Hanley to confirm that the
assessments are not being aligned to the CCSS.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said KU is customizing an assessment to be
the Alaska Standard.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked, "So, these tests are not being aligned to
the Common Core; they're to Alaska Standards. Is that [a]
correct statement?"
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that is correct.
9:33:01 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD recollected that in a previous Administrative
Regulation Review Committee meeting, Commissioner Hanley had
said that roughly 50 percent of Alaska Standards are aligned
with the CCSS. She indicated that Senator Gary Stevens had
remarked that the state did not need to worry about its
alignment with the CCSS. She asked Commissioner Hanley to
comment.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he does not have those numbers
available and does not want to offer an estimate. He indicated
that there would be significant changes to the language arts and
math standards.
CHAIR REINBOLD said three legislators she spoke with in the past
few days said Commissioner Hanley had stated that the Alaska is
not a CCSS state and does not have to worry about "that." She
said Marcy Herman, [Special Assistant, Office of the
Commissioner, EED], sent her an e-mail stating that does not
follow the CCSS. She asked Commissioner Hanley if that is his
official position.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that is correct. He said a look at
"the consortia that put these together" and CCSS web sites would
show that originally 46 states adopted the CCSS, but Alaska was
never one of them. He added his understanding that the number
of states using the CCSS has dropped to 43.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked Commissioner Hanley if he was saying the
Alaska Standard is different.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered yes, but said there are some
similarities.
9:35:01 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD announced that she would take "a ten second
break."
9:35:12 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD mentioned a letter sent by Commissioner Hanley to
Patrick Rooney of the U.S. Department of Education. She read as
follows:
Dear Mr. Rooney,
Enclosed is a letter from the Council of State School
Officers confirming that it has been analyzed in
Alaska's new English Language Arts and Mathematics
Standards in 2012 and found them to be nearly
identical to the Common Core State Standards. We are
submitting this information in support of our
application to going the Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked Commissioner Hanley to explain the letter.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that "this isn't part of the
regulatory package." He indicated that the regulatory package
is related to the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam
(HSGQE), SAT, ACT, and WorkKeys, but "is not before the State
Board of Education or standards that were adopted in 2012." He
offered to provide further information if the chair so desired
it.
CHAIR REINBOLD stated that she would like Commissioner Hanley to
continue along this vein, because "it has everything to do with
the new assessment."
9:36:29 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said when the department originally spoke to
the issue of joining the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
(SBAC), it had the expectation of students similar to that
expected of them under the CCSS. He said he thinks it is
appropriate to recognize that the Alaska's students will be
competing for jobs with other students around the country. When
Alaska joined the consortium as an advisory state, the
department remarked on the similarity as it pertains to the
outcomes of students. Since then, as the conversation has
continued, he said he has not changed from that, but the
department wants to recognize great changes and where changes
have not been made. He said under the CCSS there are rules
about what can and cannot be changed, which is why Alaska did
not join the CCSS, and why the department clarified the number
of standards that it has changed and those that it has added and
moved "to places that we thought were important without
lessening the rigor." He said he thinks it is a continual
conversation. Currently, he said, the department has standards
in place that will allow students to compete with other students
nationwide, and it has made significant changes based on
stakeholder input.
CHAIR REINBOLD recalled that Commissioner Hanley had found
Alaska's standards to be nearly identical to the CCSS, but had
minutes ago said he thinks the curriculum needs to align to the
standards so that Alaska can be on par with national standards
and curriculum. She posited that that raises concern with many
people in Alaska.
9:38:51 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD moved on to the subject of testing materials.
She stated that [Legislative Legal and Research Services] sent a
memorandum ("memo") expressing concern over the statutory
authority of the department, which she said has added a new
definition of "testing materials" in the last section of the
regulations. She stated that neither she nor [Legislative Legal
and Research Services] could find "any use of that term anywhere
in the ... section of regulations." She asked Commissioner
Hanley why the department is adding the new definition to the
Alaska Administrative Code.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that there are a couple reasons why
the department is adding the definition. He prefaced further
comment by stating the following:
I'm willing to have this conversation, but as a basic
protocol, memos from the Department of Law regarding
regulations to agencies - it goes to agencies and to
legislators - are confidential in nature. You have
the right to waive that confidentiality; I don't. But
if you want to go down this path and, with your
permission, since you have ... opened this up and
waived that confidentiality with the Department of
Law, I'd be willing to discuss it with you, if that's
your desire.
CHAIR REINBOLD indicated she had not been told by [Legislative
Legal and Research Services] that she must go into executive
session, but rather that going into executive session was an
option. She said she has not gone into the particular details
of the multiple-page memo she received, but indicated that she
and Legislative Legal and Research Services share concerns about
the new definition.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY stated for the record that he would assume
Chair Reinbold wished to discuss the materials from the
Department of Law.
CHAIR REINBOLD indicated that the discussion does not have to be
in regard to the memo. She said, "This was in my script before
I even saw ... that memo, which ... I read in detail last
night." She reiterated that she wants to know why the new
definition is being added to the administrative code.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded, "I'll answer that, recognizing
that the Department of Law, as you stated, brought that up in
their memo; it wasn't mentioned in other places." He said
testing materials must be valid, reliable, and confidential. He
further said previously "testing materials" meant only paper
materials, but now they include the electronic documents and
software. The addition of "testing materials" adds the
electronic component to the definition.
CHAIR REINBOLD stated that electronic documents are raising
concern, and she announced that the committee would be
addressing the issue in an upcoming hearing. She asked, "Do you
plan on ... using this term in future?"
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the department is reviewing the memo,
but it will use the term within the school district as it always
has. He reiterated the importance of securing testing
materials, both paper and electronic.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if the term is meant to oblige the state to
some fiscal responsibility in the future.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no; it is simply to recognize
within the school districts the importance of confidentiality in
testing materials.
9:44:24 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD said HB 278 prohibits the use of money to develop
the CCSS, and "we are developing yearly testing that tests both
the Common Core and the Alaska Standards." She ventured that
the CCSS and the Alaska Standards must be similar, "since you're
developing a single test for both set of standards." She asked
if that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that is not correct. He clarified
that only one assessment for the Alaska Standards is being
built. He indicated that there is erroneous information being
posted on social media that the legislature said money cannot be
spent on "implementing standards that are based on the Common
Core State Standards Initiative." He said that is not correct;
that is not what is written in HB 278. He said the language in
HB 278 states that the department may not spend money to
implement the set of educational curriculum standards for
kindergarten through 12th grade established by the CCSS. He
recalled discussion during the hearings on HB 278 repeatedly
made clear that "this was to put a hedge between our standards
and our work and the Common Core, and that we would not move
towards the Common Core, that we would continue to work with our
Alaska Standards."
CHAIR REINBOLD said that is debatable. She drew attention to
the language in Section 17 of HB 278, [on page 13, beginning on
line 3], which read as follows:
(b) In implementing its duties under (a)(2)
of this section, the department may not expend any
money to implement the set of educational curriculum
standards for grades kindergarten through 12
established by the Common Core Standards Initiative
CHAIR REINBOLD said she thinks that "it is the same test." She
clarified, "The same standards based test is going to be for
Anchorage that is in full implementation of the Common Core is
the same testing that is going to be throughout the state based
on Alaska Standards."
COMMISSIONER HANLEY explained that the difference is that all of
Alaska's school districts must ensure they are preparing
students on the state's standards, because the state does not
modify and compromise to meet the needs of the districts. In
response to Chair Reinbold, he confirmed that there is one
unified test given to all district schools irrespective of the
standards that any particular school may be using; therefore, he
reiterated the importance of each school preparing its students
to be ready for the Alaska Standards assessment.
CHAIR REINBOLD said, "If I base this on the January 23, 2013,
letter that you sent to the U.S. Department of Education, they
really have no concern, because it states that ... Alaska's new
standards were nearly identical to Common Core Standards." She
asked about recommendations in advancing the Alaska Standards
when they are nearly identical to the CCSS, while "the funding
seems to prohibit this."
COMMISSIONER HANLEY reiterated that [HB 278] was not designed to
stop the Alaska Standards. He continued as follows:
Any funds that need be spent on the implementation of
the Alaska Standards are simply around professional
development and [the] work we do in districts to help
them understand and begin the implementation process.
The implementation of the standards is not ... the
assessment; that's the measurement of the standards,
not the implementation of the standards. [They're]
very clearly different.
9:50:21 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:50 a.m. to 9:51 a.m.
9:51:06 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD directed attention to [4 AAC 06.710, statewide
student assessment system], and 4 AAC 06.790, definitions, and a
possible change that would require students seeking a diploma to
take the SAT, ACT, or WorkKeys tests once in 11th or 12th grade.
She indicated that her research regarding the SAT and ACT
brought her to the College Board Research Report, which said
these tests are now aligned to the CCSS. She asked Commissioner
Hanley if he knows anything about that.
9:51:26 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he understands that the SAT and ACT
have undergone changes to "match up with expectations around the
country," but said he has not followed that. He stated that
both the SAT and ACT have been around for a long time and they
are "the language" commonly used by colleges in terms of
admittance. He said both the governor and legislature wanted
them "in there."
CHAIR REINBOLD said ACT, in its web site, www.act.org, states
that it is pleased to be an active partner with the Common Core
State Initiative and is aligned to the CCSS. She indicated that
the web site states that the CCSS and the College Board
Assessment are also aligned. She opined that is information
that needs to be brought to light, because the state is going to
be paying for these assessments. She indicated that the House
Special Committee on Education does not believe that the state
should be paying for these tests.
9:53:45 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) is the same thing as the NCLB waiver.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that ESEA is the same as NCLB. In
response to Chair Reinbold, he said the state did not have to
get that waiver, but said the measurements for NCLB became more
erroneous; districts were having to do things that seemed
inappropriate, because even though their schools were
successful, they were deemed as failing under NCLB. He said the
department felt it needed flexibility and felt there was value
in pursuing a waiver from NCLB. To follow-up questions, he said
there were no penalties, but there were restrictions. [Under
NCLB], the department was giving additional control to the U.S.
Department of Education to say which schools were successful and
which were not, which in turn restricted how funds were used in
the districts.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if the waiver is in place so that the state
can get money; she offered her understanding that amount is
approximately $215 million from the federal government.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY asked if Chair Reinbold was talking about
how much Alaska gets for supporting education.
CHAIR REINBOLD said she was talking about the NCLB waiver and
the ASEA waiver, which she said are interchangeable. She asked
Commissioner Hanley to explain the reason why the department
applied for the waiver.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said moving in to 2014, the requirement of
NCLB was 100 efficiency of all students, and he reiterated that
that the department found that measurement of success to be
erroneous. The waiver allowed the department to design a new
measurement system.
9:58:08 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD referred to a letter from EED, dated July 11,
2014, with the following subject line: "Notification of intent
to amend Alaska's ESEA Flexibility Waiver Principle 1." She
asked what Principle 1 means.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY indicated that it had to do with ensuring
regular standards and a means by which to measure them.
CHAIR REINBOLD paraphrased the first three sentences of the
letter, which announced EED's plans to request amendments to its
approved ESEA Flexibility Waiver of certain requirements of the
ESEA Act, noted that the amendments apply to Principle 1,
College & Career Ready Standards and Assessments, and stated
that the amendments will reflect the department's decision to
develop new assessments following the withdrawal from the SBAC.
She noted that the department was requesting comments about the
proposed changes by July 17, and that the comments should be
submitted to Margaret McKinnon. She asked if Ms. McKinnon works
for EED.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered yes.
CHAIR REINBOLD noted that the letter includes the department's
web site. She then paraphrased the first two sentences of the
final paragraph of page 1 of the letter, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
To meet the requirements of ESEA flexibility, a State
education agency (SEA) must develop annual, statewide,
high-quality assessments, and corresponding academic
achievement standards, reading/language arts and
mathematics in grades 3 through 8 and once in high
school. These assessments must be fully implemented
no later than the 2014-2015 school year.
CHAIR REINBOLD said the implementation deadline "is where our
concern is," because the date has been changed from 2015 to
2014, based on a promise that [the department] made to the
federal government. She asked Commissioner Hanley to confirm if
that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY reiterated that it was an agreement made in
order to increase flexibility in how schools are assessed and
how the department is able to spend the funding.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if "content" and "curriculum" could be used
interchangeably.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no. He explained that content is
subject matter, while curriculum is the material and technology
used to teach the content.
CHAIR REINBOLD paraphrased the ensuing sentence in the same
paragraph of the letter, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Among other characteristics, a high-quality assessment
must be valid, reliable and fair for its intended
purposes, be aligned with a State's college-and
career-ready content standards, as well as providing
an accurate measure of student growth over a full
academic year.
CHAIR REINBOLD said people are concerned that aligning the
curriculum to the standard will result in the loss of
significant local control.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the curriculum should always
be aligned with standards; that is not a new concept. He said,
"We had our previous set of standards that curriculum should
have been aligned to, because ... we were assessing students on
their movement toward proficiency on those things."
CHAIR REINBOLD offered her understanding that Commissioner
Hanley had told some legislators that the department could
change the curriculum at any time, and she asked him if that is
correct.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no. He clarified that he did not
say the department could change curriculum, but did say that
districts can change curriculum. He stated, "If we chose,
because we have no ties to anybody outside of Alaska, we could
make altercations to our standards. At the same level, local
school districts have no ties to their curriculum; they can make
those changes at the local level."
CHAIR REINBOLD said, "But you've signed a waiver that say our
standards are almost identical with the [U.S.] Department of
Education, so it sounds like ... it would be [a] pretty
incredible task to get ... the standards changed." She offered
her understanding that school districts have curriculum for six
years once they purchase books. She further offered her
understanding that the contract with the Achievement &
Assessment Institute (AAI) of Kansas was for $25 million.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY confirmed it was a five-year contract for
$25 million.
CHAIR REINBOLD listed the investment of money, the education of
teachers, the alignment of SAT and ACT to the CCSS, and the
alignment of curriculum to standards, and said it seems like a
tall order to change the curriculum or standard.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY replied that the department does not choose
lightly to change the standards. He said the department took
two years to develop its new set of standards, during which it
invited a longer, five-month public comment period, held
webinars, met with districts, traveled to five communities, and
met with business leaders, community leaders, and parents. He
said the change impacts many, which is why careful consideration
is given. Commissioner Hanley noted that Chair Reinbold had
said the department aligns its standards with that of the U.S.
Department of Education, and he said that is incorrect. He
stated that the department simply has its own standards that it
believes will get students to be ready to be successful in work
and education. He added that the department even checked with
the University of Alaska to find out if the standards were
sufficient to prepare students for post-secondary education. He
said it was an extensive vetting process.
CHAIR REINBOLD said she understood, but stated that "a lot of
people believe that the menu was set" and the standards were
simply put forth for a stamp of approval. She said she had been
referring to Commissioner Hanley's aforementioned letter to
Patrick Rooney of the U.S. Department of Education, in which she
said Commissioner Hanley wrote that the Alaska Standards are
"nearly identical" to the CCSS.
10:06:29 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked why the department chose AAI as its new
vendor.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY reviewed the state's official procurement
process, which he said the department followed in searching for
a new vendor, and he said AAI scored the highest.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if it is correct that the University of
California was going to administer the Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortium (SBAC), but now AAI will be administering
the Alaska Measures of Progress (AMP).
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he does not know about the University
of California administering the SBAC.
CHAIR REINBOLD indicated she had learned of this during a
meeting of a national committee. She directed attention to
Appendix D of the contract with the University of Kansas [dated
7/14/14 and included in the committee packet], and she
paraphrased the first sentence, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
During Year 2 of the Contract between Alaska
Department of Education and Early Development and the
Achievement and Assessment Institute at the University
of Kansas, the Scope of Work will comprise developing,
administering, and scoring summative assessments in
English language arts and mathematics in grades 3-10.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked, "Is that correct?"
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered yes.
CHAIR REINBOLD noted that later in the paragraph it states that
that will begin in July 2014 and continue through July 2015.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY confirmed that information.
CHAIR REINBOLD noted [under "Tasks and Deliverables by Month"
for July 2014, listed toward the bottom of the same page] that
there would be a [practice test] bias/sensitivity review. She
asked, "Who is doing the bias/sensitivity, and what are you
looking for there?"
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that is largely where Alaska
stakeholders are coming into play by doing item reviews to
ensure there are no items that "don't make sense in particular
cultural context." He reiterated that there are over 500 Alaska
educators doing reviews.
10:10:31 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD noted that also in Appendix D is the term "KITE,"
and she asked what it means.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said Kansas Interactive Testing Engine
(KITE) is the on line tool that the department will use to do
the assessment. In response to further questions, he explained
that Questar is the subcontractor that works with the University
of Kansas to help EED with the technology component of the
assessment, and he confirmed that KITE is the delivery system
and Questar is the scoring company.
10:12:47 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD indicated that she looked up information related
to Applied Measurement Professionals, Inc. (AMP). She noted
that AAI has a large number of staff. She asked Commissioner
Hanley to explain who the people listed on akassessments.org are
and what role those people fill.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he could not do that off the top of his
head, but said all the people listed are involved in the large
task of developing the assessments, including practice tests.
In response to follow-up questions, he said a small percent of
the people are based in Alaska, but others travel to Alaska to
work with the department and stakeholders on practice items and
item reviews. He indicated that the cost of flying people up to
Alaska from Kansas is included in the contract. He reiterated
the procurement process found the best candidate.
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if there is any reason that the department
could not have contracted to work with an Alaskan entity.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY gave two reasons: no local entities
applied, and he said he does not believe any local entities
exist that have the necessary background in assessment
development.
CHAIR REINBOLD mentioned emphasis on local control, a
performance scholarship "encouraging people to go up here," and
[Alaska's] independent streak. She expressed concern over
employing the University of Kansas to make such a broad change
in Alaska's education system, but said she would hold off for
the time being on asking further questions about the issue.
Regarding KITE, she said she had read that "it's put on ... any
computer ... and it basically shuts down all the other
applications." She said this is in regard to AMP. She
mentioned a local caching system (LCS), which she said "allows
them to administer the tests when the broadband is not
available. She asked if that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY indicated that LCS could be used directly on
line or downloaded to a local cache or server. He said, "That
was one of the requirements we had to make sure that we could
get it out to as many students and districts as possible."
10:17:57 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD announced her intent to hold a future meeting to
discuss the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
laws and the issue of securing data from on line testing.
10:18:25 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY remarked that he did not think the
department currently had any regulations related to FERPA laws.
CHAIR REINBOLD stated the following:
But it's all intertied with assessments. Assessments
come through regulation, as you well know. And ... as
an oversight to education, we need to ensure that our
students' data is protected and that it's not invasive
as HB 257, which, as you know, is going to be coming
up again this year before the legislature. And we
stated in that committee that when you did do these
assessments that you were cognizant [of] the fact that
that was going to be facing the legislature again.
10:19:25 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD opened public testimony.
10:19:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RON HIGHLAND, Kansas State Legislature, related
that a person named Paul Schwartz (ph) testified before the
House Standing Committee on Education. He continued as follows:
What he said was very disturbing to us: the fact that
student data, and he's talking about kindergarten up
to age 18, which is the most valuable data sought by
outsiders because they can use that information and
create accounts and parents won't know this until
their child applies for a student loan or a loan of
any type and they find out that they're in debt way
beyond their means. So, with that information we
became concerned about data privacy, and we passed out
a data privacy bill. I was not real happy about it,
but what we did get done was to disallow any personal
information from being transferred from the school
district to KU or any outside vendor. And that's
called aggregate data. But what this security analyst
told us [was] that with about 80-90 percent accuracy,
an intelligent hacker can backfill that information
and identify the individual. So, my other concern is
now how to protect that data security at the district
level, and we're going to have to deal with that
during the next session, because if you have
disgruntled teachers or employees or whoever can get
into that system at the district level and saw that,
that ... concerns me a great deal.
Now, on the other side, at KU, they were hacked, and
to the extent they're still not completely sure. So,
that data is out there. We don't know how much and
how much of it is identifiable, but because of that
they suspended all testing or receiving of information
from the school districts. So, we are in a situation
where no testing or scoring is going to be done this
year and possibly next year because of that. So, the
data security is something that we are looking at very
closely, and I would recommend Paul Schwartz to you
for information on data security and how important it
is in our futures.
10:22:42 AM
And then beyond that, we have a system in Kansas
called [Kansas Individual Data on Students] (KIDS);
it's the information that they are collecting on each
of the children, and it goes way beyond what we feel
is necessary for identifying and using for their
futures. So, that is something that we're going to be
looking at and assessing obviously; and ... all of
that is of great concern .... Those are things we're
going to be looking at, but the data concern is number
one for us.
10:23:24 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD mentioned a news article about the aforementioned
hacked data system in Kansas. She read that the hacker
bombarded the system with "intense volumes of data" that the
server could not handle. She noted the article stated that the
Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, which administers
the case assessment, had "identified it" and were working to
eradicate the attack. She explained the reason she thought it
was important to mention is that "this is exactly the same
delivery system that Alaska's planning ... to use."
REPRESENTATIVE HIGHLAND opined that Chair Reinbold should be
concerned. He reiterated that the State Board of Education has
determined it will not be issuing any test results for this year
and possibly the next year, and he indicated that it would have
to be determined next legislative session whether the reason for
that is "the security issue" or "the scores they received."
CHAIR REINBOLD reemphasized her concern regarding security and
the aforementioned plan to accelerate the change to the new
assessment.
10:25:34 AM
BARBARA HEENY (ph) indicated that she had run a web site
containing the words "stop Alaska Common Core." Prior to that,
she relayed, she worked as a summer faculty member at the
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), was a home-school teacher,
and did extensive work on test questions and item preparations
on college-level tests. She said she did not submit a bid in
response to the aforementioned procurement process, because she
was engaged in something else at the time that would have made
it inappropriate for her to do so. Nevertheless, she said she
has deep concerns.
MS. HEENY stated her understanding that the state was not
implementing the CCSS, yet [the department] is still
implementing the Alaska Standards. She said Patrick Rooney, in
his letter to Arnie Duncan, June 2012, calls the Alaska
Standards the CCSS. She indicated that the letter states that
"Alaska also utilized two national experts involved in
developing the Common Core [State] Standards," and that group of
experts was called "the Common Core team." Ms. Heeny stated,
"There has never been any ... effort until I spoke up to hide
the (indisc.) to Common Core."
MS. HEENY referred to a letter associated with the ESEA
"flexibility document" that "talks about the Alaska Standards
being nearly identical." She said last year, in response to the
House Special Committee on Education, Commissioner Hanley wrote
that there were only a couple of differences [between] the
Alaska Standards and the CCSS, and they are measurement
standards. She said, "Those are detailed in a memo ... that
should be attached to the one that you read earlier to Mike
Hanley."
MS. HEENY said she is also concerned about the new assessments
because of the involvement of Questar. She said it seems that
Questar is "on board" with the CCSS. She indicated that Questar
hosted and funded [The Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO)], and it has strong ties with those people [on the
council]. She mentioned Diane Ravitch, the former U.S.
Secretary of Education under two Presidents, whom she said has
made strong comments about Questar, which she offered to provide
for the committee to read.
MS. HEENY stated that Questar hires "heavily" people who are
involved in psychometric research and follow the ideas of Karl
Kautsky, who she said was the man who implemented the education
system for Karl Marx. She said she never imagined, when voting
for Governor Sean Parnell, that she would ever be fighting "the
implementation of the ideas of Kautsky in Alaska." She said she
does not understand why psychometric evaluations and
measurements are being used, and that is what Questar
specializes in. She encouraged those involved individuals in
Kansas to consider doing due diligence in looking into the
philosophy behind the assessments, because she opined that
psychometric measurements are not the way to go in "preparing
children for a free society." Ms. Heeny reemphasized her
concern that the standards being implemented are the CCSS.
10:32:00 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD said one of the first pages on Questar's web site
read that public school districts are changing their curriculum
to the CCSS. She told Ms. Heeny that the committee would be
discussing the issues of data, assessments, and privacy
protection at a future date.
10:32:48 AM
SASHA PETIT (ph) prefaced her remarks by expressing
disappointment that the hearing was scheduled on the first day
teachers had to be in school in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su)
area, because they were missing the discussion. She stated a
concern about data security when tracking students' information.
She questioned if a student could obtain a general educational
development (GED) and take an SAT and not have those scores
reported back into the system. She said she knows parents who
are concerned about the tracking of scores.
MS. PETIT questioned if EED has a course of action in mind
should there be a statewide drop in scores as a result of
accelerating the assessment plan before teachers have the time
to "align to the standards." She said she is thinking about the
news of the testing in Kansas and questioning the role of the
security breach. She continued as follows:
I know that ... Commissioner Hanley was saying that we
... don't teach the test, but if we are teaching every
child in the district to swim and the test is about
climbing trees then every single child will look like
a failure. So, in a sense, we do sometimes teach the
test or what the standards are, and I don't feel that
we have an accurate representation of what the new
standards are so that we can prepare our children for
these tests.
MS. PETIT questioned what the difference is between aligning
with the standards and being on par with them. She said
curriculum changes can be made at the local level, but if the
curriculum is aligned to the standards or on par or nearly
identical with the CCSS, then it seems money is being used
contrary to what is stated in HB 278. She said it sounded like
EED was going to ask the districts to use their funds for the
implementation of that which the department would not be allowed
to use its own funds.
MS. PETIT said another question she has as a veteran teacher is
regarding a two-year time-frame for teacher evaluation to be
tied in with student learning. She continued as follows:
Right now ... an average junior high classroom is
getting 48 minutes with one student a day - they
counted up 130 students. And I want to know how they
can tie an evaluation of a teacher to a tiny, little,
miniscule block that they have with that student,
especially when learning is built ... in spirals and
in blocks, and if a student has not learned in third
grade or fourth grade, and I get them in seventh
grade, I don't understand how they can accurately
assess that I am a poor teacher, based on a 48 minute
block with a student.
MS. PETIT expressed her hope that these concerns would be
addressed or changes would be made to stop the implementation,
especially coming in alignment with the CCSS, because she said
she knows that when it is stated that teachers are teaching to a
standard that is in alignment, then the curriculum always
follows. She said as a teacher, she looks through the standards
on the EED web site and asks herself if she is addressing them
effectively. She continued as follows:
And having been a teacher on a curriculum picking
committee, I know that whether we say we're aligned
with the Common Core or we're using the Common Core,
if our standards are Common Core [State] Standards,
then we as teachers are going to be forced into taking
a curriculum that follows the Common Core, because our
... assessments and our evaluations are going to be
tied into it.
10:38:40 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD apologized that the meeting was not held
previously, but explained there had been a scheduling conflict.
She deferred Ms. Petit's questions to Commissioner Hanley.
10:39:53 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he anticipates somewhat of a drop in
test scores, not necessarily because of the assessment itself,
but because the bar is being raised; students are going to be
asked for much more than what has been asked of them. He said
the goal is to move students to proficiency so that not so many
will need remediation when they go to a university or into
career training. He said teachers will see where the deficits
are and can move forward and address them.
MS. PETIT remarked that by the time the teacher sees where the
deficits are for the student, that student will have already
moved on to a new classroom and teacher.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY concurred, but said the information about
how the student has been doing will also move forward.
MS. PETIT, in response to Chair Reinbold, said she is a former
school teacher and has just become a home school teacher to her
daughter.
10:41:56 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD asked if the home school students need to take
the ACT, SAT, and WorkKeys assessments aligned to the CCSS in
order to earn a diploma.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no, if the student is homeschooled
and completely untied to the public school system. However, he
mentioned Interior Distance Education of Alaska (IDEA) and Raven
Correspondence School and said those are affiliated with public
schools and would fall under the same requirements as a
traditional neighborhood school. In response to a follow-up
question, he stated that correspondence schools are publicly
funded and, thus, are considered public schools.
10:44:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked Ms. Petit for her ideas on how the
legislature can address the issue of accountability in terms of
how much funding should go to public schools, better performance
for students, and how teachers are assessed in terms of student
performance.
MS. PETIT explained the Mat-Su School District has moved from
the middle school model to the junior high school model because
of funding. Teachers in the middle school model were working as
teams, and she said she feels there were "more" results in test
scores. She recollected Commissioner Hanley had said that
because of test scores, teachers would be able to evaluate the
students better, but she said the test scores were not made
available to the teachers in a timely manner [to provide
teachers information in terms of a student's specific
deficiencies]. In fact, by the time the scores were received,
it was time for the next test. She posited that in order to
evaluate a teacher, the teacher should be given the tools "up
front," and assessments done at the beginning and end of the
year to measure the personal growth of each student with his/her
teacher.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked Ms. Petit if she is familiar with the
response to instruction (RTI) model, which she said she thinks
is like what Ms. Petit is suggesting.
MS. PETIT responded no. She said she has used Measures of
Academic Progress® (MAP®) testing, which gives the teacher
immediate feedback. She said if the RTI model is similar to
that she thinks it would be helpful. She said a friend of hers
teaches 130 students, about 30 students per class, at 48 minutes
a day. She indicated that the ability to differentiate
instruction and assess each student is stifled, but the teacher
can assess the percentage of growth of each classroom as an
entity.
10:48:31 AM
LORI COPPENBERG (ph) related that she is a concerned parents of
two boys. She said her boys were in public school, but she
switched them to a parochial school run by the Seventh Day
Adventists. She indicated that the school was overseen by the
State of California and was based on the CCSS. She said she
began questioning the local school board. She said there are
many grants coming for stem education through the National Math
and Science Institute, and she said the institute's web site
shows that it is based upon the CCSS.
MS. COPPENBERG stated her further investigation showed that in
order for Alaska Standards to be SBAC complaint, they had to be
CCSS compliant. She said it is important to remember that even
though Alaska pulled out of the SBAC, the Alaska Standards are
still over 90 percent [aligned with] the CCSS. She said
Florida, Kansas, and many other states are "stepping away from
it," and it is time for Alaska to either admit that it is using
the CCSS or it is not. She offered her understanding that
Patrick Gamble, Commissioner Hanley, and Achieve, Inc., had all
indicated that "we are" the CCSS because "that was the
requirement in order for us to get into the SBAC." She said she
watched the free conference committee hearing on HB 278 and
heard Commissioner Hanley speak on the intent of the Alaska
Standards and the language regarding not paying for the CCSS.
She stated, "Either we did or we didn't. And I think ... it's
just double speak: no we're not going to, but we are." She
called on legislators to "step up and be honest with your
constituents" who are paying attention. She recommended that
the legislature create statute that would not allow the CCSS.
MS. COPPENBERG stated that the reason that parents are not
coming forward to their legislators is because they are being
told a lie, and she urged the truth be told.
10:52:32 AM
CHAIR REINBOLD agreed that "it appears that all signs point to
the fact that, yes, we are Common Core in Alaska." She said she
thinks that is the primary reason she worked so hard on the
House Special Committee on Education to bring the issue to
light. She talked about a bi-partisan effort to strip language
from the legislation to address problems that would impact all
students. She said she is considering holding "a very large
public meeting to expose the truth." She concurred with Ms.
Coppenberg that "we need to either say yes we are or no we're
not." She said the curriculum is going to be "aligned to the
standard," and there is no freedom, because "the menu's been
set." She said it is part of the U.S. Department of Education's
plan. She emphasized that it was the State Board of Education -
not the legislature - that passed the standards, and it was EED
- not the legislature - that signed the NCLB waiver.
10:54:16 AM
MS. COPPENBERG said she lives "out in the valley" where the
local school board adopted a new curriculum that is the CCSS.
She said in order for students to meet the demands of the tests,
"it has to be Common Core aligned." She indicated that as a
parent who home schools her children, she has found that there
are so many curriculums in existence that used to be "pretty
independent" that are now "explicitly aligned with Common Core,"
because that is what the major publishers are doing. She said
it is all about money and millions of dollars generated for a
few specific companies. She opined that the state's school
board members should be elected rather than appointed so that
the public can replace those who do not give the constituents
what they want. She indicated that Texas disposed of a system,
but is still stuck with the CCSS because it costs too much to
change the text books. She talked about the cost of teaching
teachers the new way to teach math or English, and she said,
"You're not going to see a change just because we decide that we
don't like it." She reiterated that the constituents are
watching to see what the legislature will do about this issue.
She concluded, "So, stop and pay attention and do something."
CHAIR REINBOLD responded that attention is being given to the
issue and the committee would be having future hearings, not
only on Questar and securing data, but also on a testing concern
related to children with disabilities.
CHAIR REINBOLD thanked everyone.
10:58:00 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee meeting was adjourned
at 10:58 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 1) 4 AAC 06.710. Statewide Student Assessment System.pdf |
JARR 8/14/2014 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 2) Memo Statewide Exams (06.17.14).pdf |
JARR 8/14/2014 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 3) SAF 543175 EED and AAI (04.09.14).PDF |
JARR 8/14/2014 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 4) Standard Agreement Form for Professional Services (07.16.14).pdf |
JARR 8/14/2014 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 5) Amendment to Professional Services Contract (07.15.14).pdf |
JARR 8/14/2014 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 6) Notice of Intent to Amend ESEA Waiver.pdf |
JARR 8/14/2014 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 7) Alaska Measures of Progress Timeline.pdf |
JARR 8/14/2014 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 8) House Bill 278.pdf |
JARR 8/14/2014 9:00:00 AM |