Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
04/07/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Moore V. State | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 7, 2010
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Vice Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Joe Thomas, Co-Chair
Senator Bettye Davis, Vice Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins
Senator Donald Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
All members present
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Senator Gary Stevens
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: MOORE V. STATE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
NEIL SLOTNICK, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the Moore v. State
presentation.
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the Moore v. State
presentation.
HOWARD TRICKEY, Attorney at Law
Jermain Dunnagan & Owens, P.C.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the Moore v. State
presentation.
CHERYL MANDALA, Attorney at Law
Jermain Dunnagan & Owens, P.C.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the Moore v. State
presentation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:06:28 AM
CO-CHAIR JOE THOMAS called the joint meeting of the Senate and
House Education Standing Committees to order at 8:06 a.m.
Present at the call to order from the House Education Standing
Committee were Representatives Seaton, Munoz, Gardner, Buch,
Keller, and Peggy Wilson. Representative Edgmon arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Present at the call to order from the
Senate Education Standing Committee were Senators Thomas, Meyer,
Huggins, and Davis. Senator Olson arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^Presentation: Moore v. State
Presentation: Moore v. State
8:06:59 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced that the only order of business would
be a presentation on Moore v. State. He noted that the
legislators would hear from representatives of the
administration, attorneys for the plaintiffs, and legislative
counsel. Senator Thomas read from the superior court's most
recent decision and order as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
In evaluating the State's responses at this time, this
Court returns once again to the language of the Alaska
Constitution, which places the responsibility "to
maintain a system of public schools open to all
children of the State" squarely upon the Legislature--
not upon the Department of Education and Early
Development and not upon local school districts.
SENATOR THOMAS said the question for today was what this order
means to the legislature. He reminded committee members and
witnesses the purpose of the meeting was not to retry the case;
moreover, because the case is still in litigation, some
testimony may be limited.
8:09:01 AM
NEIL SLOTNICK, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Labor and
State Affairs Section, Department of Law (DOL), informed the
committees he was the lead counsel defending the state in the
Moore v. State litigation. As an introduction, Mr. Slotnick
stated that the case was filed as a constitutional attack on the
adequacy of the education system in Alaska, thus the DOL
considers both the legislature and the Department of Education
and Early Development (EED) defendants in the case. The
original case was filed in 2004, and the plaintiffs argued that
the education system was inadequate, particularly due to
funding. In fact, the main point at that time was that the
amount of funding for education was insufficient. He referred
to the committee packet handout titled "Excerpts from the Moore
Decision, June 2007," and said a consistent theme throughout the
court from this litigation is that the responsibility for
Alaska's schools rests with the legislature. Mr. Slotnick
acknowledged that there are issues with education in the state,
especially in rural areas; in fact, records show that
achievement by students in rural areas is disappointing, but the
arguments made about funding were rejected by the judge and she
ruled that funding for education was adequate. He advised that
if all of the school districts were healthy at that time, the
case would have ended in 2007. However, when the judge analyzed
the data, she noted that at some of the plaintiff school
districts, resources had not been adequately or effectively
directed to the classroom. Further, the court found that this
action was ongoing, and the state was not taking sufficient
corrective measures. The judge saw evidence that there is a
strong adherence to local control for schools in the state, and
although the state had begun an intervention at one of the
plaintiff school districts, local control was actually an
impediment to the state's oversight of local districts. He
paraphrased two excerpts from the above referenced document
which read [original punctuation provided]:
If a school, despite adequate funding is failing to
accord a child with a constitutionally adequate
education - such as failing to give that child a
meaningful opportunity to acquire proficiency in the
State's own performance standards - then the concept
of local control must give way because the school is
not being maintained as required by the Education
Clause.
[T]he State has failed to take meaningful action to
maximize the likelihood that children at these
troubled schools are accorded an adequate opportunity
to acquire proficiency in the State's standards when a
school has demonstrated an unwillingness or inability
to correct this situation on its own.
8:15:01 AM
MR. SLOTNICK continued to explain that the two parts to the
judge's decision were that the state must provide more oversight
to the local districts, and the state must provide assistance to
districts that are unable to improve standards of education on
their own. Since 2007, two later decisions have indicated that
the court is not satisfied with the state's response to the
troubled school districts. Mr. Slotnick stated that Larry
LeDoux, commissioner of the EED, has directed his department,
the state, and the DOL, to provide the level of assistance and
oversight that is needed to turn the troubled school districts
around; in fact, the EED is focused on providing assistance and
oversight so that the local school districts can respond. He
also relayed that the commissioner has encouraged settlement of
the case in order to maintain a strong state and school district
partnership to solve the problems of education in rural Alaska,
rather than continue an argument about who is at fault.
8:17:52 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, EED, informed the committees the
primary role for his position of deputy commissioner has been to
build a system of support for school districts, particularly to
improve student achievement. In 2008, SB 285 provided authority
for the department to intervene in school districts in order to
improve instructional practices. The funding provided by the
referenced legislation pays for three professionals who, along
with federally funded staff, work directly with the deputy
commissioner and local school districts. At this time,
seventeen contractors, primarily retired educators, work in the
field to assist the department in moving school district
improvement plans forward. The contractors work on district-
wide issues such as school climate, work with teachers in
classrooms, and assist school boards with planning. He
described State System of Support (SSOS) teams of highly
experienced teachers in math, reading, art, science, and
technology, who are regularly sent to intervention districts to
assist the districts in improving their instructional practices.
Mr. Morse said a detailed documentation of this program is found
in the committee packet titled "Moore v. State, Building a State
System of Support," by Les Morse.
8:26:26 AM
MR. MORSE continued to describe the coordinated efforts by teams
of teachers and indicated further actions being taken by EED to
improve districts through the Alaska Statewide Mentor Project.
There are one principal mentor and three mentor teachers that
coordinate with the SSOS teams and he stressed that the efforts
of all of these programs are cohesive, coordinated, and
connected by regular contact. Mr. Morse advised that in one
intervention district early childhood learning is a major
component; in fact, the department's early learning coordinator
and the director of rural education will help facilitate a
community meeting on ways to coordinate early learning and
prepare kindergartners for school. In addition, two other
intervention districts have been provided grants for early
learning. He turned to the subject of statewide efforts to
improve the education system and noted that the department's
focus this year is on reading to ensure that the reading
curriculum in districts is aligned with the standards. Mr.
Morse acknowledged that districts and the department are
challenged by the work required, especially the curriculum
alignment task. Last year, the department sponsored a statewide
leadership institute for intervention districts and others. He
emphasized the effect of continuing coordination between the
Alaska Administrator Coaching Program, the Alaska Statewide
Mentor Project, and intervention districts, although testing
will indicate where greater action is needed. Local control may
need to give way if the department's current efforts fall short,
and he cautioned that the order from the court may accelerate
the department's actions and incur additional cost.
8:28:16 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked whether the department has itemized a list
of issues to be addressed and resolved. Furthermore, noting
that the order said funding is not always the solution, he asked
what the legislature may be able to do.
MR. MORSE explained that each district has a district
improvement plan that guides the actions of the department. The
intervention district in his previous example must ensure that
the teachers are teaching the adopted curriculum, that the
curriculum is aligned, and that the principal can provide
appropriate support to teachers. Furthermore, resources are
dedicated to the specific deficiencies found, such as literacy
skills that are needed to bring students to proficiency.
8:30:06 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS restated his question about action by the
legislature.
8:30:17 AM
MR. MORSE opined legislative action may be premature, but there
is a potential need for additional resources to fund
contractors, or for help to align the curricula. Furthermore,
the judge's order to accelerate the department's compliance
could increase costs. He declined to speculate on other needs.
8:31:04 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS referred to parental involvement and asked if
the department is working with families.
MR. MORSE said yes. He added that parental involvement is a
focus of the new director of rural education and said, "We have
accelerated our efforts around that this year."
8:32:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for further information on
individual remediation plans.
8:32:25 AM
MR. MORSE explained that all grade 11 and grade 12 students who
have not passed the HSGQE have remediation plans. Furthermore,
the department audits the remediation plans filed by
intervention districts. This year, the district audited 100
percent of the remediation plans for three intervention
districts, and "spot checks" were done in the other intervention
districts. In this manner, the department is complying with
that component of the order. In further response to
Representative Wilson, Mr. Morse stated that remediation plans
are reviewed by department staff and feedback is given to the
district. Each remediation plan should be for an individual
student, must address the areas of which the student has not
passed, and should match with the records kept by the
department.
8:34:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to the department's current request for
funding for three curriculum specialist positions. He asked
whether there have been positions that the legislature has not
funded.
8:35:17 AM
MR. MORSE confirmed that the department asked for specialists in
math, language arts, and science, to assist in the alignment
work. Last year's funding request was met. He was unsure how
the possible settlement of Moore v. State will affect funding
needs. In further response to Chair Seaton, Mr. Morse said
funding requests from the department have been funded in the
governor's budget, except for the three new positions.
8:37:28 AM
HOWARD TRICKEY, Attorney at Law, Jermain Dunnagan & Owens, P.C.,
informed the committee he was representing the plaintiffs in
Moore v. State. Mr. Trickey said his intent was to address how
the legislature comes into compliance with the constitutional
obligations set out by the court. He reminded the committee of
their oath to uphold the state constitution, and of the judge's
order that the legislature is not in compliance. Mr. Trickey
said he would briefly speak to the court order issued in June
2007, and pointed out that there are subsequent orders that
supersede the 2007 order. He called attention to the document
in the committee packet titled, Moore v. State, "Core Rulings
June 2007 Order," submitted by Jermain Dunnagan & Owens, P.C.,
and said the order construed that the substance of the state's
constitutional obligation is to have a system of education open
to all children in the state. This constitutional clause rests
on four pillars: adopt standards to define what children should
be expected to learn; establish methods to assess children's
progress in learning; provide adequate funding to enable schools
to meet the performance standards; maintain adequate
accountability and oversight to ensure that local schools comply
with the standards set by the state and the constitution. He
explained that on the third point the state was found in
compliance on a statewide basis, but that there may be a need
for targeted resources for some schools. The fourth point is
where the judge found the state in violation in its ability to
maintain accountability and oversight; however, the court also
found a corresponding constitutional right of children to
receive an adequate education. The judge defined an adequate
education as: a meaningful opportunity to become proficient in
math, reading, and science; meaning exposure to all of the
remaining content standards. He advised that "the case then
shifted ... [the judge] directed the state to work in concert
with local districts in order to develop ways to address those
problems, and that's what has led to the February 2009, order
and the ... most recent March order."
8:42:38 AM
MR. TRICKEY continued to explain the shift in the case came in
2009, after the court had given the state one year to comply.
After further testimony, the court found that the state
underestimated the complexity of the problems, had minimal plans
for intervention, and had not provided support and assistance.
The court focused on the classroom and recognized two long-
standing root causes for failure in many rural schools: (1)
children do not arrive at school with oral language development
or emergent reading or writing skills; (2) teaching capacity.
Mr. Trickey opined that the ruling does not mean that the
state's system of education is unconstitutional, nor that local
control is the problem.
8:45:24 AM
MR. TRICKEY directed attention to the document in the committee
packet titled "Draft Blueprint for Constitutional Compliance:
Moore v. State" and read [original punctuation provided]:
Components for Constitutional Compliance
1) Provision of Targeted Educational Resources to
Schools/Districts ...
Considerable evidence has been presented to the Court
on specific, targeted resources necessary for
chronically low performing schools and districts to
meet the unique needs of students in those districts.
These could include access to resources for
specialized professional development, specialized
curriculum for particular high-needs students (for
example, students whose first language is not
English), access to experienced and knowledgeable
teaching mentors, content specialists, language
development specialist, or social services.
MR. TRICKEY pointed out that the judge identified available
targeted resources as being necessary because the court found
that the state had "underestimated the complexity of the
challenge." Regarding the teaching capacity issue, the court
found problems in teacher recruitment, professional development,
and teacher retention in rural school districts. In its
February 2009 order, the court noted the department's
interventions had failed to "address teaching capacity due to
high turnover, teacher inexperience, and unique educational
challenges in the chronically underperforming schools." The
court also put significant emphasis, he related, on the value of
high quality pre-kindergarten (pre-k) with parental involvement;
in fact, the order criticized the failure of the department to
consider and address intensive early learning initiatives as
part of its intervention in the underperforming districts.
8:48:41 AM
MR. TRICKEY cited education research that many rural students
arrive at school two or three years behind in developmental
language skills and must catch-up by grade three in order to
have a 50 percent chance to ever reach grade level. Therefore,
the order directed an alignment of curriculum with professional
development and with identified research-based instruction
strategies. He stated that the judge found the department
needed to conduct its own audit about its course of action to
support education and build the capacity of local schools and
districts.
8:50:46 AM
MR. TRICKEY stressed that this case is not about whether local
districts do not have the ability or willingness to perform, or
whether the department has the ability or willingness to
perform, but is about successfully closing the achievement gap.
He suggested that the citations from the order chosen by Mr.
Slotnick do not fully address the case, but support the
department's reluctance to request appropriate resources from
the legislature, and that the department has become "a
monitoring and a compliance agency with a bit of a punitive
aspect to it: it's all stick and no carrot." Mr. Tricky
observed that a settlement in the case will require that the
legislature and the administration embrace the court's decision
and work with the plaintiffs. For the best interest of children
in classrooms, additional support and assistance is needed. The
judge has focused the case, not on throwing money at the
problem, but on providing educational resources and services
where they can have a direct impact. Mr. Trickey concluded that
the importance of pre-k instruction in efforts to prevent the
failure of students in school cannot be overstated.
8:54:27 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked whether the business of the legislature is
to examine the equality of rural and urban curricula, as well as
teacher screening and hiring practices.
8:55:48 AM
MR. TRICKEY advised that teacher training and preparedness is a
significant aspect to the root cause of teacher failure and
capacity. He agreed that the University of Alaska (UA) can play
a large long-term role in improving teacher preparation and
quality. However, studies show that teacher retention is
affected by four aspects: satisfaction and mastery of their
position; professional development; a feeling of support; salary
and benefits.
8:58:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ observed that some rural districts have a
strong Native language culture, but assessments in kindergarten
and grade one are based on English speaking models. She asked
whether alternative assessments, reflecting first languages, are
under consideration by the department.
8:59:38 AM
MR. TRICKEY referenced testimony by Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond,
Stanford University, that in pre-k Native languages and emergent
English oral and reading skills are not mutually exclusive; in
fact, educational research supports that the development of both
can take place.
9:01:14 AM
[Co-Chair Thomas handed the gavel to Chair Seaton]
The committees took an at-ease from 9:01 a.m. to 9:06 a.m.
9:06:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether it is incumbent upon the
legislature to require additions to the teacher curriculum at UA
that include training specific to teaching children without
emergent language skills.
9:07:26 AM
MR. TRICKEY stated that further testimony from Dr. Darling-
Hammond indicated that a teacher with the highest credentials
would have a difficult time succeeding in a rural school
setting, because 70 percent of the students are English language
learners. He was unsure whether this problem would be solved by
one or two classes. Furthermore, there is a wide variation in
teacher preparation throughout the nation, and only 30 percent
of the teachers in Alaska are trained in Alaska. The UA system
could play a major role in instructional strategies for training
teachers, along with state teacher certification. However,
school districts are hiring teachers to teach, and should not
carry the burden of training the teachers.
9:11:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the department should be
strengthened.
MR. TRICKEY said yes. Again, expert testimony indicated the
need for a larger department in order to support the teaching
capacity of local school districts. He suggested that the
legislature should conduct an independent audit and review of
the department to determine its strengths and weaknesses.
9:13:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled the legislature was asked to fund three
curriculum specialists. He asked whether this is an adequate
response, or if further action is needed.
MR. TRICKEY opined three positions are not enough to provide
effective teacher mentoring and modeling in the intervention
districts. In fact, the current mentoring schedule is
insufficient in scope and intensity.
9:16:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked for Mr. Trickey's opinion about the
direction the department has taken during the past year.
MR. TRICKEY said the plaintiffs report a change in the attitude
of the department away from punitive and retaliatory and toward
a focus on monitoring and compliance. He advised that veiled
threats are counterproductive and do not lead to a trusting
relationship; furthermore, there is no research that supports
take-over measures as an effective means of improving student
achievement. This recent shift in attitude may recognize the
court's shift in focus to the classroom. However, in terms of
action, such as technical support, educational resources, the
introduction of pre-K programs, and teaching capacity issues,
there remains a lack of response. Mr. Trickey emphasized that
the evidence of the case proves that the state has
underestimated the complexity of the problem, designed "one size
fits all" interventions, and provided directives and mandates
versus effective and targeted resources.
9:20:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked for the plaintiff's expectations.
MR. TRICKEY referred to a document in the committee packed
titled "Draft Blueprint for Constitutional Compliance: Moore v.
State," prepared by Jermain Dunnagan & Owens, P.C. He stated
that this nine page document has a full response for short- and
long-term specific goals, and contains "what we think are
reasonable expectations." However, he added that reasonable
expectations must also comply with the constitution, because the
court noted "it doesn't matter what community you live in [in]
this state, if you're a child you have a right to a
constitutionally adequate education."
9:22:29 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether Mr. Trickey was aware that the
legislature has required UA to analyze its teacher education
program and look at its adequacy for training teachers across
the state.
MR. TRICKEY said yes; however, he was unsure of the outcome from
that consultation between the legislature and UA. He has heard
there is a disconnect between the academic departments such as
the school of education, and practitioners in the field.
9:23:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to the court's recommendation for
exit interviews of teachers leaving their positions. He asked
whether the findings of the court approach micromanagement of
the department and local districts. There is a natural tension
between local control and administration regarding oversight.
From his perspective, the specificity of the court's findings is
"a little offensive."
9:24:57 AM
MR. TRICKEY affirmed that it is the court's role to interpret
the constitution and inform other branches of government. This
case is unique in that it is the first time the court has given
substantive content to the meaning of the state's obligation to
establish and maintain a school system open to all children.
Mr. Trickey reminded the committee that federal troops have been
sent into states in order to enforce U. S. Supreme Court rulings
about every child's right to education. He expressed his hope
that the legislature will respect the court, as the court has
been respectful of the legislature and the department. He
pointed out that the judge has heard many hours of testimony and
has read thousands of documents; in fact, her grasp of the depth
and detail of the case is beyond the legislature's capacity.
The proposed blueprint submitted by the plaintiffs is a road map
to constitutional compliance and he said, "I'm not offended at
all by what the court has ordered."
9:28:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed his appreciation that the
plaintiffs and the department will be working together.
9:28:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to the focus of Mr. Trickey's testimony on
preparing children for school. He observed that "observation
and hands-on" learning styles may be cultural. If voluntary
pre-k is not being utilized, he asked whether the plaintiffs
recommend that the legislature mandate pre-k in the affected
districts.
MR. TRICKEY disagreed with the implication that pre-K is
available in the affected districts. He surmised that pre-K, if
offered, will be utilized; however, the program must be academic
with an element of parental involvement and parental education.
This type of program would result in high participation rates
and does not need to conflict with a child's cultural
environment at home.
9:31:52 AM
CHERYL MANDALA, Attorney at Law, Jermain Dunnagan & Owens, P.C.,
informed the committee that research shows unambiguously that
for low-income kids, and those who come to school with a
deficient English background, high quality academic pre-k has
enormous potential and enables them to succeed in school.
CHAIR SEATON cited the Hoonah Parents as Teachers program, which
has been very successful, but does not enjoy 100 percent
participation. He asked, from the plaintiff's perspective, for
the percentage of participation in a pre-K program that would be
acceptable.
9:33:58 AM
MR. TRICKEY opined without the availability of a high quality
pre-k it would be difficult to anticipate what percentage might
not participate. However, if low participation was a problem,
there could be a means to incentivize or mandate services
through legislation. A parental involvement and parental
education component has been found to raise the participation
rate of pre-k.
9:35:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER observed the Hoonah program may be
limited by the space available.
9:36:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that the state could provide
a week of training for every new teacher at the university
campus, in order to increase the level of preparedness.
However, she cautioned that the cost could be high.
9:38:05 AM
MR. TRICKEY clarified that the plaintiffs are not asking the
legislature to throw money at the problem. As the court has
focused on targeted remedies for particular schools, and teacher
retention has been identified as a problem, intensive
professional development through UA may prepare teachers so they
will succeed and stay. He supported legislation to provide such
a program.
9:40:12 AM
SENATOR DAVIS said she felt she did not have sufficient
information necessary to discuss either the settlement of this
case, or relevant draft legislation. Testimony specific to the
department's action in each of the five affected districts has
yet to be heard, she stressed.
9:41:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested comments from school district
representatives regarding pre-k, teacher capacity, mentorship
programs, and the leadership institute offered for the benefit
of the five districts and others. He also welcomed any "third
party" viewpoints on these issues.
9:43:34 AM
MR. TRICKEY observed that all of the questions are excellent and
responses will be provided to the committees; however, his
understanding was that this hearing was to focus on the court
order. Therefore, representatives of the five affected
districts are not in attendance to provide testimony.
9:44:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that the purpose of the House and Senate
Education Standing Committees is to improve education throughout
the state, thus the committees need to hear from the school
districts on the effectiveness of the changes that are being
made. Their testimony may be specific to the Moore case, as
well as pertinent to other districts.
9:45:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled that the plaintiffs in the case
are not local school districts or residents. She asked how the
orders are being received by school districts in the affected
communities.
MR. TRICKEY clarified that the case was initiated by parents in
most of the communities. He has heard school board members
welcome the court's influence on the state. Parents in the
communities want their children to succeed in two worlds, and
the court order stated that schools have to engage the community
in order to affect school attendance and other issues. He said
the general view was, "This is going to get us some of the help
that we need, and the support we need, that hasn't been there in
the past."
9:48:02 AM
SENATOR DAVIS asked about the 60-day court deadline.
MR. TRICKEY explained that the state has 60 days to comply with
the order, and then the plaintiffs have 30 days in which to file
a response.
9:48:34 AM
SENATOR DAVIS asked how the legislature will be involved, after
the 90-day period.
MR. TRICKEY responded that provisions of any settlement will
have to be supported and approved by the legislature; thus, if a
settlement is close, he would recommend approaching the court
regarding the timeline. In response to Chair Seaton, he said
the filings in the case will be a matter of public record and
will be provided to the committees.
9:51:19 AM
[For the record, Chair Seaton directed that relevant documents
from plaintiffs and the state will be forwarded to the House
Education Standing Committee and the Senate Education Standing
Committee when available.]
9:51:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON indicated that within the five affected
school districts there are many small, widespread schools, which
may have three or fewer teachers. She asked for the
expectations regarding teacher capacity deficiencies for small
k-12 schools.
MR. TRICKEY said this situation is the reason capacity of the
department is a critical piece in complying with the court's
order. Teachers in small schools need to be able to have the
department as a resource when they need expertise in particular
content areas. The court's order will ensure that the
department can supply research-based materials and proven
instructional strategies to teach and re-teach wherever needed.
The initial focus of the department on the intervention
districts, comprised of 42 schools and over 5,000 students, has
come to include all Level 4 low performing schools across the
state.
9:55:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON called attention to debate on the
governor's scholarship program (GPS) legislation. He asked for
Mr. Howard's comments on the proposed bill, given the fact that
rural educators are skeptical about whether the rural school
districts can "rise up ... over a period of time to meet those
standards in the scholarship program, under the mantra of
education reform."
9:56:55 AM
MR. TRICKEY opined incentives for students can be positive;
however, he questioned whether the GPS bill is rooted in
strategies that are proven to address the problem of behavior
change. What is known is that root causes of low student
performance and the achievement gap can be addressed by specific
research-based remedies. "That's not to say it isn't a good
idea, because it may motivate ... some of the best students out
there...," he concluded.
9:59:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON countered that the GPS was based on other states'
programs that have found broad success in reforming education
and elevating student performance in postsecondary education and
vocational certification.
10:00:08 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committees, the joint
meeting of the House and Senate Standing Committees on Education
was adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Moore vs State 2007.pdf |
HEDC 4/7/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Moore vs State 2009.pdf |
HEDC 4/7/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Moore vs State 2010.pdf |
HEDC 4/7/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Moore vs Alaska memo.docx |
HEDC 4/7/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Excerpts from the Moore Decision.doc |
HEDC 4/7/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Scan001.PDF |
HEDC 4/7/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/9/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Scan001.PDF |
HEDC 4/7/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/9/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Scan001.PDF |
HEDC 4/7/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/9/2010 8:00:00 AM |