04/07/2014 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HR9 | |
| SB195 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 7, 2014
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lynn Gattis, Chair
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harriet Drummond
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sam Kito III (Alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 9
Urging the commissioner of education and early development and
the state Board of Education and Early Development to delay
implementation of statewide education standards.
- MOVED CSHR 9(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 195(FIN)
"An Act relating to the membership and authority of the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education; relating to the Alaska
Student Loan Corporation; relating to teacher education loans;
relating to interest on and consolidation of postsecondary
education loans; relating to Alaska supplemental education
loans; relating to AlaskAdvantage grants; relating to the Alaska
family education loan program; relating to postsecondary
educational institutions; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 195 (FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HR 9
SHORT TITLE: DELAY IMPLEMENTATION OF ED STANDARDS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) T.WILSON
01/21/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/14 (H) EDC
03/19/14 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/19/14 (H) Heard & Held
03/19/14 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/26/14 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/26/14 (H) Heard & Held
03/26/14 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/04/14 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/04/14 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/07/14 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 195
SHORT TITLE: POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION LOANS/GRANTS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) FAIRCLOUGH
02/24/14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/14 (S) EDC, FIN
03/10/14 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/10/14 (S) Heard & Held
03/10/14 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/17/14 (S) EDC RPT 2DP 3NR
03/17/14 (S) DP: STEVENS, DUNLEAVY
03/17/14 (S) NR: GARDNER, STEDMAN, HUGGINS
03/17/14 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/17/14 (S) Moved Out of Committee
03/17/14 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/26/14 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/26/14 (S) Heard & Held
03/26/14 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/27/14 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/27/14 (S) Moved CSSB 195(FIN) Out of Committee
03/27/14 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/28/14 (S) FIN RPT CS 7DP SAME TITLE
03/28/14 (S) DP: KELLY, MEYER, FAIRCLOUGH, BISHOP,
DUNLEAVY, HOFFMAN, OLSON
04/02/14 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/02/14 (S) VERSION: CSSB 195(FIN)
04/03/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/03/14 (H) EDC, FIN
04/07/14 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor of HR 9 explained the
changes in the proposed committee substitute (CS), Version N.
COMMISSIONER MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HR 9.
SUSAN MCCAULEY, Director
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HR 9.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HR 9.
KRISTEN PRATT, Staff
Senator Anna Fairclough
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of SB
195, Representative Tammie Wilson
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of SB 195.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:09 AM
CHAIR LYNN GATTIS called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Reinbold,
P. Wilson, and Gattis were present at the call to order.
Representatives LeDoux, Saddler, and Drummond arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HR 9-DELAY IMPLEMENTATION OF ED STANDARDS
8:04:44 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 9, Urging the commissioner of education and
early development and the state Board of Education and Early
Development to delay implementation of statewide education
standards. [Before the committee was Version U.]
8:04:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature,
testifying as prime sponsor of HR 9, asked to clarify that HR 9
does not delay [implementation of academic standards or other
changes in the classroom].
8:05:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HR 9, Version N, labeled 28-LS1224\N,
Bullard, 4/2/14, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version N was before the committee.
8:06:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained the process leading up to the
development of the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HR 9,
Version N. At the beginning of the school year, the [Task Force
on Sustainable Education (TFSE)] heard statewide concerns over
the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), teacher evaluations,
school grading under a star system, and new testing methods.
The Task Force [on Sustainable Education (TFSE)] heard testimony
that school districts weren't ready for testing and there is a
need to slow down to allow individual districts to comply with
the new requirements. Since then, the Alaska [academic]
standards have been put in place, and districts better
understand what teacher development and evaluation entails so
most districts have embraced the changes. However, many
districts recognize implementing these changes will take time.
She indicated that HR 9 is before the committee since the state
has signed the [Elementary and Secondary Education Act] waiver
so No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is no longer required. She
offered her belief that the state has tried to work within a
system that ultimately didn't work.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained that the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HR 9, Version N, will require a cost
evaluation to assess the costs to implement the necessary
changes. One of the main things the [NCLB] waiver changes is
testing, so questions have arisen as to whether sufficient
infrastructure exists for online testing in some districts.
Further, fiscal notes are limited to identifying costs to the
state but don't consider any costs to school districts or
municipalities. She referred to pages 2-3, to the resolved
sections of Version N, which recognize that the state can't
assess the total costs to implement the aforementioned changes.
The language in Version N would request the commissioner to
report back to the legislature on costs for curriculum
alignment, technological improvements, teacher preparation, and
new standard based assessment costs for each district. Further,
the resolved clauses would make it clear that the state is not
moving forward to adopt the CCSS initiative. She commented that
the initiative was pushed forward on a national level, but the
state declined to opt in. She acknowledged that the state's new
[academic] standards include some of the Common Core State
Standard (CCSS) language, but not 100 percent. One advantage of
the waiver is that it allows the state to make changes without
going back to the national consortium. She offered her belief
that if the state had adopted the CCSS, it would have meant
adopting the standards as a whole. Finally, the waiver also
means the state won't be part of a national data system, which
helps ensure the data system is one the state develops and
access is also limited to the state.
8:09:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 3, lines 1-5,
and his interest on how this might affect the WICHE [Western
Interstate Compact on Higher Education], noting he serves on
this commission. He asked whether any adverse impacts exist
between the initiatives that WICHE is involved in and this
language.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered no.
8:10:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested further clarification,
summarizing the language on page 3, lines 1-5, of Version N
which read," ... may not enter into or renew an agreement with
any organization, entity, group, or consortium that requires the
state to cede any measure of autonomy of control over state
education standards and assessments, including cut scores." He
mentioned that organizations like WICHE consist of agreements
between states. He questioned whether this language could
interfere with those agreements.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON replied that the state isn't ceding
autonomy or control over standards in the aforementioned
program. The state's expectation would be to provide an
opportunity to join programs. She assured members this would
have absolutely no effect since the state doesn't give up its
control.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification on this
issue from the commissioner to gain the department's
perspective.
CHAIR GATTIS acknowledged the question will be held.
8:12:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for any implications Version N has
on the NCLB waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that this resolution will not
have any effect on the NCLB waiver. The resolution requests the
department ensure the waiver request is serving the state's
expectations and to identify any associated costs. She
described the effects of NCLB and the intent to not follow a
similar path of problems. Identifying costs to districts will
be more beneficial to everyone, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to page 1, lines 10-13, which
read:
WHEREAS, in May 2013, the United States Department of
Education granted to the Department of Education and
Early Development a flexibility waiver of specified
provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
that amended the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, based in part on the college and career readiness
standards; and
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for further clarification on the
basis for her determination that it will not affect the NCLB
waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that the state has an
agreement on the NCLB waiver. This resolution does not say that
the state wants to "break it at all." She hoped that if the
state identified any issues, the state could renegotiate the
NCLB waiver, which some states have already done. She offered
an example of electronic testing applications to illustrate that
an instance could arise in which the state might not be able to
meet the testing in all districts so it would have to
renegotiate that portion of the waiver or be out of compliance.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the timeline for negotiating
the NCLB waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related her understanding the state
could go back to address issues at any time; however, she urged
the importance of identifying issues early in order to avoid
costs to districts. She offered her belief that the state has
not sufficiently vetted these changes.
8:15:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that throughout the
resolution requests the department to do things. She asked for
further clarification on the fiscal impact.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that many costs were covered
in obtaining the waiver but deferred to the department to
answer.
8:16:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to page 2, lines 3-5, of Version
N which points out the lack of funding in districts to conduct
online testing. She asked whether the districts have asked for
a delay in the implementation of standards.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained that HR 9, Version N no
longer requests a delay and this whereas clause merely
highlights that compliance with online testing may be difficult
for many districts that don't have sufficient broadband access.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether requesting significant
evaluation prior to doing something represents a delay.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered absolutely not; that the
[academic] standards exist, the curriculum is being purchased
and [student] testing will begin next year. She cited the
importance of having a review to ensure compliance, to assess
associated costs to districts, and to confirm this is the
correct path for the state to take.
8:19:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the House Finance
Committee has reviewed this to ensure that the department has
the funding necessary for compliance.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON assumed most of the information is
available since the department wouldn't have sought a waiver
from NCLB unless the EED understood the costs.
8:20:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON expressed concern about requesting
action from the Department of Education and Early Development
(EED) without ensuring that districts, especially rural
districts have adequate funding.
CHAIR GATTIS responded that is the purpose of the resolution.
8:22:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification on the
waiver.
8:23:16 AM
COMMISSIONER MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education
and Early Development (EED), explained that the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) program required specific proficiency achievements
and as a result many schools were erroneously deemed as failures
for not making adequate progress even though 90 percent of the
students in a school met the proficiency. The Congress needed
to make changes to address this, but in the meantime U.S.
Secretary Duncan offered waivers to states from the most onerous
parts of NCLB, away from the adequate yearly progress (AYP) and
the necessity that specific proficiency achievements are at 100
percent. Alaska developed its academic standards a year before
the waiver was issued. An assessment is required, which makes
sense, he said. This has helped the state move away from AYP
and to an accountability system called the Alaska School
Performance Index (ASPI). He said the ASPI is the five-star
system, which more fairly assesses and reflects what is
happening in our schools. In addition, the department needed to
make a component of teacher evaluations tied to student
learning. The state was working on three of four components and
the state was very willing to shift from AYP to the ASPI
accountability. He recapped that the waiver is from parts of
NCLB, but does not affect standards.
8:25:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to the second point, the
assessment and asked whether he meant assessing the standards or
assessing by using the new standards.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that it is to assess the students
on the new academic standards.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether these standards can be used
for assessment purposes.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that is correct; but even if it
hadn't been a requirement, the state has a responsibility to
ensure that the state is assessing what teachers are teaching.
8:26:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND recalled there are four components to
the waiver from NCLB. She asked for further clarification on
the four components.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the four components that
needed to be assessed in the waiver are the need for rigorous
standards, assessments of students based on the standards, a
separate accountability system, and commitment to tie teacher
evaluations partially to student learning.
8:27:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for the legal obligations to the
state regarding the NCLB waiver and if any federal funding is
tied to the waiver.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that there isn't a threat of losing
federal dollars under the NCLB waiver, but the state made a
commitment to follow through on the components. Certainly, the
U.S. EED could revoke the waiver and the state would be back
under NCLB and develop strategies to address schools that were
deemed as failures. He questioned whether the obligations would
be considered legal obligations, but acknowledged the state has
a responsibility to maintain its waiver.
CHAIR GATTIS remarked that NCLB was not working for Alaska.
8:28:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether HR 9 poses any threat to
the timeline to evaluate the CCR [college career readiness]
assessments.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that he initially had concerns
when a delay was suggested; however, he did not think that the
current version of HR 9, Version N, would cause problems with
the waiver since they urge the department to provide information
without setting up specific timelines.
8:29:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that some areas of the
state do not have broadband capabilities for compliance with
online testing. She asked whether he has requested additional
funding for broadband or any other solution. In response to a
question, she assumed the department knew some districts did not
have adequate technology. She asked whether any additional
funding was requested.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY acknowledged the importance of broadband
although he noted the EED doesn't have expertise in this
technology; however, the department has partnered with the
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development and the
Broadband Task Force on this. He pointed out that the
department is the consumer in terms of broadband bandwidth.
8:31:45 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the department has an assessment
program that requires students to use online testing.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no. However, he elaborated that it
is timely to look at using 21st Century tools to the greatest
extent possible, which would be to use Internet-based testing.
The next best tool would be to use caching, which is also
computer-based, but that process allows the test to be housed
locally and accessed using the local server instead of the
Internet. Finally, in areas of the state that lack these
technology capabilities, the department will continue to use
paper and pencil testing. He recapped that the department will
use the best tools possible to measure students. It may take
time to get all students using computers, he said.
8:33:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how close the department is to
accomplishing these technological changes.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that a technology readiness survey
has been completed and 80 percent of the schools are able to
comply. He estimated 95 percent of the students will be served,
he said. The testing window can be expanded to embrace the
modes being employed, he said.
8:35:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether it is possible to test
students using paper and pencil.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered absolutely, noting that the request
for proposals (RFPs) requires all three options be available in
order for a bid to be considered responsive. He maintained that
the department and its testing vendor are fully prepared to give
the test in the three aforementioned modalities.
8:35:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further clarification on whether
it matters if this is a resolution versus a bill and if HR 9
[Version N] asks the department to do anything that it is not
currently doing.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY referred to the resolve clauses beginning on
page 2, line 10, of Version N, and responded that the department
has verified the college and career readiness standards.
Referring to page 2, line 16, he said the EED can provide the
specific information to ensure the national benchmarks for
college.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how the requests in the resolve
clauses will be handled if these aren't already being addressed.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed there are differences between a bill
and a resolution; however, he also understands the intent of
this body. He assured members he would not "snub his nose at
any urging from this body" and would do his best to address
them. He acknowledged he would have been challenged to delay
the implementation as required under the original version of the
resolution. He agreed that calculating some of the costs
involved in the resolve clause to determine the costs for each
district will be challenging. He acknowledged that the EED's
regulations require the district to review its curriculum every
six years so a cycle of review and shifting curriculum should
exist. [Referring to page 2, line 25], he pointed out it would
be helpful to further understand what would be included in
"calculate the related costs" since he was unsure how far to go.
He pointed out that it will take the department significant
effort to determine costs for each district and if it is to
provide districts with funding, it is worthwhile, but not if it
"will lay fallow" without having any meaning.
8:39:21 AM
CHAIR GATTIS related her understanding that the resolution is to
not impose another unfunded mandate to districts. She viewed HR
9 [Version N] as a suggestion, noted the department's intention,
and thought of it as "a working relationship."
8:40:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2, lines 27-31 of Version
N, which read:
FURTHER RESOLVED by the House of Representatives that
neither the Department of Education and Early
Development nor the state Board of Education and Early
Development shall expend any money to implement the
set of educational curriculum standards for grades
kindergarten through 12 established by the Common Core
State Standards Initiative; and be it
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification on whether
this means no money can be spent on the three largest districts
of the state that adopted the CCSS through their local school
boards or if the districts in question have retracted the
adoption of the CCSS and are using the Alaska [academic]
standards that were subsequently developed.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the department could not
provide training for districts that have taken up the common
core standards prior to the state adopting the modified
[academic] standards.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for an explanation of how this
resolve will affect the department and the districts that have
adopted the CCSS, such as the Anchorage School District. He
further asked which districts adopted the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS).
COMMISSIONER HANLEY identified several districts, including
Anchorage, Juneau, and Copper River.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification on how the
department's interaction will be with respect to implementation
of academic educational standards.
8:42:36 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the aforementioned districts will be
treated differently.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that from the educational support
aspect, there will be no difference, but for specific support
regarding the [academic] standards. He suggested that the
department will likely point out the differences and strategies
for districts. He suggested that helping districts understand
how the individual curriculum aligns with the [academic]
standards will be beneficial. He confirmed the department could
support districts in the same way, recognizing the differences,
and focusing on them.
8:43:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 3, lines 3-4 of Version N
which read," ... may not enter into or renew an agreement with
any organization, entity, group, or consortium that requires the
state to cede any measure of autonomy or control over state
education standards and assessments, including cut scores." He
asked whether are there any agreements or compacts that would
not be allowed to be renewed under this language. He referred
to his earlier concern with the WICHE program.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY noted that the state is involved in several
consortiums, such as the English Language Learners (ELL).
However, the [academic] standards are already in place and the
state has full autonomy to change them as it sees fit. Surely
the ELL consortium has nothing to do with controlling standards,
he said. He did not believe any of the consortiums would ever
cede any measure of autonomy or control over state education
standards and assessments.
8:45:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD acknowledged she has struggled with the
initiative and has received letters that confirm her skepticism.
She pointed out a myriad of issues with the CCSS, including
language barriers, literacy issues, classroom size issues,
limited resources in the classrooms, and a lack of vocational
technology in many schools. She indicated that the state needs
to encourage parental involvement. She questioned whether the
standards are the issue and asked for assurances that these
standards are globally competitive, will encourage morale, and
result in better outcomes. She specifically asked whether
students will be more ready for the job market.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the idea that the standards
will help children be more prepared is, first, a comparison of
where the state was with the old standards, and second, with the
review of the new standards. Most states adopted the CCSS, but
this state has not. The department had Diane Hirschberg from
the University of Alaska compare Alaska's new standards to the
university professors and career and technical instructors. He
said he is confident that these standards will aim students on
the trajectory to prepare them for college or technical
training. He questioned whether morale and obtaining jobs are
necessarily the expectation of a set of standards. Instead, it
outlines what should be learned by certain grade levels.
8:47:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD clarified she is speaking to teacher
morale and parental involvement. She asked what percentage of
the Alaska academic standards align with the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS).
8:48:16 AM
SUSAN MCCAULEY, Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), answered
that the analysis the department has shared is that in English
Language Arts, 42 percent of the 320 standards, or 133 specific
standards have some differences from the CCSS. While someone
may qualify some of the differences as grammatical, those
differences represent the work of nearly 300 Alaskan
stakeholders who went line-by-line through the standards and
determined what should be included or excluded. She related a
scenario to illustrate that Alaskan educators do not find the
changes as minor, technical, or grammatical changes. Instead it
means that the state is providing support to students in a way
that corollary Common Core State Standards would not. Further,
someone might consider additional words added as culturally
relevant reading material as being a technical or minor
adjustment; however, Alaskan educators who worked on the
standards did not find them to be technical or minor
adjustments. She concluded that 42 percent of Alaska's
standards have differences from the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS). In math, 49 percent of Alaska's standards are different
from the CCSS. Certainly, individuals can interpret whether
changes from the CCSS are considered grammatical, minor, or
substantive, but again, the Alaskan Standards reflect the work
of Alaska's educators who determined exactly and specifically
what should be included.
8:50:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether districts can purchase
CCSS aligned curriculum and more specifically, what choices are
available.
MS. MCCAULEY answered that the language in statute and
regulations gives the discretion to the local district. The
district would undertake a process not at all dissimilar to the
current purchase of the curriculum materials. She indicated
that the district needs to ensure an alignment between the
resources and the standards, sometimes described as a
"crosswalk" between the materials and the standards. She said
if a set of CCSS materials that through a "crosswalk" is
determined to adequately cover Alaska's standards, the district
can use the materials. However, if a set of materials is not
purported to be CCSS aligned materials and has adequate matching
to Alaska's [academic] standards the district could also use
those materials. Districts can use materials that adequately
align to the Alaska English, Language Arts, and Math standards.
8:51:46 AM
CHAIR GATTIS related her understanding that the department does
not get involved in authorizing curricula, but rather those
decisions are made at the district level. Thus, each district
might adopt specific curriculum that doesn't align with the new
state standards.
MS. MCCAULEY agreed that it is possible; however, the department
provides professional development to district in the processes
to ensure an alignment between Alaska's standards and the
curriculum materials the district purchase. She maintained it
is a local decision since resources are adopted by local boards.
CHAIR GATTIS stated that the local district makes the choice
regarding specific curriculum and the department gives advices,
but does not provide approval or denial.
MS. MCCAULEY agreed.
8:53:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD indicated that if the state standard is
changed, the curriculum may not be aligned to it and therefore
the assessment may not be aligned although teachers will be
evaluated. She said a circle exists for curriculum and
evaluation/assessment. She questioned whether the districts
have any freedom. Once the [academic] standards are in place,
and the school's curriculum is purchased, assessments are done,
and evaluations can impact the teachers. She related that
numerous states are trying to stop the [CCSS] initiative. She
recalled the commissioner saying the state has a responsibility
with the [NCLB] waiver, but there isn't any associated funding.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed the state has a responsibility with
the [NCLB] waiver; however, the [academic] standards are not
driven by the waiver. The state's standards have allowed the
state to obtain the waiver. The state could give up the waiver
and still have good [academic] standards, he said.
8:55:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to page 2, line 20 and asked how
the state would "maintain state sovereignty."
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that even without HR 9 [Version
N], he has a moral obligation to not give up state sovereignty.
He couldn't envision a situation that would cause him to make a
decision to sacrifice state sovereignty. He offered his belief
that this language came about when the state joined "Smarter
Balance" as an advisory state and some people expressed concern.
The state stepped away from "Smarter Balance"; still, it never
gave anything up.
8:56:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the commissioner will have
to exercise that judgment with Common Core State Standards
{CCSS).
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that it has raised questions for
some, but not for him. One of the primary reasons that Alaska
was one of four states that didn't adopt the CCSS was it
required states to fully adopt the standards. Although some
standards are good, such as children should know their alphabet
in kindergarten, it imposed rules limiting what states could do.
The department wanted the ability to make ongoing changes and
not allow someone else to set Alaska's [academic] standards. In
further response to a question, he agreed the department wanted
to avoid that threat.
8:58:22 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the phrase "college and career
readiness" takes on a specific meaning in the waiver.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the phrase has been used and
predates the CCSS. The statutes require the state to ensure
that students are prepared to be successful in education and
work, which essentially outlines the goals for education.
CHAIR GATTIS related her understanding that "college and career
readiness" doesn't relate to Common Core State Standards (CCSS).
9:00:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether Alaska's academic
standards are sufficiently different from the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS).
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the basic guidelines for the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) required 100 percent
adoption. Therefore, changing one line meant that the state
wouldn't adopt the CCSS. The EED's goal hasn't been to create
academic standards that are sufficiently different, but to adopt
standards that are rigorous and comparable so Alaskan students
can compete with other students and possess the same skill set
as other U.S. students when they leave high school. He
acknowledged the committee could walk line by line through the
state's academic standards, but any changes in the [academic]
standards, such as adding "with scaffolding and support" doesn't
change the expectation, but it does change how the state
achieves the standard. It changes measurement since the
districts will provide students with additional support, but the
target is the same.
9:01:50 AM
MS. MCCAULEY added that the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that
states who adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) signed
restricted and limited any changes to the standards, but also
allowed states to add up to 15 percent in additional standards.
From the department's perspective of owning the academic
standards, those types of rules and restrictions were not
palatable to Alaska. The state wanted to have the capability
and flexibility to make changes to the academic standards
through the local processes in statutes and regulation without
restrictions from an outside entity.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether student scores on national
tests reflect well on the academic standards the state has
adopted, the Alaska [academic] standards, or if the state will
continue to hear criticism that Alaskan students cannot compete
on a national level.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY emphasized that it critical that Alaska
standards not be less rigorous or expected less of students. He
related that the state participates in the NAEP [National
Assessment of Educational Progress], and he anticipates students
will be able to compete at an even higher level and achieve
higher scores than at present.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND related her understanding that the
Alaska academic standards are more rigorous than the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS).
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered yes; in terms of rigor, the Alaska
[academic] standards are equal or greater.
9:04:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 3, line 3 of HR 9
[Version N], and asked whether any compacts or consortiums or
existing entities be affected.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education
Commission, Department of Education and Early Development (EED),
indicated that the context of the resolution speaks to K-12
standards. The state participates in the Western Interstate
Commission on Higher Education (WICHE), which is a statutory
compact that does not pertain to K-12 standards and is not
periodically renewed. The state could repeal its membership in
WICHE; however, one interstate agreement that the state has been
considering is the state authorization reciprocity agreement,
which is a multi-state effort to apply uniform rules of
operation for distance delivered programs. Although she noted
she is not an attorney, she offered her belief that it would not
apply to the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA)
for distance delivered postsecondary programs.
9:06:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON again referred to page 3, line 3 of
Version N. He asked whether the sponsor agrees with Ms. Barrans
that the distance delivery of standards or curriculum for
education would not fall under the further resolved clause.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that she agrees with Ms.
Barrans.
9:07:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HR 9, Version N, labeled 28-LS1224\N,
Bullard, 4/2/14, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected.
9:08:14 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, LeDoux,
Saddler, Reinbold, and Gattis voted in favor of reporting the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HR 9, Version N, out of
committee. Representatives Drummond voted against it.
Therefore, the CSHR 9(EDC) was reported out of the House
Education Standing Committee by a vote of 5-1.
9:09:13 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:09 a.m. to 9:11 a.m.
SB 195-POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION LOANS/GRANTS
9:11:35 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 195(FIN), "An Act relating to the
membership and authority of the Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education; relating to the Alaska Student Loan
Corporation; relating to teacher education loans; relating to
interest on and consolidation of postsecondary education loans;
relating to Alaska supplemental education loans; relating to
AlaskAdvantage grants; relating to the Alaska family education
loan program; relating to postsecondary educational
institutions; and providing for an effective date."
KRISTEN PRATT, Staff, Senator Anna Fairclough, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, stated that the sponsor
has been working with Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education and the Alaska Student Loan Corporation (ASLC) to
reduce the burden of student debt for Alaskans. This bill would
broaden commission membership. It would allow the ASLC to offer
below market loan terms. It would also increase loan limits,
which haven't been increased since 1995. Further, it would
change post-enrollment deferment period to up to six months and
amend the general definitions for "on-time" enrollment status.
CHAIR GATTIS viewed this as a "clean-up" bill to update
statutes.
9:13:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked for further clarification deferred
payment for up to six months.
MS. PRATT explained that currently students have a grace period
and must make student loan payments six months after graduation
or terminate their enrollment. This bill would change that to
"up to six months" to provide borrowers more flexibility.
9:14:21 AM
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education
Commission, Department of Education and Early Development (EED),
stated she also serves as the Executive Officer for the Alaska
Student Loan Corporation (ASLC). She concurred with the staff's
explanation and directed attention to proposed Sec. 27 on page
13 of SB 195. This language would change the standard deferment
period to up to six months to allow borrowers an opportunity to
make payments sooner since interest is accruing.
9:15:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether borrowers could begin
repayment of their student loans without this statutory change.
MS. BARRANS agreed; however, she said it rarely happens. This
section provides the commission an opportunity to advise
students to begin repayment in a timely manner and avoid
interest. She clarified that the language doesn't set up a
mandatory repayment prior to the six-month deferment.
9:16:14 AM
CHAIR GATTIS related her understanding that it relates to the
mindset for repayment.
MS. BARRANS clarified that the commission would begin
communications with the borrower sooner.
9:17:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that if the commission felt it
was important to communicate the benefits on beginning repayment
earlier to just do so.
MS. BARRANS acknowledged the commission could certainly do so.
CHAIR GATTIS suggested it is human nature for people to make
their payments when the payments are due and not before then.
9:17:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out some college graduates may
not understand the importance of making payments earlier to
reduce the overall cost of their loans. He asked for further
clarification on the commissions' dunning notices.
MS. BARRANS explained that under the bill the commission would
contact students when their graduation date occurs, and set up
payments if the students wanted to begin making them.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER encouraged the commission to let students
know they can make payments earlier and the benefits of doing
so.
9:18:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked about the authority to offer
consolidation to state residents.
MS. BARRANS answered that the ASLC has the ability to
consolidate loans, but the loans that the corporation can
currently consolidate are ones that originated with the
[corporation]. The proposed language would allow borrowers who
are state residents to consolidate loans made by other education
lenders. She elaborated that if it is beneficial to the
borrowers and they want to consolidate their student loans with
a single lender, the corporation could consolidate them.
9:19:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked for further clarification that
this would apply to previously made loans by the ASLC or others;
however, the borrowers would need to be state residents.
MS. BARRANS agreed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND recapped that no matter where the
students obtained their education, the students would need to
return to Alaska and be residents in order to qualify for the
consolidation aspect.
9:20:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recalled that the student loans were once
taken out at a lower rate than a commercial source. She asked
whether this bill will allow the rate to be obtained at a lower
rate once more.
MS. BARRANS answered that the markets control the rate for
student loans. Thus, the way the ASLC finances student loans is
to issue debt in the financial market. The market materially
changed after the collapse in 2008 of the asset-backed market,
but it is slowly coming back. In response to a question, she
clarified that asset-backed debt represents bonds backed by
revenue from the loans financed from the bond proceeds. The
ASLC goes to the market, issues bonds, and the bonds are
structures so the interest on the loans repays the bond interest
and principal, similar to a mortgage-backed bond.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that the only advantage of the
Alaska Student Loan Program is that an 18-year-old without
credit history can obtain financial aid, but it won't be at a
better rate.
MS. BARRANS explained that typically financial institutions take
a risk-based pricing and review the applicant's credit and set
the interest rate. The ASLC has a single interest rate and
criteria and applicants who meet the criteria or whose co-
signers meet the criteria receive the rate.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how a parent's poor credit rating
affects the student loan.
MS. BARRANS answered that either the student or a co-signer must
meet the minimum credit standard or the student is declined.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned the relevance of having the
student loan program.
MS. BARRANS answered that the student loan program is based on
the students' best interest but the ASLC does not operate to
make a profit. She explained that the loans are serviced in
Alaska and the corporation offers deferments and repayment
options with the corporation that are typically not offered via
other financial institutions. For example, students who are
unemployed for up to a year can obtain a deferment or if a long-
term disability exists some additional considerations are
available. She agreed the state doesn't fund or guarantee the
loans and the revenue generated pays for loan servicing.
9:26:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to proposed Sec. 41, page 16
lines 24-31, of SB 195 and asked whether this is the new
standard for credit hours for an "on-time student." He recalled
the prior standard was 12 credit hours and this lists 15 or more
semester hours each semester. He indicated some students may
take 18 credits one semester and 12 or 14 in another semester
due to class schedules.
MS. BARRANS answered no; that the "on-time student" definition
creates an additional enrollment level. It does not remove the
half-time student status or the regular full-time student status
of 12 credits. In each of these situations a student may
qualify for a grant or loan and it will simply affect the amount
of loan a student can borrow for that particular semester. She
said it wouldn't surprise her to see a student qualify for an
on-time loan amount for one semester and a full-time loan for
the next semester. This language would simply associate the
intensity of the student's enrollment with the amount of the
loan for that period.
9:28:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to page 1, line 13 and page 2,
line 23 of SB 195, which references private, nonprofit
institutions of higher learning. He asked how many colleges in
Alaska currently meet that standard besides Alaska Pacific
University and Wayland Baptist University.
MS. BARRANS answered by listing the colleges as Alaska Bible
College, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, and Alaska
Christian College. In further response to a question, she
agreed those are in addition to Alaska Pacific University and
Wayland Baptist University.
9:29:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to proposed Sec. 5 on pages 5
[lines 11-12 and 17-18] and asked for further clarification on
what is achieved by the change related to the obligation of the
corporation is not a debt of the state.
MS. BARRANS answered that the bond council advises that this is
a correction to place language where it more appropriately
should be placed in paragraph (6) instead of paragraph (5).
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether bonds that the
[corporation] issues are not a debt of the state.
MS. BARRANS answered that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER recalled a letter of support for SB 195
and also one for SJR 23. He asked whether there was any linkage
between SB 195 and SJR 23, which proposes an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to contracting
state debt for postsecondary student loans.
MS. BARRANS answered that it has to do with the capacity to do
certain things that the bill suggests. For example, SB 195
would suggest that the [Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education and ASLC] can provide enhanced rates to borrowers if
the [corporation] has the capacity to do so. The resolution,
SJR 23, would create that capacity; however, there are many
things in this bill that are unrelated to the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER understood that SB 195 would allow the
commission to take advantage of increased capacity. He asked
for further clarification on which section provides the
permission.
MS. BARRANS directed attention to page 9, lines 2-5, to proposed
Sec. 11, of SB 195. She pointed out that this language already
exists. The Alaska Student Loan Corporation currently has the
capacity to do this, but this bill would move it to a more
general provision. She explained that the language currently
exists but it only applies to the Alaska Supplemental Education
Loan. Proposed Sec. 11 would move it to general powers so it
can apply to any of the loans the corporation makes, including
the Alaska supplemental Education Loan or the Family Education
Loan.
9:32:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the intent is to provide
loans at a lower interest rate than currently available at
commercial institutions.
MS. BARRANS answered that the objective of the corporation to
make the cost of student loans as low as possible. The capacity
for lower financing costs varies depending on the interest
earnings and corporate revenues. To the extent that the
corporation has financial capacity to do so, the ASLC reviews
borrower benefits. These are benefits that are applied as
direct credits to student accounts when available. She
explained how some benefits and reductions can occur, which
could not be realized through a commercial facility. For
example, one benefit the ASLC offers is a .0025 percent discount
for borrowers who use an automated on-line payment.
Additionally, the corporation offers an additional .005 percent
reduction for borrowers who live in the state. Thus, the
corporation reduces interest rates by .0075 percent, which
brings down the interest rate to an effective interest rate of
6.55 percent. However, the corporation can't set interest rates
in a speculative way since that would commit the corporation to
reduced income on the loans over the ten to fifteen year span of
time for repayment. She reported that the borrow benefits
amounts to about $1 million per year.
9:34:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX indicated surprise that even with the
credits the interest rate is at 6.5 percent which is higher than
some commercial facilities.
MS. BARRANS disagreed, estimating that the rates would be in
excess of 10 or 11 percent for loans issued under these
standards. She related that many lenders are issuing variable
rate debts that for very high-grade borrowers are lower than
ASLC's rates, but for borrowers with less outstanding credits
are in excess of 10 or 11 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated support for the Alaska Student
Loan Program (ASLP). She credited the ASLP for bringing people
back to Alaska.
9:35:46 AM
CHAIR GATTIS, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 195.
9:36:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to report SB 195 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSSB 195(FIN) was reported
from the House Education Standing Committee.
9:36:34 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|