02/04/2015 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation Follow-up: Department of Education and Early Development Regarding Responses to Questions Generated from the House Education Standing Committee Meeting of 2/2/15 | |
| HCR2 | |
| Presentation: State Board of Education Annual Report to the Legislature | |
| HB30 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HCR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 4, 2015
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Colver
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Liz Vazquez
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION FOLLOW-UP: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT REGARDING RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS GENERATED FROM THE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING OF 2/2/15
- HEARD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Designating January 25 - 31, 2015, as Alaska School Choice Week.
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ANNUAL REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 30
"An Act requiring school districts to develop and require
completion of a history of American constitutionalism curriculum
segment; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HCR 2
SHORT TITLE: AK SCHOOL CHOICE WEEK
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTIS
01/26/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/15 (H) EDC
02/04/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 30
SHORT TITLE: CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY CURRICULUM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER, SADDLER, LYNN
01/21/15 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/15
01/21/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/15 (H) EDC, FIN
02/04/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HCR 2, as sponsor.
DREW FORD, Staff
Representative Lynn Gattis
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HCR 2, on behalf of
Representative Gattis, sponsor.
MARK HANLEY, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to committee questions generated
at the 2/2/15 regular meeting of the House Education Standing
Committee.
SUSAN MCCAULEY, PhD, Director
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to committee questions generated
at the 2/2/15 regular meeting of the House Education Standing
Committee.
ESTHER COX, Chair
Alaska State Board of Education & Early Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the annual Alaska State Board of
Education presentation to the legislature.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:15 AM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Colver,
Drummond, Reinbold, and Keller were present at the call to
order. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
^PRESENTATION FOLLOW-UP: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT REGARDING RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS GENERATED FROM THE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING OF 2/2/15
PRESENTATION FOLLOW-UP: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT REGARDING RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS GENERATED FROM THE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING OF 2/2/15
8:04:19 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
completion of a presentation from the Department of Education
and Early Development (EDC) to receive responses to member's
questions subsequently provided, available in the committee
packet as a memo dated 2/3/15 5:03 PM, from Marcy Herman,
Special Assistant to the Commissioner, to Janet Ogan, Committee
Aide, with the subject line, "(H)EDC Follow up Responses from
2.2.15 Hearing," and three attachments.
8:06:21 AM
CHAIR KELLER directed attention to the committee packet, and the
department memo of 2/3/15 responding to member's previous
queries, and asked the panel for follow-up questions.
8:06:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER stated that the response to his questions
were satisfactory. He expressed concerns regarding the
requirement that applicant's for the Alaska Performance
Scholarship (APS) must complete a Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA) form. He reported that constituents
consider the requirement a violation of privacy. Having to fill
out a federal financial aid form to receive a state merit
scholarship seems unnecessary. He opined that "it's all about
data mining," and suggested that it may require defending by the
supporting authorities.
8:08:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the memo, page 2, question
7, to note the employment information for FY 15-16 and to
request the FY 14 data.
[Further discussion with EED follows the next order of
business.]
HCR 2-AK SCHOOL CHOICE WEEK
8:09:13 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2, Designating January 25-31,
2015, as Alaska School Choice Week.
8:09:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
HCR 2, and deferred to staff.
8:10:21 AM
DREW FORD, Staff, Representative Lynn Gattis, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrasing from the sponsor statement, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
House Concurrent Resolution No. 2 designates January
25-31, 2015 as Alaska School Choice Week. As state
leaders it is incumbent upon the legislature to
prepare the youth of Alaska for the future.
Recognizing these dates as school choice week simply
acknowledges the importance of effective education
options for students. Alaska has highly diverse
education opportunities through public neighborhood
schools, public charter schools, public home schools,
independent home schools, as well private schools.
School Choice Week is a national celebration
recognized by millions of students, parents,
educators, schools and community leaders for the
purpose of raising public awareness to the importance
of effective education options.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS explained that the resolution is a means
to acknowledge the legislative embrace for parents to exercise
school choice, without invoking statutory action. It is a show
of collective, legislative importance being placed on the
subject.
8:12:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated support for school choice. She
opined that, if nationalized standards and assessments are
adopted, driving the curriculum, choice will be negated by a
"one size fits all" approach to education. She asked where the
resolution fits into that picture.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS responded that the resolution celebrates
the opportunity for parental choice among educational options,
which include: private school, public school, home school, and
independent home school.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reiterated concern that one curriculum
will be imposed regardless of where a student attends, and
opined that true choice really needs to be parental choice of
the curriculum.
8:13:30 AM
CHAIR KELLER questioned the January 25-31, 2015, effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS answered that an amendment to the date
would be welcomed.
8:14:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 1, line 7, to paraphrase
the language, which read [original punctuation provided]:
WHEREAS the state recognizes the critical role that an
effective and accountable system of education plays in
preparing all children in the state to be successful
adults; and
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that accountability has been a
legislative concern and noted that some of the educational
choices recognized have no means for accountability, such as
independent homeschools where parents choose the curriculum. He
asked how accountability is addressed in the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS acknowledged that when government money is
not received the accountability rests with the parents; as in
the case of independent homeschoolers.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed with the sponsor and expressed
support for the resolution.
CHAIR KELLER concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER agreed with the sponsor, and suggested the
need to amend the resolution to reflect dates for 2016.
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony.
8:18:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER moved Conceptual Amendment 1, as follows:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete: "2015"
Insert: "2016"
Page 2, line 7:
Delete: "2015"
Insert: "2016"
CHAIR KELLER objected for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for and received affirmation that
the sponsor agrees to the amendment.
CHAIR KELLER withdrew objection.
8:19:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS questioned the specified dates,
and suggested that it may be customary that a specific week of
the month be designated.
MR. FORD stated his believe that it falls on the last week in
January, beginning on a Sunday and ending on the following
Saturday.
CHAIR KELLER suggested setting the bill aside in order to
confirm the appropriate dates.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1.
CHAIR KELLER announced HCR 2 as held.
^PRESENTATION: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ANNUAL REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE
PRESENTATION: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ANNUAL REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE
[Includes comments from the Department of Education and Early
Development regarding responses to questions generated from the
House Education Standing Committee meeting of 2/2/15.]
8:23:38 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
the Department of Education and Early Development (EDC)
responding to committee questions from the 2/2/15 meeting,
immediately followed by the annual presentation from the State
Board of Education.
8:24:00 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development, referred to the memo dated 2/3/15 5:03 PM, from
Marcy Herman, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, to Janet
Ogan, Committee Aide, with the subject line, "(H) EDC Follow up
Responses from 2.2.15 Hearing," and three attachments. He said
the department presentation was completed on the hearing date.
8:24:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD inquired as to the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) [1965], [reauthorized in 2001 as]
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver, what the intent behind it
was, and where the department now stands in relation to this
federal requirement.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said that it was anticipated that NCLB would
be reauthorized in 2007; however, lacking that action, NCLB
remains on the books. The U.S. Department of Education (DOE)
Secretary, Ed Duncan, recognized that, as the educational bar
approached the 100 percent proficiency mark requirement, all
schools would fail and not meet the adequate yearly progress
(AYP) standards. To handle this oversight, waivers were offered
and a state holding a waiver would need to implement its own
rigorous standards. Alaska created standards which were vetted
by the University of Alaska (UA) to ensure compliance levels.
The waiver also had the requirement that an accountability
measure had to be embedded in the system and teacher evaluations
were to be tied to student learning. The department made the
decision to comply with the waiver requirements and, he opined,
changing the accountability standards has proven to be valuable.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked if the state standards had to be
approved by the federal government.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded, "No." He pointed out that the
Alaskan standards were adopted in June of 2012, and the waiver
application was made later. Thus, the requirement to have
rigorous standards was preemptively satisfied.
8:28:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER said districts appear to be grappling with
having the teacher evaluations tied to student performance, and
reported that there is not a template in place. He asked what
guidance and recommendations are being provided to districts.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the department has offered
extensive support to districts and teachers and deferred for
further comment.
8:29:40 AM
SUSAN MCCAULEY, PhD, Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), said the
department has offered assistance to help districts understand
what must be done under statute and regulation, as well as to
identify the opportunities each district is allowed to determine
how it will implement the requirements locally. Further, the
technical model option, that districts may choose to adopt, is
the student learning objective (SLO) method; which integrates
student learning data as part of an educator's evaluation. If a
district chooses to use this straightforward approach, the
department provides the template, with overlays for
implementation in stand-a-lone grade facilities, versus a
combined grades classroom in rural Alaska.
8:31:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER noted how many variables are at play. He
expressed concern for maintaining consistency across districts
and asked if a pilot project was considered prior to entering
into what could be a difficult process for teachers. Further,
he stressed the need to empower school districts and teachers,
and cautioned that this requirement could have a negative effect
on morale.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the program rollout was extensively
discussed. He corrected his earlier statement to be that
teacher evaluation requirements are not in statute, but reside
in regulation. Prior to the NCLB waiver, there were eight
evaluation measures in regulation and one was replaced with
student learning data. He clarified that student learning was
used, as opposed to student achievement in order to show growth
versus just proficiency. Even in the midst of all the work that
the department has done, it is recognized that tying the student
learning component to a teachers evaluation does cause stress on
the system. Honest expectations for testing of students,
without the perception of punishing teachers is important, he
stressed. With that in mind, the department has allowed
districts flexibility on this component. A district may
determine what SLO to use in order to measure student growth.
He said that schools have chosen a variety of methods to meet
the requirement; a charter school employing a particular
curriculum may adopt a different approach from a public school.
The scheduled implementation was for the 2015-2016 school year;
however the renewal for waiver is coming up in March and EDC has
had conversations with the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE)
requesting a delay. The goal for delaying the waiver is to
allow districts to use the pilot program this year with no
impact, or repercussions, and work out the kinks prior to full
implementation, which is set to occur over a period of two to
three years.
8:36:17 AM
CHAIR KELLER asked about the timing requirement.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that EDC created the plan and put
it forward to the USDOE, as a part of the waiver. If the
department changes the plan it must be cleared through the
federal agency.
8:36:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER noted the sensitivity that the department
has brought to the subject. He expounded on the need to
establish the ground truth via feedback from the teachers and
districts and to focus on fine tuning the process prior to a
formal rollout.
8:37:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD, seeking clarification, asked:
Is this a requirement - did the standards,
accountability system, and ... data system, was that
required or completely voluntary [for the waiver].
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the department adopted state standards
with no input from the federal government, in 2012. It was then
decided that a waiver should be pursued, to avoid problematic
aspects of NCLB compliance. The waiver required the following
components be implemented: rigorous standards, teacher
evaluations, and an accountability system.
CHAIR KELLER surmised that approval of the waiver does not equal
approval of the standards.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY concurred, and said that the USDOE was
concerned that the standards be rigorous, thus the department
had the UA vet the standards with that in mind.
8:39:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether the Alaskan standards were
based on the federal Common Core Standards, and if so, to what
percentage.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that over 200 Alaskans worked to
craft the Alaskan standards and heavily referenced the Common
Core Standards in the process. Changes were made to over 40
percent of the English language arts (ELA) and mathematics
standards. Thus, over 50 percent of the Alaskan standards are
the same as the Common Core. He said it has been maintained
that these standards are substantially similar. The changes
that were made affected the input, however, without changing the
outcome or expectations of the students.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated her understanding that 95 percent
of Alaska's standards track closely or are identical to the
Common Core Standards and inquired as to who owns that
copyright.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that, if the standards are copy
written, the rights would be held by the Council of Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO), comprised of education commissioners
from across the nation. He pointed out that Alaskan Standards
aren't significantly different in order to ensure a comparable
education for students who will ultimately be competitive in the
workplace or for college entrance. He agreed to provide
copyright information to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD expressed belief that the Common Core
standards are copyrighted to the CCSSO, and Alaskan standards
are basically identical. Further, she opined that the NCLB
waiver was a federal waiver to close the achievement gap, and
asked if the measure has worked, or has it resulted in an
additional layer of bureaucracy and tied the hands of local
schools through federal overreach.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the NCLB waiver was not
mandatory and Alaska sought the waiver voluntarily. He pointed
out that several states did not request a waiver, and Washington
State lost its waiver. The department determined that holding a
waiver would be more effective than having schools become non-
compliant or identified as failing, under the NCLB requirements.
The waiver also allows flexibility in using Title I funds. He
pointed out that the legislature could direct the department to
return to the AYP model.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD restated the previous question of
whether NCLB was working to close the achievement gap, and
surmised that the waiver was sought because NCLB was not
working. She also asked what the penalties are for
noncompliance under the waiver.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the consequence for non-
compliance would be a return to AYP requirements; no financial
ties exist. He offered to provide a walk through presentation
of the standards, for the committee's edification, as was
presented in 2011 to the House Education Standing Committee.
8:49:09 AM
ESTHER COX, Chair, Alaska State Board of Education and Early
Development, said that the board promulgates the regulations for
legislation, when it is passed. She opined that everyone would
prefer fewer regulations; however, with the adoption of a bill
such as the Alaska Educational Opportunity Act, House Bill 278,
a plethora of changes require regulations to be eliminated/
replaced. Directing attention to the committee packet and the
21 page report, labeled "State Board of Education & Early
Development Report to the Alaska Legislature, January 2015," she
began her comments on actions associated with House Bill 278,
addressing the repeal of the High School Graduation
Qualification Exit exam (HSGQE). This measure had been
anticipated and the affected students, who had previously
received Certificates of Attendance, have been notified that
they may now pick-up their diplomas. Additionally, the
mandated, eleventh grade assessment, WorkKeys, was repealed and
replaced by a single assessment of the student's choice, with
the cost being covered by the state: WorkKeys, ACT, Inc. (ACT),
or Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT). Of course, she pointed
out, a student may elect to take all three placement
assessments, but the state sponsors only one. Improved student
assessment participation is anticipated. The act also provided
a teacher exemption from jury duty, during the school year, for
staff at the one and two star schools. Further, allowance was
made for students to challenge courses, as provided under the
purview of the local district. The district is allowed to
charge a nominal fee to cover administrative oversight costs,
such as writing and proctoring the test. In response to public
comment, the decision for issuing a grade is made at the
district level, but the student does receive a credit for
inclusion on their transcript. She reported that the board
adopted regulations to implement the provision in HB 278
addressing district-operated residential schools. The
regulations provide an annual period for districts to apply to
operate a residential school. Residential schools that have
variable terms now have flexibility in submitting enrollment
figures for foundation funding purposes. Regarding charter
schools, HB 278 addressed two aspects: busing and charter
applications. She said the bill did not require student busing,
but the protocol, which has been in practice for some time, is
now officially recognized: if an existing bus route
approximates in a way that is helpful in transporting the
student to or from the charter school, the student is allowed to
ride. Charter school applications are submitted to local school
boards to approve/disapprove. House Bill 278 provides for an
appeal to the commissioner, and, if the commissioner concurs
with the local district, it's routed to the state board for
final consideration. A one-time, charter school, start-up grant
has also been offered. Two Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) grants were included in HB 178. One
benefits the Alaska Native Science & Engineering Program
(ANSEP), which has plans to expand the Middle School Academy
over the next two years. The second grant was directed to the
Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC) which also offers
STEM academies. Last year also saw the enactment of House Bill
210, which required the state board to write regulations
regarding restraint and seclusion of students. Finally,
regulations were written to require three mathematics credits
for graduation. She pointed out that 47 of the 54 districts had
already been requiring more than the two math credits that were
in regulation. She said this sends a clear signal regarding the
importance of math and is in keeping with the Alaska Performance
Scholarship (APS) requirements.
8:58:36 AM
MS. COX introduced the Alaska Measures of Progress (AMP)
program, which is the assessment model for the newly adopted
Alaska Academic Standards; page 6 of the committee handout.
Highlights of the assessment include: English language arts and
math assessments in grades 3-10; two tests will be given, for a
total of 140 questions; tests remain untimed but are expected to
take about two hours; it is not required that the tests be given
on consecutive days, which provides flexibility in the
administration; students may be assessed on as few as 15-25
questions per sitting; the test is computer based but can be
completed on paper; and the testing window is March 30 through
May 1. The new standards are more rigorous and the scores are
expected to be a bit low; however the 2015 scores will serve as
a baseline and will highlight areas where the curriculum needs
revision. Ms. Cox referred to Madeline Hunter [Madeline Cheek
Hunter, 1916-1994], an influential, American, educator whose
practices continue to be in wide used. She recounted a
particularly helpful Hunter method known as dip-sticking, where
a teacher continually checks a student's progress throughout a
term to ensure academic progress. The ability to check
progression of students is included in the new testing process.
Short classroom tests on specific learning goals, comprised of
eight to ten questions can be given throughout year, on an
optional basis. The learning data will be sent to teachers,
parents, and students, she said, and assured that no individual
student information is available to the federal government. Ten
aggregated reports will be made public, she pointed out.
Specific accommodations, for assessment purposes, will be made
available to students who qualify.
9:01:41 AM
MS. COX directed attention to the committee handout, [page 17],
to address the Alaska School Performance Index (ASPI), the newly
implemented, five star, school rating system, that replaces the
AYP approach. She reported that 501 schools are rated, and the
commendable result is that 93 percent of Alaskan students attend
a school with a three star, or better, rating. The rating
system is based on: student achievements in reading, writing
and math; attendance; graduation rates; and, in high school
facilities, student performance on college-ready and career
ready assessments such as the SAT, ACT and WorkKeys. By the
nature of the beast, she said, students who attend alternative
schools have not had great success in education; the scoring
system has worked against this population. Additionally, small
schools which might only have two students eligible to graduate,
and have only one qualify, thus showing a 50 percent graduation
rate for the school, also skews the system. Adjustments have
been made for both of these cohorts to appropriately reflect the
effort that is being made in these settings. Reward schools are
also being recognized, she said, and deferred to the department
to explain the matrix for determining a reward school. The
schools are provided public recognition for the achievement,
which includes a display banner. She espoused that the standout
aspect of the star system is that it is a positive rating
system, where AYP was punitive and schools were easily
identified as failing; one student's poor attendance record
could result as failure for the school to meet AYP.
9:05:08 AM
MS. COX moved to the State System of Support (SSOS), which was
implemented as a result of the five star rating system in
keeping with the NCLB waiver requirements. The lower rated
schools develop an improvement plan with the assistance of
coaches who do monthly, on-site, five-day, visits along with the
ongoing contact. The plan facilitates collaboration of school
leadership, coaches, and the community. Schools are designated
as priority or focus schools, as identified by need, but all are
Title I identified facilities. The coaches are hired on a
contract basis, and average more than two decades of experience
in education. All have some experience in rural Alaska, and
some coaches have been principles.
9:07:27 AM
MS. COX turned to the Alaska Learning Network (AKLN), pages 12-
13, to state that the 376 online courses are managed by the
University of Alaska Southeast's School of Education.
Partnerships exist with 54 school districts. The districts pay
the enrollment fees and grant the students course credit.
Curricula offerings include: APS requirements; advanced
placement; credit recovery; dual credit; and CTE. She opined
that AKLN is a life saver for rural schools that don't otherwise
have access to certain course work. Additionally, it is an
invaluable outreach for professional development. The program
operates on an $850,000 allocation from state general funds.
9:09:16 AM
MS. COX said the successful, teacher mentoring began during the
2004/2005 school year and has 36 mentors focused on the
important practice of teachers talking to teachers. She
stressed that this is especially important for new teachers in
rural schools where mentors can provide an experiential
understanding of the isolation and broad subject matter
required. Mentorship has also improved rural teacher retention,
which has risen from an average of 68 percent to 79 percent.
Half of the new teachers in the US quit prior to attaining five
years of service, but Alaska has bragging rights to state that
94 percent of the mentored teachers have remained in the
profession. The teachers have gained professional commitment
and the results are greater gains in student achievement.
9:11:34 AM
MS. COX expressed excitement for the state-operated,
residential, Mt. Edgecumbe High School, which she termed a
wildly successful program offered in an encapsulated
environment; a four star school. The campus includes: students
from 107 villages; a student body comprised 84 percent of Alaska
Native; 62 percent female; a 95 percent attendance record; and a
98.5 percent graduation rate. Finally, she said, through the
current commissioner's efforts, K-16 education programs are
finally being addressed as a whole. Meetings have been held,
and further collaboration planned, with the Board of Regents to
bolster offerings of dual credits, address early childhood
needs, and bring other collaborative efforts to the table.
Foremost, the Career and Technical Education (CTE) program is
being clearly defined and the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development (DLWD) also has a seat at the joint meeting to
strategize implementation of the CTE plans. She encouraged
members to review the statistics included in the committee
handout, and pointed out the student data included in the
report. The four year student graduation rate is 71 percent,
the five year rate is 76 percent, and the dropout rate now down
from six to four percent.
9:16:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked if the state board adopted the
Alaska Academic Standards.
MS. COX replied, "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD questioned if it is correct to say that
standards and assessments drive curriculum.
MS. COX answered, "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD qualified her interest in the Common
Core standards by paraphrasing from the book, Pathways to the
Common Core: Accelerating Achievement by Lucy Calkins, Mary
Ehrenworth, Christopher Lehman, published by Heinemann, 2012,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The Common Core State Standards are a big deal. ...
The standards are the most sweeping reform of the K-12
curriculum that has ever occurred in this country. It
is safe to say that across the entire history of
American education, no single document will have
played a more influential role over what is taught in
our schools.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD expressed interest in understanding the
boards input for the state's curriculum, as well as the
possibility for local control. She paraphrased from the EDC
regulations, 4 AAC 06.737, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
The commissioner shall select a standards-based test to
estimate the degree to which students have mastered the
state's ... standards for reading, writing, mathematics,
and science. For school years 2012 - 2015, the standards-
based test must test for mastery of the reading, writing,
mathematics, and science standards described in the
department's publication Alaska Standards: Content and
Performance Standards for Alaska Students, as revised as of
March 2006, and adopted by reference for purposes of
administering a standards-based test through school year
2014-2015.
MS. COX explained that the board's job by statute is to select a
commissioner and effect the regulations that the legislature
puts into law, thus acting as a policy board with the
commissioner as the administrator. She equated this to the way
in which a local school board works with a superintendent. In
further response, she said the board adopted the current
standards, as designed by over 200 Alaskans. The board members
had the opportunity to read, comment and make suggestions, prior
to adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD opined on the unlikeliness that 200
Alaskans would come up with standards that are nearly identical
to the Common Core. She asked whether the standards benchmarked
internationally. Further, she asked for a comprehensive
accounting of the costs for implementation of the standards
spanning a ten year time frame.
MS. COX deferred.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the legislature has oversight
of the EDC budget and offered to provide a ten year summary.
However, he pointed out, no additional increments were necessary
for adoption of the standards or assessments. The budget has
historically contained an assessment line item. A procurement
was managed via a request for proposal (RFP) and the new
assessment contracts were obtained within the existing budget
parameters. In regards to the cost for providing professional
development and training, associated with the standards, he said
these teacher support programs are part of the ongoing work of
the department and include a variety of topics including
curriculum.
9:24:49 AM
CHAIR KELLER inquired about the technological evolution of the
tests that students may choose: WorkKeys, SAT, and ACT.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said that SAT and ACT are becoming computer-
based tests, but are not attached to the standards. He pointed
out that inclusion of these tests occurred in 2014, with the
passage of House Bill 278, as an option to the required
WorkKeys. A review would be necessary to ascertain whether the
two assessments have been aligned to the Common Core standards.
CHAIR KELLER expressed interest in knowing what institution
controls the assessments as well as those administered in grades
3-10, and how a vendor is selected.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that, when a vendor is needed, the
state procurement protocol is followed and an RFP is issued. He
reported that five responses were received for the RFP to
develop an assessment based on the Alaskan standards. The
winning proposal was the Assessment Achievement Institute (AAI)
based out of the University of Kansas.
CHAIR KELLER asked for the data points that are tested.
Additionally, he queried about the distribution and security of
data, acknowledging that it is not released to the federal
government and assuming that onus is placed on the state and
administering agency for data maintenance. He stressed the need
to be proactive regarding protection of the constitutional
rights to privacy.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed to provide further information and
pointed out that the contract with AAI is specifically to
measure that the state is meeting, or moving towards,
proficiency on the standards.
9:28:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD recalled that House Bill 257 [28th
Alaska State Legislature] was proposed to ensure the protection
of student information, and continued in the current legislature
in [HB 85]. She referenced an interim meeting on the subject
where the department was encouraged to take measures against
unnecessary data collecting and guard student privacy. She
asked for clarification of how data is entered; in the aggregate
or individualized. Referring to the ACT/SAT assessments, she
confirmed that both have been aligned with the Common Core
Standards, as indicated on the respective websites. The Alaska
standards were initiated in 2010 and the member requested a full
accounting of the costs for the implementation, teacher
training, and other associated expenditures from that time to
the projected year 2020.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY offered to provide a copy of the RFP, and
explained that it is directly designed to measure how students
are moving toward proficiency on the Alaska Standards.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD requested an explanation of the
components of the NCLB waiver.
CHAIR KELLER returned committee focus to questions directed to
the board report.
9:32:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked for the policy changes regarding
teachers serving on jury duty.
MS. COX responded that House Bill 278 allows a teacher to defer
jury duty from a time related to the school year to a period
during the summer, if the school is rated as a one or two star
facility. She said children who have difficulty with academia
struggle even more so under substitute teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER clarified that the exception applies to
teachers serving Title I schools.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY offered that some measures were already in
place; however, under HB 278, the accountability system was
altered, and schools recognized for this exception are now rated
as one and two star schools.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked whether statutory authority would
allow expansion to include other than low performing schools.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said that statute provides for the exception
and the department was charged with criteria to identify a low
performing school.
9:35:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND agreed with the previous member's
comments that all teachers should be exempted from jury duty
until summer.
CHAIR KELLER noted the sentiment and said the committee could
consider changing the statute.
9:36:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER referred to the board report, page 12, and
the Alaska Learning Network (AKLN) that provides distance
delivery, and asked about whether consolidation of online
service providers has occurred, to avoid duplication of effort.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY explained that the intent behind AKLN is to
provide a one-stop shop, partly attributable to the APS course
requirements. The idea is to ensure that districts have options
and can provide on-line courses to schools. However, the answer
to the member's question is no, as some districts provide on-
line courses through vendors that are locally chosen.
9:38:18 AM
CHAIR KELLER noted that the Board of Regents is meeting with the
Alaska State School Board and asked for an understanding of the
joint goals. The reportedly high number of students entering
the UA system who require remedial courses has generating
disparaging remarks from constituents. He asked what is
occurring to alleviate the situation, and pondered whether
legislative oversight should be considered.
MS. COX explained that for years the state schools have
functioned in two different boats: K-12 and postsecondary. As
chair, she said one of her goals has been to unite state
education onto one path. For instance, a student taking a dual
credit course causes immediate questions to arise regarding
which agency will teach the course, issue the credit, create the
student record, and assume purview for the course. A
subcommittee hashes out these types of issues prior to
presentation before the full body, and she said the board would
welcome legislative attendance. Although this could be
considered grunt work, it is also an opportunity for university
people to become involved with those whom it serves. A
conversation addressing the needs of K-12 and university
expectations has begun. For example, she pointed out how the
new Alaska K-12 standards were vetted by the university system
with the understanding that, by meeting the standards, students
will be ready for college. This addresses the chair's concern
that, currently, 50 percent of the students are taking
[remediation] courses on arrival to the university. Also, on
the agenda is a counseling component to assist the entering
freshman. The Board of Regents generally works with the budget
and building concerns, but working on the K-12 issues is a
worthwhile expansion for serving the clientele.
9:43:34 AM
CHAIR KELLER stated that this is a critical area, and a crucial
means for locating economic efficiencies in the education
budget. He encouraged the board to continue exploring and
broadening the pursuit.
9:44:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER commented on the hard work required by
district schools to meet educational standards. He opined, that
rather than casting blame, it is time to roll up the sleeves and
work, and said he is encouraged by the approach outlined in the
report. The UA is an open enrollment facility and, as such, it
is necessary to assess and identify specific issues of entrant
level students. He indicated a need for specificity regarding
the remedial students in order to identify the problem rather
than cast blame and try to refocus and retool the system. It
would be productive to receive a spreadsheet from the
university, with data to review, he said, in order to form
worthwhile conclusions.
9:47:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD requested permission to distribute three
documents to the committee. She then addressed the topic of the
statewide assessments to note that the original plan was for
testing during the 2015-2016 school year, and asked why it was
fast forwarded to 2014-2015.
MS. COX opined that the term fast forwarded is not necessarily
applicable. She recalled that a baseline year was in question,
and deferred.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY explained that, when the regulation was
initially put forward several years ago, a tentative goal was to
begin the assessments in the 2015-2016 school year. However,
since that time, the waiver has moved forward. The department
now anticipates putting this assessment in place in 2015, with
no consequences, or harm, and the benefit of effectively
establishing a baseline.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked if the action had to do with any
of the NCLB requirements or strictly a voluntarily action.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY clarified that the USDOE requires the
assessment as part of the waiver to NCLB. When the waiver
application was put forward the hope was to assess in 2014-2015,
thus, when the opportunity arose, it was determined that the
cost and benefit was worth moving the initial date forward, as
part of getting out from under AYP.
9:52:13 AM
CHAIR KELLER inquired as to whether Zelman v. Simmons-Harris,
536 U.S. 639 (2002), had any impact on where the state went with
the standards. He stated his belief that an element of NCLB
relates to a comparison between the states regarding
proficiency. Additionally, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) test is imposed by the federal
government and used for national level proficiency comparisons,
and he expressed interest in knowing how all of these elements
fit into NCLB.
HB 30-CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY CURRICULUM
9:54:43 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 30, "An Act requiring school districts to develop
and require completion of a history of American
constitutionalism curriculum segment; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR KELLER, speaking as sponsor of HB 30, called attention to
the legislative findings and said the bill is a mandate on
districts to provide a history segment in the curriculum that
focuses on American constitutionalism. He stressed the use of
the suffix "ism", which allows latitude for personal evaluation
of the values that were fundamental in the founding of this
country as recorded in the historical documents, namely: the
Declaration of Independence, the first state's constitutions,
the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of the United
States, the Federalists Papers, and the Bill of Rights. At a
time when other countries are grappling to devise a
constitution, America's documents remain an example for
establishing national freedom, which is unparalleled in the
world, he opined. The bill represents a soft mandate for
schools to adopt and implement curriculum teaching the values of
this country, and that a passing grade be a requirement for
receiving a diploma. He was quick to add that schools are
already offering civic and history classes, and this legislation
would envision the addition of this component to existing course
work. He asked members to review the bill, specifically the
details set out in Section 3.
CHAIR KELLER announced HB 30 as held.
9:59:54 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:59 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCR2 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 2/4/2015 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HCR2 ver A.PDF |
HEDC 2/4/2015 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 30 Sponsor.pdf |
HEDC 2/4/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 30 |
| HB30A.pdf |
HEDC 2/4/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Sectional.pdf |
HEDC 2/4/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Constitutionalism.pdf |
HEDC 2/4/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Civic's Dunces.pdf |
HEDC 2/4/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Civics Board Timeline.pdf |
HEDC 2/4/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 30 |
| Alaska Ed Standards (no print).pdf |
HEDC 2/4/2015 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 30 US Senate S 504 summary and co spons.pdf |
HEDC 2/4/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 AML ltr opposition.pdf |
HEDC 2/4/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 30 |
| HB30 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 2/4/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 30 |
| HCR2 FiscalNote.pdf |
HEDC 2/4/2015 8:00:00 AM |