Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
02/09/2015 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Alaska Navigator: Statewide Workforce & Education-related Statistics (answers) Project, Alaska Postsecondary Education Commission | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 9, 2015
8:02 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: ALASKA NAVIGATOR: STATEWIDE WORKFORCE &
EDUCATION-RELATED STATISTICS (ANSWERS) PROJECT~ ALASKA
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION COMMISSION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
STEPHANIE BUTLER, Director
Operations/Outreach
Alaska Postsecondary Education Commission (APEC)
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the APEC presentation on the
ANSWERS (Alaska Navigator: Statewide Workforce and Education-
Related Statistics) project, and responded to questions.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Alaska Postsecondary Education Commission (APEC)
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the APEC presentation on
the ANSWERS (Alaska Navigator: Statewide Workforce and
Education-Related Statistics) project, and responded to
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:02:25 AM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Present at the call to order were
Representative Seaton, Drummond, Reinbold, Colver and Keller.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins arrived as the meeting was in
order.
^PRESENTATION: ALASKA NAVIGATOR: STATEWIDE WORKFORCE &
EDUCATION-RELATED STATISTICS (ANSWERS) PROJECT, ALASKA
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION COMMISSION
PRESENTATION: ALASKA NAVIGATOR: STATEWIDE WORKFORCE &
EDUCATION-RELATED STATISTICS (ANSWERS) PROJECT, ALASKA
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION COMMISSION
8:03:33 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the only order of business would be
a presentation from the Alaska Postsecondary Education
Commission (APEC) on the Alaska Navigator: Statewide Workforce
and Education-Related Statistics (ANSWERS) project.
8:06:37 AM
STEPHANIE BUTLER, Director, Operations/Outreach, Alaska
Postsecondary Education Commission (APEC), Department of
Education and Early Development (EED), began with the mission
statement for the Alaska Navigator: Statewide Workforce and
Education-Related Statistics (ANSWERS) project, which reads:
"Deliver outcomes information to Alaska stakeholders to assess,
evaluate, and improve the state's education and career
development spectrum." She said the outcomes should reflect
what is and what isn't working in the state education system,
and to better inform policy makers and stakeholders regarding
the various programs. The discussions to develop this system
began over a decade ago, and work began before grant money was
made available to move forward. Among the associated acronyms
applicable to the ANSWERS programs are the pre-school through
grade 20 and the workforce (P-20W) and the Statewide
Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) components. A federal grant of
$4 million was received over a three year period, beginning in
July, 2012, which will end in June of this year, 2015. Four
state organizations partnered to apply for the grant: the
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE), the
University of Alaska (UA), the Department of Education & Early
Development (EED), and the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWD). The goal of the collaboration has been to
aggregate the existing data, which each of these organizations
holds in independent silos, de-identify the information, and
link it together into a secure environment, for appropriate
access for measuring long term program outcomes.
8:10:16 AM
MS. BUTLER said ACPE has taken the lead in the project, acting
as manager and the fiscal agent. The commission has a long
standing interest in being able to assess the impact of
educational programs, and a statutory responsibility and
authority to coordinate these duties, but, until now, has lacked
the data to do so effectively; ANSWERS will remedy this
situation upon completion of the project. Relative to the ACPE
mission the project will provide answers to some of the basic
questions that are routinely received, such as what is working
and how to best deploy limited state resources. There is need
for this data, as it is easy to measure effort/funding that is
put into a given program. The SLDS program will transform the
input into measurable outcomes and provide details on
participation levels, long term impacts, and investment return.
She said a cross sector P-20W longitudinal data base will allow
the data, currently held in the participating agencies
independent silos, to be linked and accessed. She said caveats
to consider are: it will take time to build the system and
acquire data for meaningful analysis; and Alaska's approach to
de-identifying the data, which does not allow tracking of an
individual student. However, analysis based on averages will be
available and provide information regarding the success of
students who have attended a given program.
8:13:38 AM
MS. BUTLER continued to explain the emphasis that is placed on
the privacy and security of the data. She reported that some
states are allowing student identification numbers to be used by
teachers for tracking purposes; an approach that will not be
available in Alaska where analysis of average outcomes are the
focus. The project has six phases, she said, and only the
planning/preparation stage has been completed. The
infrastructure phase is on track, the development phase is in
full swing, and recent activities have centered on phase four,
the data reporting aspect. She noted that this relates to
constructing the system, not actual data reporting; no data has
been reported to date. The final phase, sustainability, has
been a key piece throughout the project, and will be further
discussed in wrap-up.
8:15:06 AM
MS. BUTLER described the objective for linking cross-sector data
in a transparent and secure manner, via means that will identify
the system costs, tracks information requests and responses, and
provide other user based details. Additional operating
principles are that data contributors own the input data, which
cannot be accessed without the source agencies knowledge and
guidance, and that the value of the data is increased via
transforming it into useful information versus data elements.
Finally, the ongoing system design is to be agile, flexible and
scalable to allow for increasingly useful information and report
effectively on return of investment analysis. Ms. Butler
explained the system parameters, beginning with the requirement
that input data be stripped of any personal identification
information (PII), including student identification or account
numbers, names, birth dates save month and year, and street
addresses. Current systems rely on this type of personal data
for transactional reporting of an individual student's credits,
loans and eligibility for programs. It would not be possible,
she pointed out, to use the existing data systems for the
purposes associated with ANSWERS. A new system is necessary to
handle data in PII format and to accommodate the multi-agency
structure. Another parameter is that the system will use sub-
sets of data from the cooperating agencies, not full sets;
ANSWERS is not a data dump and only data relevant to the
evaluation of educational program outcomes will be input. Also,
only cross-sector queries will be allowed, not those that could
be responded to by one of the partner agencies. The final
parameter ensures best practices for data handling throughout
the process of input, storage, and output.
8:19:05 AM
MS. BUTLER turned to the governance of the program and said it
is a three tiered structure supported by an executive board that
is responsible for all system authority and activities. The
executive board seats the ACPE Executive Director, the EED and
DOLWD commissioners, and the UA president. Each of these four
entities will appoint a project/data manager as information
stewards to guide the day to day activities and development.
These managers will access/establish implementation teams and
committees for purposes of research, technical, legal, and
program support. The final governance piece are the stakeholder
committees and advisors whose interests are key. She said there
is excitement in this group for the possibility of not only
knowing what goes into a program, but the measurable outcomes on
the investment. She referred to the 10 policy questions,
contained in the committee packet, and said that these
questions, approved by the policy board, were designed to
identify high-level informational needs, not currently available
without linking the data. The policy questions are also key to
filtering information input. If data is not relevant for
generating an answer to a policy question, it will not be
entered into the system. The policy questions can be amended,
however, the executive governance board must approve any change.
8:22:10 AM
MS. BUTLER detailed the privacy and security protocols and how
the system is designed to separate identifying information from
the incoming data. Security considerations include: data de-
identification, encryption, compartmentalization, system access
logging and auditing, and human resource restricted role-based
access. She reviewed a security diagram flow chart to explain
how data is received and moved through the system emphasizing
that controls exist on both the input and output levels. Ms.
Butler said questions have arisen regarding how other states
approach similar programs, and indicated that there are three
primary models being employed by the 47 states that are
implementing longitudinal data systems. One approach retains
identifiable information, allowing access to individual student
progress data. Another is the de-identified approach, which the
ANSWERS model is implementing. The third is a federated data
system in which data queries are able to access various agencies
source system records in order to respond to specific data
requests. She reported that a grant provided funding for a
project team to visit state's using a similar system and the
ANSWERS contingency traveled to Mississippi and Arkansas. She
provided internet links to the Mississippi and Arkansas
websites. The Mississippi website allows access to historical
trends, demographic reports, and averages for student
participation, progress and success K-20W, thus allowing
comparisons to other populations. Arkansas's SLDS model was
chosen as an example by the Alaskan team, for its leadership in
data de-identification and privacy protocols and standards.
8:28:59 AM
MS. BUTLER reviewed the costs and sustainability of the program,
stating that the goal is for the ANSWERS project management
office, currently administering the grant, to make a transition
into the program management office (PMO), for long term system
administration and maintenance. The three year incubation
period will be funded by the Alaska Student Loan Corporation
(ASLC), as part of the ACPE operating budget. The previously
reviewed privacy and security practices, as well as the
governance protocols will be retained under the PMO. The annual
program costs are projected to be $1.2 million, which has been
estimated without the knowledge of what the information demands
will actually be. Finally, she pointed out that the funding
model will require revisiting, following the initial three-year
start-up period. The goal of the incubation period is to be
able to demonstrate sufficient value of the ANSWERS products and
attract grants and additional long-term funding. Should the
program lack the ability to demonstrate usefulness, especially
to program directors and legislative policy makers, she said it
would not make sense to continue funding the program.
8:30:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the overview, page 9, to ask
about the PII process and if it was agreed to in the grant to
retain birth dates and zip codes.
MS. BUTLER said the grant application indicated that Alaska
would follow a de-identified model, without knowing exactly how
that would be accomplished. Relative to zip codes, the
addresses will not be stored. However, geocoding will be used
to identify various areas that the student may be associated
with for reporting purposes, such as school and legislative or
economic districts.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to a document titled, "GRANTS
FOR STATEWIDE, LONGITUDINAL DATA SYSTEMS, CFDA NUMBER: 84.372,
RELEASE DATE: September 15, 2011, REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS:
NCES 12-01, INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES," Page 3, and the
paragraph with the heading, "III. PURPOSE OF THE GRANT
PROGRAM," to paraphrase the language, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
The purpose of grants under this program is to enable
State educational agencies to design, develop, and
implement statewide, longitudinal data systems to
efficiently and accurately manage, analyze,
disaggregate, and use individual student data.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD pointed out the stipulation for the use
of individual data and asked for a response.
MS. BUTLER explained that individual data is in the data base
and aggregated when it is reported. She said:
To be very clear, individual student data is stored in
the data base. It is de-identified, but it is at the
unit level.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD inquired whether zip codes, plus four
digits, will be used.
MS. BUTLER replied, "No."
8:34:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD directed attention to the overview
handout, page 15, titled "Different State Approaches," to ask
about the reasoning behind the choice of a central database for
ANSWERS.
MS. BUTLER responded that it proved to be the most efficient
system, as opposed to a federated structure. A federated
structure requires accessing other state databases, which would
require making compatible changes each time an agency altered
their system, thus adding to the cost for system maintenance.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD questioned the acronym names of the
individual programs, and established that the P-20W SLDS
originated at the federal level to describe all of the projects
being taken up by the various states, and ANSWERS is the Alaskan
model being developed.
8:37:24 AM
CHAIR KELLER referred to the overview, page 10, titled
"Governance," and asked about public access to the Executive
Governance Board.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Alaska Postsecondary
Education Commission (APEC), Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), responded, stating that the ANSWERS program
is a bit of "an odd duck." She said it is a facilitated
program, which originated with an Administrative Order (AO)
[261], issued in 2011, by Governor Sean Parnell, directing the
named state agencies to work together and share information, to
the extent permitted by law, in order to evaluate the
effectiveness of state investment in programs. The governance
structure was developed pursuant to that order, which, in
accordance with the grant, would be under the direction of the
executives from the four agencies. The executives agreed to
operate on a consensus model. The development of the ANSWERS
system, and associated protocols, have been built via
interagency consensus. Regarding public input, she said,
recruitment is currently underway to hire a director, and whose
job description includes the solicitation, receipt, and
consideration of public comment.
CHAIR KELLER pointed out that Alaska's constitution has a right
to privacy clause and asked how concerns by the public will be
handled.
MS. BARRANS answered that a plain language description will be
made available to assist anyone who wants to understand what the
data is and what it means. The public will also have access to
what data requests that have been received, approved, researched
and reported on, as well as the resulting product. Further, she
confirmed that parents are considered stakeholders.
8:45:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested having the separate agencies de-
identify the data prior to submitting it to ANSWERS, thus,
relieving the commission of data security concerns. Further, he
asked why individual identifiers would be retained in the
system.
MS. BUTLER responded that once information is aggregated it
can't be re-sorted.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that if only anonymized data is
used to generate aggregated averages, what questions are
anticipated that would require individual data be retained and
cause the expressed security concerns.
MS. BARRANS explained that questions, such as what an
individuals' attachment is to the workforce one year or five
years after completing K-20, requires an identifiable unit
record.
8:50:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated a fundamental disagreement with
the ANSWERS program, as well as disappointment for the issuance
of AO 261 that Governor Parnell issued to collect the data, and
cited the Alaska State Constitution, Article 1, Section 22,
which reads: "The right of the people to privacy is recognized
and shall not be infringed. The legislature shall implement
this section." She said it is important for everyone to know
that the Online Alaska School Information System (OASIS) can be
used to identify individual house numbers by using the zip plus
four digit code. She asked whether there is a means for anyone
to opt-out of participation, and further, how the various
agencies are using the current data held in OASIS.
MS. BUTLER addressed the interoperability of the current data,
and said it is sourced via the OASIS, as a subset. Regarding
the question for opting out, she said there is not a provision
and the information is required. The structure of ANSWERS does
not provide an opt-out, due to the de-identification process.
8:53:21 AM
CHAIR KELLER questioned whether the requirement is based on the
state law that a district may not issue a diploma unless a
student has completed testing requirements. He asked by what
authority, in state and federal law, it is shown that opting out
is not an option. He opined that federal money, extended by way
of a grant, is done so for a specific purpose.
MS. BUTLER agreed to provide further information.
8:54:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarity regarding the lack of an
opt-out proviso to ask whether two data bases are being
established, one with identifiers, and one that is de-
identified.
MS. BUTLER explained that when the information is received, the
identifying aspects are removed in the system and held in one
location, while the informative data are directed to another
segment of the program.
MS. BARRANS added that there is a matching system in which the
student could be identified for future use, but it is not
accessible by staff. Further, this system does not contain
complete data. A random identifier, which does not reflect a
social security number, student identification, or birth date,
is assigned to the unit record and is what will be used to
produce program level reports. Thus, there is not a
comprehensive data base and a de-identified data base.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON continued to question how the identifier
number might be used.
MS. BUTLER described how random identifiers are assigned to
originating data upon arrival, and then personal identification
is stripped away. As additional information arrives on the same
individual, it is appended to the original information and
linked to the random identifier.
9:00:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether the school superintendents
understand this process, and have parents agreed to provide
student data for storage in this massive data base.
MS. BUTLER replied that informational meetings have been held
with the superintendents to explain how the data will be used,
and there is no mechanism for parents to opt-in or opt-out of
the system.
MS. BARRANS added that the APEC is not a data gathering agency,
but is acting as the managers for linking the data.
9:01:29 AM
CHAIR KELLER recalled supporting the initial concept for
gathering student information and making it accessible to
educators and legislators. The context of the original concept,
appears to have changed over time, however, and he expressed
concern for the direction that the program has taken in linking
the departments.
MS. BARRANS offered that a proof of concept order has been
completed, which has provided districts with a cross-sector,
postsecondary, outcome report in order to receive feedback from
the superintendents, thus testing the effectiveness and security
of the program and determining what data is most helpful.
9:04:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD inquired where the social security
numbers (SSNs) originate, if the source is linked to the
Permanent Fund Dividend, and whether there is a student clearing
house that allows the information to be shared across state
lines.
MS. BARRANS offered that the SSNs are sourced from two
locations: the work force, and the Permanent Fund data base.
Further, there is no state to state sharing of Alaskan data, but
some states do participate in that practice.
9:05:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the goal of the program is
clear and easy to support, and should prove to be an asset for
making decisions. However, the pre-kindergarten component will
be limited considering that private facilities outnumber public
pre-kindergarten programs and asked how this will be handled.
Additionally, he questioned how variances will be applied when
tracking grade students through college/workforce years and
reporting on averages.
MS. BUTLER agreed that the pre-kindergarten data will be
relatively small and primarily available from Head Start
programs. Regarding the average population reports, it is
anticipated that, over time, useful answers will be available,
such as regression analysis.
9:09:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND opined that for students attending
private or home school, the corresponding data would not be
included.
MS. BUTLER pointed out that if a home school or correspondence
report is made to EED the information will be included, such as
students being reported for APS eligibility. She agreed that
data on a sector of home and private school students would not
be captured.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted the limited information available
on pre-kindergarten programs, due to the lack of state operated
facilities.
9:12:51 AM
CHAIR KELLER opined that parents who home school, without
receiving state support, are effectively opting out of the
system. On inquiry, he received confirmation of this
assumption.
9:13:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER returned to the question of using SSNs and
asked if that is how the data is primarily tracked.
MS. BUTLER explained that a number of different identifiers are
used for linking purposes, one of which is the SSN; the only
identifier on a DOLWD data set is the SSN.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked what process could be used to allow
students to opt-out and if a statute or regulation would be
needed to allow for that action. Additionally, he cautioned
that data breeches occur and the opportunity exists for putting
private information at risk. If the state can analyze data
without using the SSN, it would be a great privacy practice on
behalf of EED, he opined.
MS. BUTLER offered to provide further information regarding a
means to opt-out of using the SSN as an identifier.
9:16:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD expressed interest in instituting an
opt-in, versus opt-out approach. Also, use of the SSN presents
a concern, and she asked for further information regarding its
use as an identifier, as well as information regarding the use
of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), or
other systems, which may require data to cross state lines.
MS. BARRANS responded that ANSWERS will not be interoperable
with the national student clearing house system. Data is
downloaded from the clearing house regarding where Alaskan
students attend postsecondary programs outside of the state, in
order to follow APS recipients and track out migration.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD maintained concern for the transfer of
data across state lines, and the assurance that it will be
protected. She referred to a committee handout, titled "FACT
SHEET: UNLOCKING THE POWER OF EDUCATION DATA FOR ALL AMERICANS,
Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the
President, January 19, 2012," and urged members to explore the
searchable link labeled "education.data.gov," and the "MyData
Button." She explained that a "PowerSchool" student information
system is a portal to student information and ties into the
application programming interface (API), then asked if the
commission is aware of these programs.
MS. BARRANS said the PowerSchool program is not relevant to the
discussion, nor does the commission hold any expertise regarding
that program, only a passing knowledge that it is a school level
or district based data management system.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked what interaction ANSWERS will have
with the federal government, particularly any requirements tied
to the grant.
MS. BARRANS said the data base is not designed to interact with
the federal government at all. Rather it is designed expressly
to provide Alaska a means to analyze outcomes of in-state
educational/training programs. Additionally, she categorically
stated that there is no intent, nor design, to share data across
state lines. It is designed by, and for the use of, Alaskans to
understand how effective and efficient the programs are that are
offered to train workers for communities around the state.
9:22:09 AM
CHAIR KELLER queried whether a statement of intent would be in
order.
MS. BARRANS agreed that a statutory prohibition against sharing
the ANSWERS data to the federal government would be reasonable.
9:22:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated that ANSWERS is federally funded,
and returned to the cited grant, directing attention to page 12,
Roman numeral IX, titled "SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS," to paraphrase
from the language, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Applicants should budget for travel and accommodations
for two senior project staff to attend a two-day
meeting each year in Washington, DC with other
grantees and Institute staff to discuss
accomplishments, problems encountered, and possible
solutions/improvements.
MS. BARRANS concurred that it is a federally funded project and
there is a goal for having data that can be compared state to
state to arrive at national averages. Different designs
comprise the individual state longitudinal data systems, with
the goal of analyzing comparable information, but not sharing of
data across state lines. States are able to measure their own
performance and determine how that compares with another state.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD recalled the APS being established with
the passage of SB 221, and asked if data base requirements were
part of that legislation.
MS. BARRANS said the only relevance is the statutory requirement
for the commission to report the APS outcomes on an annual
basis. The agencies required to comply in that analysis are the
UA, DLWD, EED, and ACPE.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the NCLB waiver and asked if
the P-20W was required as part of that application.
MS. BARRANS deferred.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD established that ACPE is not aware of an
organization named McKinsey & Company. Through further inquiry,
the cost for operating ANSWERS was stated by Ms. Barrans to be
estimated at $1 million per year.
9:27:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that eventually, regression analysis
could prove helpful to the committee for setting stated
education policy. The ASNWERS policy questions, included in the
overview, do not appear to include information that will provide
the legislature with relevant answers for statutory action. He
said it would be helpful to have questions that are relevant to
the legislature and to know the time frame that will be
required, to obtain meaningful results for the committees
review.
MS. BUTLER explained the policy questions are a high level
framework, under which research questions of the type the member
has described could also be entertained, and she agreed to
provide further information.
9:30:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD indicated interest in gaining further
information regarding the governance team, and any interactions
that the commission has with the [Institute for Educational
Statistics] (IES), at USDOE.
MS. BUTLER said that IES is charged with management of the grant
program for the USDOE. A monthly meeting is held with the IES
and the governance team to report on grant progress, and, as
noted by the member, attendance is required for the annual best
practices conference in Washington, D.C.
MS. BARRANS reiterated the seats held on the governance team by
the participating agencies. Additionally, these members are
supported by stewards who are experts in their fields for data
submission and technical knowledge. The stewards act as
advisors and review all actions for administrative benefit. She
said that these are the individuals who are ultimately
responsible for the data being input and analysis reports
generated.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that the governance document
indicates that metadata, from external sources, will be added by
private vendors. What will be added to the data base and how
will it be monitored, she asked.
MS. BUTLER responded that the external information would be an
appending of descriptive data to the actual data elements and
the contractor is creating place holders in the infrastructure
to flag the metadata input. To a follow-up questions, she said
GeoNorth is the contractor building the system and that she is
not familiar with the Master Pearson Index.
9:35:48 AM
CHAIR KELLER asked whether GeoNorth is an Alaska based company.
MS. BUTLER answered, "Yes."
9:36:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD questioned the commission's authority to
track the educational information on Alaska's children.
MS. BARRANS responded that of particular interest, on the part
of the commission, is to assess the effectiveness of the
education being offered in the state, to the extent that school
districts are informed of how well students are being prepared
for the work force and continued learning. The leadership at UA
is concerned about what the return on investment the state is
getting as well as individual students. Analyzing the outcomes
can inform improvements to educational programs, which should be
of interest to society as a whole.
9:37:28 AM
CHAIR KELLER commented that the legislature has a vested
interest in ensuring a return on investment in education and the
evolution of this process will have stemmed from that need.
MS. BARRANS added that concerning the return on investment, the
most important recipient of an improved educational system are
the children that come next. She said it is part of the state's
responsibility to identify system deficiencies to the benefit of
individual Alaskans.
CHAIR KELLER directed attention to the overview, page 3, titled
"Why ACPE," to note that ANSWERS is being developed pursuant to
AS 14.42.030, which is a broad authority.
MS. BARRANS agreed, and added that for over 20 years, questions
have been asked by the legislature which have not been
answerable, resulting in frustration, which has been part of the
impetus for the partnering of the agencies around this project.
9:39:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD expressed that it is the responsibility
of the parents and students to track and evaluate their
information. She opined that establishing and funding this type
of data base is not a good use of state money, which should be
directed to the classroom. The focus should be excellence in
education by providing resources in the classroom and empowering
the parents, rather than tracking, data mining, and social
engineering, she stressed. The legislature is taking the wrong
direction in this case, and she maintained her concern for the
costs, the data usage, and the constitutional responsibilities
held by members.
CHAIR KELLER responded to Representative Reinbold, stating that
what is before the committee is not based on a conspiracy
theory. Collection of information is currently rampant in
today's society and often provides benefit, such as frequent
shopper discount cards. To stop the entire ANSWERS project
would not be in keeping with the current flow of information,
and to cease and desist would not be productive; providing
sideboards could be in order. It is appropriate to understand
why an opt-out measure has not been included, and perhaps DOL
will provide that answer, he said.
9:42:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND opined that accountability is what
continues to arise, and the ANSWERS database will provide that
needed oversight. Additionally, having the ability to do
regression studies may be helpful in alleviating the cost of
corrections in the state.
9:43:58 AM
CHAIR KELLER qualified a previous statement, clarifying that the
process of collecting data is not endorsed by the chair;
however, it may not be an option to change direction at this
time, and creating sideboards may be the best direction for the
committee to choose.
9:45:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded committee members that the
collection of data is not occurring, the databases already exist
in various agencies, schools, and districts. The ANSWERS system
creates an amalgamation of previously collected data into an
accessible, reportable format. He predicted that the
amalgamated data will benefit the legislators by providing a
means to identify and act on the most cost effective programs.
He reminded the committee of the repercussions for not meeting
NCLB or waiver requirements and the inherent federal funding
that would be redirected by failing to act in a timely manner to
ensure compliance. Additionally, the requirement for teacher
evaluations to be based on student performance is of concern.
CHAIR KELLER agreed with the member and thanked the day's
participants, then announced the upcoming meeting.
9:49:16 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:50 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|