04/26/2024 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB29 | |
| Presentation(s): Education Assessment Results | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 26, 2024
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jamie Allard, Co-Chair
Representative Justin Ruffridge, Co-Chair
Representative Mike Prax
Representative CJ McCormick
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Andi Story
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 29(FIN)
"An Act relating to civics education, civics assessments, and
secondary school graduation requirements; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 29(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PRESENTATION(S): EDUCATION ASSESSMENT RESULTS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 29
SHORT TITLE: CIVICS EDUCATION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STEVENS
01/18/23 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/23
01/18/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/23 (S) EDC, FIN
02/22/23 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/22/23 (S) Heard & Held
02/22/23 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/06/23 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/06/23 (S) Moved CSSB 29(EDC) Out of Committee
03/06/23 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/08/23 (S) EDC RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
03/08/23 (S) DP: TOBIN, BJORKMAN, GRAY-JACKSON,
STEVENS, KIEHL
03/14/23 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/14/23 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/23 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/18/23 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/18/23 (S) Moved CSSB 29(FIN) Out of Committee
04/18/23 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/24/23 (S) FIN RPT CS 4DP 1NR NEW TITLE
04/24/23 (S) DP: STEDMAN, KIEHL, MERRICK, BISHOP
04/24/23 (S) NR: OLSON
05/05/23 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/05/23 (S) VERSION: CSSB 29(FIN)
05/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/08/23 (H) EDC, FIN
03/27/24 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/27/24 (H) Heard & Held
03/27/24 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/26/24 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM LAMKIN, Staff
Senator Gary Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the changes to CSSB 29(FIN),
proposed under the House committee substitute, Version Y, on
behalf of Senator Stevens, prime sponsor.
PAUL FUHS, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 29.
ALEX KOPLIN, representing self
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 29.
KATHY MOFFITT, Director
Division of Innovation and Education Excellence
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled
"Education Assessment Results."
KELLY MANNING, Deputy Director
Division of Innovation and Education Excellence
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled
"Education Assessment Results."
ELIZABETH GRENINGER, Assessments Administrator
Division of Innovation and Education Excellence
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled
"Education Assessment Results."
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:12 AM
CO-CHAIR JAMIE ALLARD called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives Prax,
McCormick, McKay, Himschoot, Story, Allard, and Ruffridge were
present at the call to order.
SB 29-CIVICS EDUCATION
8:05:27 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 29(FIN), "An Act relating to civics
education, civics assessments, and secondary school graduation
requirements; and providing for an effective date."
8:06:24 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE moved to adopt the proposed House committee
substitute (HCS) for CSSB 29(FIN), Version 33-LS0246\Y, A.
Radford/Bergerud, 4/23/24, as the working document.
8:06:38 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:06 a.m. to 8:07 a.m.
8:07:16 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:07:57 AM
TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, presented the changes to CSSB 29(FIN), proposed
under the House committee substitute, Version Y, on behalf of
Senator Stevens, prime sponsor. He noted that the four changes
in the House committee substitute (CS) incorporated amendments
previously discussed with each committee member and their staff.
8:10:09 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked whether committee members had comments
before public testimony.
8:10:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT observed that the fiscal note was from
2023 and questioned whether it was still current.
MR. LAMKIN affirmed that the fiscal note should be consistent
due to the bill not having much activity since last year;
however, Version Y could possibly result in an adjusted fiscal
note.
8:11:02 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:11 a.m.
8:11:26 AM
MR. LAMKIN, in response to further request for clarification
from Representative Himschoot, said the most current fiscal note
was dated January 10, 2024, and reflected a $276,000 fiscal
note, which was consistent with what was reported out of the
Senate Finance Committee last year.
8:12:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought clarity regarding a requirement
under Version Y regarding "either has achieved a passing score"
or "completed a project-based assessment" when she observed from
reading the bill language that it seemed like "you must do all"
rather than "either/or."
MR. LAMKIN pointed out that page 61, subsection (c), of the
Manual of Legislative Drafting, published by Legislative Legal
Services, referenced the use of words and phrases such as
"and/or" as being too ambiguous.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated that she would like the "memo on
that" when Mr. Lamkin can provide it.
8:13:53 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:13 a.m. to 8:14 a.m.
8:14:59 AM
MR. LAMKIN confirmed that the document is available on the
Alaska State Legislature website under publications.
8:15:50 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE removed his objection to the motion to adopt
the proposed House committee substitute (HCS) for CSSB 29(FIN),
Version 33-LS0246\Y, A. Radford/Bergerud, 4/23/24, as the
working document. There being no further objection, Version Y
was before the committee.
8:16:23 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:16 a.m. to 8:22 a.m.
8:22:17 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD opened public testimony on SB 29.
8:22:44 AM
PAUL FUHS, representing self, testified in support of SB 29. He
stressed his belief that it was important for kids to understand
the civic structure of the state and what it means to them. He
noted the importance of all resources in the state and how they
affect the future should also be understood. He said the
information children are getting currently is not correct;
recent polls showed that children are misinformed.
8:26:13 AM
ALEX KOPLIN, representing self, stated that he was still trying
to figure out the final bill and that he supported civics
education but had concern with the amendments. He said he
supported the alternatives proposed, but in some areas, he
questioned why the proposals would be in a civics bill and not
some other area. He shared his concern that he did not think he
could get behind the bill until he saw a final version.
8:28:26 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD, after ascertaining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 29.
8:28:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Version Y.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY objected for purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX explained that Conceptual Amendment 1
proposes a title change related to environmental and sustainable
resource development education and inserts a new section on page
2, line 11. He further explained that it adds the words
"environmental and sustainable development" so that sustainable
development is added into the education curriculum as Mr. Fuhs
had alluded to in his testimony.
8:30:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK provided his perspective on the
amendment and reflected on a comment made by Mr. Fuhs about a
lack of resource development leading to boarding schools. He
added that the children who were forcibly removed from their
homes to be put in boarding schools were used for unpaid labor
in resource development, which he said he wanted to correct for
the record. He related that he appreciated the sentiment in the
amendment, but in the scope of civics, he opined it "flies way
out of the lane" of what a civics education should be trying to
accomplish. He concluded that he appreciated the dialogue but
would not support the amendment.
8:32:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred to the fiscal note to help develop
civics education, but there was another topic presented with
Version Y which she said may add to the existing fiscal note.
She suggested to consider another bill in another session due to
a bigger fiscal note and not much more room in the budget. She
confirmed she did not support the amendment.
8:33:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT referenced her time as a teacher and
that she was involved in an environmental literacy program which
involved natural resources. She said she saw a connection to
civics due to the word "history" being used, and although she
saw value, she said she would welcome a different bill on a
different day and that it strays from the original intent of the
civics education bill. She said she supported the amendment but
opined it does not fit with "what we are doing today."
8:34:37 AM
MR. LAMKIN said he appreciated the dialogue and shared with the
committee that Senator Stevens had worked on the subject matter
[in the bill] extensively. Mr. Lamkin gave a definition of
civics from a "Google" search and said it ducktails with public
policy which included things such as natural resource
development. It is, however, a departure from the bill and he
spoke on behalf of Senator Stevens that he would not support the
amendment.
8:36:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said he appreciated recent comments and that
the CS could be included in another bill; therefore, he [moved]
to withdraw the Conceptual Amendment 1. [There being no
objection, it was so ordered.]
8:37:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, to
delete lines 1 through 11 on page 2 of Version Y.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:38:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX acknowledged previous comments made that the
bill is a civics bill and not a history bill. The removal of
lines 1 through 11 would take out the study of other systems of
government that are listed. He noted the importance of the
systems, but he opined that they belong in a history curriculum
as opposed to a civics curriculum.
8:40:08 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD offered her support to include all areas of the
curriculum; therefore, she opposed Conceptual Amendment 2.
8:41:05 AM
MR. LAMKIN reiterated that civics by definition is a study of
the rights, privileges, and duties of citizenship within a
system of government. He said Senator Stevens supported
maintaining the language in the bill.
8:41:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMICK asked why other systems of government
are not included.
MR. LAMKIN added that [subsection (b), in Section 1 of Version
Y] is a short list that could be a long list, and in [subsection
(a)] the language was crafted to include comparative systems of
government.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Conceptual Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT objected.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY expounded that he is a no-vote because the
bill sponsor prefers to leave the section in.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that the more the bill is
expanded, the greater the burden on schools to make sure that
they are staying within the exact letter of the law. She
offered her support for the removal of the language.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY mirrored what Mr. Lamkin said, that on page
1, line 7, there are comparative systems of government included,
therefore, it does not need to be "spelled out" in an amendment.
8:45:15 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:45 a.m. to 8:46 a.m.
8:46:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT withdrew her objection.
8:47:06 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Prax and McCormick
voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 2 to Version Y of SB 29.
Representatives Story, McKay, Himschoot, and Allard voted
against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 failed by a vote
of 2-4.
8:47:55 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:47 a.m. to 8:50 a.m.
8:50:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY moved to report HCS CSSB 29(FIN), Version
33-LS0246\Y, A. Radford/Bergerud, 4/23/24, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HCS CSSB 29(EDC) was reported out of
the House Education Standing Committee.
8:50:43 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:50 a.m. to 8:56 a.m.
^PRESENTATION(S): Education Assessment Results
PRESENTATION(S): Education Assessment Results
8:56:08 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the final order of business would
be the Education Assessment Results presentation.
8:56:56 AM
KATHY MOFFITT, Director, Division of Innovation and Education
Excellence, Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED), informed the committee that she would turn the
presentation over to Ms. Manning but that she would be available
for questions any time.
8:57:19 AM
KELLY MANNING, Deputy Director, Division of Innovation and
Education Excellence, Department of Education and Early
Development, as co-presenter, began a PowerPoint [hardcopy
included in the committee packet] to share the 2022 to 2023
assessment results. On slide 2, titled "Mission, Vision, and
Purpose," she highlighted that the assessment team focused on
the purpose of DEED, which is to provide information, resources,
and leadership to support an excellent education for every
student every day. The team serves as support and technical
assistance to districts in administering statewide assessments,
she explained. She moved to slide 3, titled "Strategic
Priorities: Alaska's Education Challenge," and illustrated that
the assessment information the department gleans is helpful in
providing guidance and support to districts in how to address
the five shared priorities, in particular, areas that are
informed by the academic results from the assessments. She
showed slides 4 through 7, titled "Statewide Assessments," which
featured various assessments.
9:01:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY drew attention to slide 5, which referred
to a "sample of students" under the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) and asked for an elaboration about
the students who were included. She further asked whether the
Alaska Developmental Profile (ADP) had been received this year.
MS. MANNING confirmed that the department had administered the
ADP and provided a broader report to the legislature and that
she would follow up. She directed Representative Story's first
inquiry to Ms. Greninger.
9:02:37 AM
ELIZABETH GRENINGER, Assessments Administrator, Division of
Innovation and Education Excellence, Department of Education and
Early Development, addressed Representative Story and explained
that NAEP is not administered to a broad range of students in
the state; it is a sample that selects specific districts that
are chosen by each administration of NAEP, and students within
those districts are sampled from that selection. She said the
parameters could be provided at a later date.
9:03:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT observed that NAEP also tested in
science, and she asked why.
MS. MANNING replied that DEED had looked at the science NAEP
assessment and began looking at how to assess students
differently and evaluate their ability to apply their skills.
She further explained the department chose not to continue to
assess in science, but to evaluate from time to time.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that the state should be
participating in opportunities to know how much kids know in
science to strengthen the state.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD agreed.
9:05:11 AM
MS. MANNING continued to expound on assessments, and she
explained that DEED implemented the newest assessment for the
state which is the screener of literacy skills called Dynamic
Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), as shown on
slide 7. She said in almost all districts there is an option to
use a different screener, but most have used the statewide
provided screener, which is DIBELS.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD circled back to Representative Himschoot's
comment on the science assessment and asked her to elaborate.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT clarified that NAEP offered a science
assessment, and then there is the Alaska state science
assessment. She said NAEP is a national test.
MS. MANNING restated an earlier discussion provided by Ms.
Greninger.
9:07:37 AM
MS. GRENINGER said that the only additional piece she would add
is that some of the decisions were predated to her time at the
department and she noted going over feedback considering the
statewide perspective and what is required of districts and
students.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD offered her understanding that if there is too
much time spent testing, then students are actually not
learning, and this is something that must be worked through.
9:09:17 AM
MS. MANNING advanced to slide 8, which featured AK STAR,
summative assessment and MAP Growth, interim assessment. She
highlighted the image of the umbrella on the slide addressing
the new system incorporating the two. The new system reduces
testing time while providing DEED with additional data, she
said.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY acknowledged that that evolved through much
hard work from DEED and was quite an accomplishment, and now
Alaska is being "looked at."
9:12:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the goal of the tests was to
compare school performance and district performance to national
standards.
MS. MANNING replied that each assessment has a different
purpose, and they are being looked at to how Alaska compares to
national students. She expounded on AK STAR and the numbers of
different ways to look at data and compare student performance.
9:15:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said he brought it up because it is
difficult for parents who are not day to day immersed in what
DEED is trying to accomplish, and whether parents should be
reaching out to other entities to help figure out what they are
supposed to learn or do in response to the "information out
there."
MS. MOFFIT commented that Representative Prax had good points
and there is a lot of work being done to address his concerns.
She said that Ms. Greninger and her team have elaborated on
information that is available on DEED's website, and in
addition, there are district test coordinators who are the
conduit from the work her team is doing down to the districts.
9:17:41 AM
MS. GRENINGER added that her favorite part of the work that DEED
is doing is assessment literacy, which is a term intended to
help all states, families, students, and policy makers
understand what assessments are intended to do and the results
they produce. She provided examples of communications to
families and that a "tool kit" has been developed, and she
assured that DEED is trying to be as transparent as possible
with families. She spoke briefly to the reporting to
stakeholders.
9:20:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT offered her belief that the fundamental
function of NAEP is to explore at a federal level where
funding needs to be directed to support students who might be
underachieving as compared to other students.
MS. MANNING said she agreed that was accurate, and she added
that NAEP also provides information about subgroups and their
performance across national standards.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed that it would be beneficial
to talk about summative, formative, and interim [assessments].
Families need to understand what assessments are about, she
opined.
9:23:33 AM
MS. GRENINGER explained that formative assessments are those
that happen in real-time in the classroom and include what
teachers are doing day to day. Interim assessments include MAP
Growth across the state done in key points during the
instructional period. The summative assessment is used at the
end of a period of instruction, such as at the end of the school
year, she said. She shared that she could follow up with
additional webinar resources and documents on DEED's website and
could work with vendors to develop future presentations.
9:27:55 AM
MS. MANNING advanced to slide 9, titled "AK STAR Development
Process," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Spring 2022: Administered AK STAR and MAP Growth as
two separate assessments. Data supported alignment and
setting of initial cut scores.
Spring 2023: Administered AK STAR and MAP Growth as
one aligned assessment. Data used for validation study
of initial cut scores.
Summer 2023: Policy Review Committee evaluated
validation study findings and refined the cut scores.
Winter 2024: State Board of Education approved final
cut scores.
9:31:06 AM
MS. MOFFITT acknowledged that Ms. Manning described the
processes very well, and she further defined that the cut scores
are the scale scores that sit between the level of proficiency,
and not an exact science, but take a lot of work. She said
after the validation study, it was determined that the cut
scores warranted further review. She proceeded to slide 10
which showed an AK STAR Linking Study from Sept 2022 with a MAP
Growth Reading chart. She moved through slides 11 through 17,
which featured the case of "Andy," a third grader. She
explained averages and ranges of growth for students and how it
related to cut scores. She said therein lies the need for the
policy review and she recognized that the charts are "busy," and
one piece of data at a time could not be done.
9:35:46 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked whether standards had been lowered.
MS. MOFFITT affirmed that standards were not lowered but
measured to where "we need to be."
[Co-Chair Allard welcomed Co-Chair Ruffridge back to the
meeting.]
9:36:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked for more clarity for understanding the
materials and stated that he was unclear on the explanations
provided.
MS. MOFFITT replied that DEED had to share the information with
all superintendents and stakeholders across the state. She
pointed out an "excellent video" that explained the adjustment
to the cut scores in relation to the perception that standards
were being lowered.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD requested that the video be shown to the
committee in the future with a presentation to follow.
9:39:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT opined that the graph report for
parents out of MAP Growth was helpful in the way it was
designed. She stated that it was helpful for people to have an
understanding of the change in the cut scores.
MS. MOFFITT confirmed that parents love MAP Growth. She added
that she would be willing to do a presentation specifically on
MAP Growth.
9:41:09 AM
MS. MOFFITT quickly moved through slides 18, titled "Achievement
Levels," and 19, which showed a circle graph of AK STAR English
Language Arts achievement for grades three through nine.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE sought to understand whether the pie charts
are with the new cut of the scores.
MS. MOFFITT confirmed that was correct.
9:42:11 AM
MS MOFFITT proceeded to slide 20, which showed a line graph of
what was featured on the previous slide, but by grade level.
She expounded upon the percentages on the graph.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred to the requirements in the Alaska
Reads Act, that parents need to decide if they want to promote
their child or not, and she sought clarity on what the 72
percent on the chart represented as for supports.
MS. MOFFITT responded that as the year progresses, what guides
the work throughout the year is the interim assessment, DIBEL.
She explained that it is used as a screening tool, and based on
that, the individual reading improvement plans are written. She
said the chart represents a baseline looking for trends and what
is working well or not.
9:45:01 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE inquired whether the connection between the
yearly assessments correlate with AK STAR to determine if they
meet the requirements of testing criteria.
MS. MOFFITT said she appreciated the inquiry and explained that
the nature of the assessments are different. DIBELs is one-
minute building and measuring discreet skills, and she said
there is research that the one-minute probe correlates to
comprehension. She gave an example of an individual and what
tools teachers use to ensure students are ready. She noted that
it is DEED's baseline year.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE asked, throughout the formative year, how
many students by percentage needed individualized reading plans.
MS. MOFFITT responded that she could get back to the committee
with exact numbers.
9:48:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked what a normal expectation was for
the percentage of students in the advanced range, and she
further inquired whether other states have roughly 10 percent of
students testing as advanced.
MS. MOFFITT replied that that is something that must be
researched.
9:49:27 AM
MS. MOFFITT moved through slides 21 and 22, which continued
featuring achievement level percentages for grades three through
nine.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE asked whether there is a correlation between
students who are successful in reading by third grade equated
with skills in, for example, mathematics.
MS. GRENINGER responded that she did not know exact numbers on
the correlation in student performance; however, information
gleaned through test development activity over time around the
way math and science are being assessed is that there is an
element in the standards that is very "reading heavy."
9:53:46 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE referred back to previous conversation and
asked Ms. Greninger what she meant by "giving students below
grade-level information."
MS. GRENINGER clarified that it was specifically about the
expectation for reading level. She spoke of metrics that help
define the information students read and what grade level that
fits at, and there is analysis that defines at each grade level
what "on-grade level" reading is.
9:56:32 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE offered his understanding that when taking a
math or science proficiency exam, the reading content of that
exam is written at a third-grade level when the student is in
the fifth grade.
MS. GRENINGER responded that DEED is working toward ensuring
that the assessment reflects the expectation that students are
not only seeing grade level reading material. She said this is
an area the department is working on.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE gave an example of when one is taking a math
or science proficiency exam that the reading component of that
exam is at a lower grade level, and he asked whether that was a
fair statement.
MS. GRENINGER said currently it is at grade level or lower. She
reiterated the efforts are to ensure it is at a grade level
accessible for all students.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE explained his question was if assessments are
heavily reading focused, in general, whether success in reading
results in better performance in math or science.
MS. MOFFITT replied yes, on a general level, and she offered to
provide a follow-up at a later date. She further noted that
presenting words to a child that they are unfamiliar with may
show how a child solves problems in other subjects.
10:01:55 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE commented that in math and science, the words
that are used matter. A child in third grade should know some
of the words Ms. Moffitt used as an example. He requested the
follow-up that was offered earlier.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD requested that the presenters return to continue
the conversation.
10:03:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT observed that what is missing in the
presentation is the history of testing in Alaska for the last
decade. She spoke to prior assessments and the changes that
have occurred, and she stressed that the changes cannot be
overlooked.
10:05:14 AM
MS. MOFFITT quickly moved through slides 23 and 24 which
represented proficiency in science in grades 5 through 8. She
thanked committee members for their time and insisted that she
would follow up as was noted in the discussion.
10:06:46 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:07 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 29 - Civics - Bill Text version Y 4.23.24.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| CS SB29 Summary of Changes R to Y.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB0029C.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| (H)EDC DEED Education Assessment Results in Alaska 4-26-2024.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM |
|
| SB 29 Research Recent Polling on Civics Education 02.04.2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SEDC 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Research Summary Conclusions 02.04.2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SEDC 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Research UNH What Is Civic Education 02.04.2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SEDC 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM SFIN 3/14/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Research What Other States Are Doing 02.04.2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SEDC 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Sectional Analysis Version A 02.04.2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SEDC 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Sponsor Statement 03.04.2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SEDC 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM SFIN 3/14/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Version A 02.04.2023.PDF |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SEDC 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Fiscal Note GOV-LTG 02.17.2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SEDC 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Research List of Online Resources 02.20.2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SEDC 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Research US Citizenship Civics Test 02.20.2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SEDC 2/22/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Fiscal Note GOV-LTG 02.17.2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 CS Version S 03.06.2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SEDC 3/6/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Summary of Changes Version A to S 03.06.2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SEDC 3/6/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB029_Civics_Sectional_version U.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Sponsor Statement 1.30.23.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Summary-of-Changes version A to U.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Research What Research Says About Solutions Jan 2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Research UNH What Is Civic Education 4.8.22.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Research The-Civics-Test Feb 2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Research Sample List of Online Resources Feb 2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Research NCSL-Civic Learning Week March 2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Research Recent Polling 2.1.23.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Research AK Current Standards Govt and Citizenship.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Version R Summary of Changes.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SFIN 4/18/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 work draft version R.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM SFIN 4/18/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Sectional version R.pdf |
HEDC 3/27/2024 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| R.5 (002).pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM |
Prax Amendment |
| CSSB29 Gov Ofc fiscal note 1.11.24.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| CSSB29 DEED fiscal note 1.10.24.pdf |
HEDC 4/26/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |