02/23/2006 11:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB364 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 364 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
February 23, 2006
11:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Bill Thomas
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Les Gara
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 364
"An Act relating to a public school performance incentive
program; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 364
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL PERFORMANCE BONUSES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/13/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/13/06 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
02/23/06 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
ROGER SAMPSON, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information on the public school
performance incentive program proposed in HB 364.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR MARK NEUMAN called the House Special Committee on
Education meeting to order at 11:09:03 AM. Representatives
Neuman and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Salmon and Thomas arrived as the meeting was in
progress. Representative Gatto was excused.
HB 364-SCHOOL PERFORMANCE BONUSES
11:09:32 AM
CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 364, "An Act relating to a public school
performance incentive program; and providing for an effective
date." He relayed today's hearing was an informational one
only. He said he had sent out a survey to all the Alaska school
districts and received "a pretty good response ... [which was]
somewhat split."
11:10:22 AM
ROGER SAMPSON, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), informed the committee that his presentation
would focus on the differences between this incentive program
and the many that have been attempted previously throughout the
country with limited success. He highlighted that the program
proposed in HB 364 would pay for improved student performance
above and beyond one year's worth of growth and involves the
entire staff of the school, including administrators,
certificated teachers, and "non-certificated" employees such as
nurses, secretaries, and custodians. He noted that the program
is based on the student's individual growth, not a predetermined
percentile or ranking, and it compares the progress of the same
student from the previous year to the current year.
Additionally, he said that all schools that participate in the
annual spring testing would be eligible to participate in the
incentive program. A further benefit, he noted, is that the
instrument used to measure a student's growth is one already in
place - the Standards Based Assessments (SBA) given statewide to
grades 3-10 - and given in April of each year. He then
identified distinct benefits from the state's perspective which
include: it has a guaranteed outcome; it's a no-risk program
which does not obligate or cost the state or legislature should
goals not be reached; it enhances the workforce and may enhance
the state's teacher recruitment efforts as well; it adds to the
accountability [of schools] by directly linking higher levels of
performance with achievement and compensation; it promotes
collaboration, effective instruction, and spreads the
responsibility across all content areas and all grade levels;
and it ensures that instruction is focused around the specific
needs of students.
11:14:14 AM
CHAIR NEUMAN asked Commissioner Sampson to address the
challenges many of the rural Alaskan schools face regarding
teacher retention and the concern those schools have that
teacher recruitment efforts are more successful with the better
performing schools.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON explained that the "playing field" is
leveled and no advantage is given to those schools with either
higher or lower performing students, with higher or lower
numbers of disabilities, rural versus urban, or large versus
small. He said he could provide an example of a school in which
every student is performing at the lowest level of all six
performance levels and that school would still have an equal
opportunity to receive the incentive. He addressed the
misconception that this [incentive program] would add to the
current "flight syndrome" of school selection from rural to
urban, or other deciding factors, and opined that the program
would not add to this trend. Returning to his presentation, he
highlighted the expected outcomes of the program, which include
spreading the ownership and responsibility across all staff and
said:
One of the things that's loud and clear ... is our
teachers are working very, very hard in our schools.
We're not suggesting that they're not working hard,
but this is an incentive for them to consider working
differently and to embrace some different strategies
that haven't been used before and to build some
partnerships that have not been developed at this
point. It's about looking at the needs of each
student instead of teaching to the general middle.
Let's find out what the needs of each student are and
deliver instruction around those needs.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON explained that another expected outcome of
the program is to expand the responsibility of reading, writing,
and mathematics to all staff. He said that the percentage of
those in the state, as well as the country, who are responsible
for teaching those subjects in high school, is 15 percent.
However, this incentive program, he clarified, expands the
responsibility to include all staff as responsible for student
learning in all three subjects regardless of whether a teacher's
course subject directly affects adequate yearly progress (AYP)
or not.
11:18:51 AM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON relayed that 20 years of other school,
school district, and public sector institution models were
examined to learn why each met with minimal success or failed
entirely. He said it was determined that this minimal success
or failure was due to several facts: the playing field wasn't
level because the models weren't based on student growth,
thereby higher performing schools were given an advantage; in
some cases the targets were set so unrealistically high it
discouraged participation entirely; there was conflict among
staff because most incentive models are designed such that one
staff member has to lose in order for another to gain the
incentive; building administrators were excluded; the measuring
instrument was not reliable nor consistently applied;
compensation was not large enough to incentivize staff to
changing their practices; and because "whoever was moving the
model forward - the school district, the legislature, the
building principal, the private sector - the commitment wasn't
strong enough ...."
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS expressed concern that should there be a
change in the administration to one "not as enthused [with the
incentive program]," then the program might fail.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON opined that clear, written regulations
would ensure this doesn't happen. He then directed the
committee's attention to the "Value Table," which he referred to
as "the heart" of the whole plan. He explained that the reason
they established six levels of measurable performance, shown on
the table, was to create enough levels whereby the growth
between the levels was significant, yet the difference between
one level and another could still be articulated. He noted that
this incentive program does not compensate for a year's worth of
growth, only for above the "expected growth," and the Value
Table and Computing Index Table are some of the tools that would
be used to chart student growth.
11:25:28 AM
CHAIR NEUMAN, referring to the tables, asked Commissioner
Sampson if they showed representation from a variety of schools
such that "all schools feel that they're ... treated equal."
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON indicated that psychometricians and
statisticians were used to ensure the Value Table "did not
create an unintended advantage for small school, large school,
rural, urban, one that had a high population of disabilities, or
of an ethnic group [and] that it was balanced out." He said
that the program is based on the "growth piece" and not on any
predetermined target.
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON asked whether the testing system currently
in place isn't adequately sufficient in determining whether a
student graduated or not.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON agreed that there currently is a mechanism
in place to determine if a student is eligible for a high school
diploma and that is the High School Qualifying Exit Exam.
Additionally, he said that schools are required under No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) to make a determination as to "whether or not
schools are being accountable and meeting AYP." However,
neither of these requirements, he clarified, are connected to
the proposed incentive program, which is one that values and
recognizes outstanding performance by school employees when
students achieve more than a year's worth within a given year.
11:28:41 AM
CHAIR NEUMAN asked whether the over 10,000 kids in
correspondence programs qualified for this incentive program as
well.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON explained that any recognized school, which
is required to participate in the spring assessments, including
the correspondence schools, would qualify for this incentive
program.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, in noting that this program is like a
carrot being offered to entice students to improve, asked if
there was a "stick" that would then require money be taken away
[from schools] in the event that students don't improve.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON remarked that there are already two
different methodologies for "carrot and stick," though they are
not part of the incentives package. The stick "has been NCLB
and not meeting AYP" with the consequences required by the state
and federal government, he explained, and Alaska has built the
carrot through this [proposed incentive program].
11:30:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS, observing that state boarding schools are
included in the incentive program, expressed his belief that
teachers at Mt. Edgecumbe High School, a state boarding school,
"would be getting bonuses all the time ... because they high-
grade the students." He commented that if he were a teacher
under this incentive program, he would prefer teaching at a
state-run boarding school.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON clarified that Mt. Edgecumbe would have
zero advantage over any other school because the incentive
program is based on growth. He exampled that should Mt.
Edgecumbe have top-performing students, the only way the school
and [its] staff would earn the bonus incentive would be to
maintain those students at the advanced level. Furthermore, Mt.
Edgecumbe would have no better chance than a school with very
low-performing students that advance a level. In response to
Representative Salmon's question regarding how to keep politics
out of the incentive program, he explained that the statewide
test given annually in April is the only instrument that
[measures student achievement] and "nobody has influence over
what that instrument looks like." However, he relayed the hope
that school staff will collaborate on ways to meet individual
student needs which could result in higher scores for students.
CHAIR NEUMAN commented that new Internet Technology (IT)
programs are on the horizon that will allow teachers of
different subjects to keep informed of each other's programs.
11:33:24 AM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON directed the committee's attention to the
"Computing Index" on page 5, which shows how the "School Index
Score" is determined by averaging the sum of all students'
progress points for that year. An average score over 100 would
indicate that a school had attained one year of growth for its
students, he said, and staff would be awarded according to the
level reached, ranging from "Strong" to "Outstanding."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, referring to the "Performance Level
Incentive" table showing the monetary award for non-certificated
staff, opined that teacher aides often performed as well or
better than the teachers and asked why they wouldn't be awarded
the same, or close to the same amount as teachers.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON agreed with Representative Lynn that there
are outstanding aides. However, he said, "We didn't feel as a
state we had the ability to make those decisions site by site.
The way we came up with the differences, is we looked -
generally speaking - at the amount that a certificated teacher
makes versus a non-certificated teacher and held those ratios
through."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked for further clarification that would
address the "equity" of the awarded amounts to teacher aides.
11:39:21 AM
CHAIR NEUMAN expressed his belief that though schools are proud
of their accomplishments, they might perceive this incentive
program as another means of creating a stigma for particular
schools. He asked whether there was a way to apply this program
statewide so that education communities and staff aren't
fighting a stigma and don't feel singled out.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON observed that if the incentive just went to
everyone, it would be a formula program instead of an incentive
program "unless it was an incentive that says, 'when all of the
schools in our state show enough growth, there's an incentive
for every employee across the entire state'." He suggested that
schools working really hard to meet AYP but not able to reach
that target, "are champions" who worked hard to advance students
and whose efforts would be recognized and awarded through this
incentive program. He informed the committee that EED is
currently working with the U.S. Department of Education to be
one of the very few states allowed to use growth to determine
whether or not a school does meet AYP. "Growth is what's
important, not the stats," he claimed.
CHAIR NEUMAN asked whether there was any mechanism in place to
evaluate the program at a future point in time.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON said he didn't believe there was and in
acknowledging the possibility of unintended outcomes, said
adjustments could be made as needed. Then in response to
Representative Salmon's question regarding the costs of running
the program, explained that the department prepared a floating
fiscal note where $3 million would be awarded at the highest
level possible or, should 25 percent of school employees be
awarded, it would reflect a $15 million fiscal note. He opined
that the approximate $900 million currently spent through the
foundation formula is "a lot" but not a guarantee of [student
growth] as is intended with this program.
11:45:39 AM
CHAIR NEUMAN asked whether the department has ever prepared a
working model that would show the cost of running this incentive
program, say, five years earlier and also show which schools
would have received awards for that given year.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON said that although this was attempted by
the psychometrician, different assessment systems were used in
the past and any conversions to them may have created models not
entirely accurate. He highlighted that the resulting models
show that 19 schools would have reached the highest level of
compensation, and that those schools were well dispersed:
large, small, rural, and urban. At the request of providing
copies of the findings to the committee, Commissioner Sampson
explained that it would not be fair to disseminate this by name
of school but could do so without naming the particular schools.
He expressed, however, that he would be "very uncomfortable
suggesting that the past, without the incentive component, would
be any projection of what the future would be with an incentive
component."
CHAIR NEUMAN, observing that janitors would be included in this
program, asked whether "outsourcing" these positions would have
an effect.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON explained that the language of the bill
specifically addresses that those eligible for the program must
be "employed" at the school, not "contracted" and highlighted
that this is a "school" incentive program, not a "district" one.
He further explained that any staff not employed the entire year
at an awarded school or who worked part time, would receive a
prorated incentive.
11:50:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON asked how the program works with home
school teachers.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON explained that if the home school student
is part of a home school program funded by the state, then those
teachers would be eligible for the incentives just as brick and
mortar teachers. Furthermore, should a student attend part time
at both schools, the possible incentive would be split among the
schools according to the time spent at the each.
11:52:29 AM
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON recapped the differences between this
incentive program to those implemented in the past. He opined
that although the state could design programs for schools on how
to effectively teach kids, "the people who are going to figure
it out best are the people that live in those individual
communities and [work in] those individual schools. They know
what makes those kids tick ... and what those issues are in the
community." He suggested that with the 500 schools in Alaska,
there would be 500 different approaches. He confirmed that
Representative Lynn was correct in his understanding that the
funding for incentives would be in addition to the existing
foundation funding for schools.
CHAIR NEUMAN asked whether other states are doing similar
incentive programs.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON informed the committee that 20 states are
currently considering implementing an incentive model similar
to, but not mirroring the one being proposed in Alaska. He
noted that the model in Little Rock, Arkansas is closest to the
Alaska model in that it's based on measuring growth in
individual students. However, he said, the incentives in the
Little Rock program are based on the success of individual
teachers in how well they move their students forward, not by
the success of the host school as with Alaska's proposed
program. The former approach can result in teachers not sharing
successful teaching strategies with other teachers, he
explained, and this competitive element is not wanted in
Alaska's model in which the sharing of successes is encouraged.
He confirmed that at this point in time, Alaska's proposed
incentive program is unique.
11:56:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS asked whether yearly testing was built
into the proposed plan to measure student progress.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON said that there is a standards-based test
given every year which was adopted by the State Board of
Education and Early Development, approved by the United States
Department of Education, and required under NCLB. These tests
are evaluated several ways but are not assigned grades, he
explained, and whatever method is chosen is used statewide.
11:58:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON asked whether this incentive program would
require hiring additional EED employees.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON said this would depend on the percentage of
awarded incentives. If the number was under 25 percent, there
would be no effect on the department, he explained, and yet an
increase over 25 percent would require hiring additional
employees to process and disperse incentive payments. In answer
to the question of who issues the student tests, he said that
every district already has approved "assessment givers" on
board.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired whether it would be "appropriate to
put a sunset on this" to measure the effectiveness of the
program.
COMMISSIONER SAMPSON agreed that this would "be a great idea."
12:00:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment
1, to "put a sunset on this at five years." There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR NEUMAN asked Commissioner Sampson to prepare the necessary
wording to include a sunset provision and, in response to
Representative Lynn, said that three to five years is generally
the timeframe given to sunset periods.
12:01:27 PM
CHAIR NEUMAN announced that HB 364 would be held over.
12:01:39 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at 12:01
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|