Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/01/2002 08:30 AM Senate ARR
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT COMMITTEE ON
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW
March 1, 2002
8:30 a.m.
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Joe Hayes
HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Vice Chair
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Proposed Regulations for Special Schools
(Correspondence Schools)
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. ED McLAIN, Deputy Commissioner of Education,
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 320
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Briefed members on the Department of
Education and Early Development's proposed regulations.
KEN EGGLESTON, Superintendent
Nenana City Schools
P.O. Box 10
Nenana, Alaska 99760-0010
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on the proposed
regulations.
ERNEST E. HALL, Vice Chair
Board of Education and Early Development
144 East Potter Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on the proposed
regulations.
JIM FOSTER, Assistant Superintendent
Galena City Schools
PO Box 299
Galena, Alaska 99741-0299
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on the proposed
regulations.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-2, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the Joint Committee on Administrative
Regulation Review to order at 8:30 a.m. Representative McGuire
and Senators Taylor, Green, and Lincoln were present at the call
to order. Representatives James and Hayes arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Also in attendance was Representative
Coghill.
PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR SPECIAL SCHOOLS(CORRESPONDENCE SCHOOLS)
Number 0149
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would
be the issue of regulation changes for correspondence schools.
Number 0190
DR. ED McLAIN, Deputy Commissioner of Education, Department of
Education and Early Development (EED), testified that these
proposed regulations will impact approximately 10,000 students
in Alaska. He noted that EED has received 145 letters
addressing this issue. He noted his belief that the State Board
of Education and Early Development initiated this review based
on concerns and anecdotal reports regarding correspondence
schools, particularly the home-school support component.
Traditionally, correspondence schools consisted of a teacher in
one location who sent materials to students and parents. And
although some programs have changed to Internet delivery, this
is still the basic model of correspondence programs. He said,
"I applaud the efforts of several of our districts who are
trying to break out of that box and [are trying] to do some new
things."
DR. McLAIN pointed out that EED has attempted to distinguish the
publicly funded correspondence part of a child's education from
the total home-school experience. The only piece of that
education that [these regulations] address is the publicly
funded correspondence piece. He furnished that many parents use
a variety of [instructional delivery methods] with their
children, including the use of a "brick-and-mortar" classroom
and the use of correspondence. Dr. McLain likened this to
children in brick-and-mortar schools who have a variety of
outside, unregulated learning experiences. He reiterated that
EED's intended application of the regulation is only to these
publicly funded elements. These regulations would be limited by
other regulations to students enrolled in a full correspondence
program or enrolled in as few as four courses, the minimum
number of courses for defining a full-time student.
Number 0474
DR. McLAIN said a team was established upon the request of the
State Board of Education and Early Development to ascertain [the
impact of these regulations]; he is a member of this team. He
expressed his uncertainty about how the two particular sites
were selected for review; one program was rather large and the
other quite small. These programs were presented as having two
different visions; he noted that one program was very much a
home-school program and the other program was a more traditional
program that supplied materials.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Dr. McLain to clarify this for the public.
DR. McLAIN stated that the team had been asked by the State
Board of Education and Early Development and the deputy
commissioner to review Nenana School District's CyberLynx
Correspondence School and Delta/Greely School District's Delta
Charter Cyber School. He commented that the staff of both
programs was very open with team members; good conversation and
exploration resulted. He said, "We uncovered ... what I would
call 'bread-and-butter' mechanical kind[s] of issues, that were
just a result ... of their size, that needed to be addressed."
Both programs have been working with EED to correct these
problems.
Number 0599
DR. McLAIN indicated that these reviews opened up a variety of
philosophical questions. One of these questions is the issue of
the separation of home school and correspondence school. The
team invited representatives from each of the ten districts
offering statewide correspondence and representatives from
districts that have a large number of students enrolled in
correspondence to a meeting on September 24. At this meeting
participants discussed many issues pertaining to these
regulations including the role of district boards in the
approval of materials. He emphasized that the current
regulations as well as the proposed regulations require district
boards to review and approve materials.
DR. McLAIN observed that parents with children enrolled in both
the aforementioned programs uniformly expressed high
satisfaction with the programs. He stated that of the letters
received by EED, 95 letters speak to the lack of district
approval of materials, an element of the programs that parents
support.
Number 0767
DR. McLAIN stated that he began with the pragmatic question of
how do [district boards] handle the review and selection of
materials for thousands of correspondence school students. This
is part of the regulations based on state statute. He said he
found this difficult [to] impossible to accomplish. Some of
this review was conducted after the fact and was therefore
problematic. Some of the review was reported to have been done,
but the documentation did not evidence this. He stated that he
excused this lack of documentation as a result of the fast
growth of the system. He noted that the September 24 meeting
and subsequent communication, as well as the many letters
received by the department, highlight the fact that many parents
do not want required district approval of materials. He said,
"It's not a case of what's right or what's wrong; it really is a
philosophical issue."
Number 0869
DR. McLAIN explained that EED has heard "very loud and clear"
the legislature's call for accountability and efficient use of
funds. He said that he was faced with the dilemma of balancing
the allowing of maximum freedom for parents and the assurance of
some degree of an appropriate level of accountability for the
expenditure of public funds. Public schools provide instruction
in the traditional school - many parents are now doing this -
and they also certify the learning. A grade on a transcript
becomes part of an official record; it is saying, "That kid
knows it," whatever that "it" might be. He offered the analogy
of a driver's license - it's a third-party certification that a
person knows how to drive. A transcript offers outside
validation of grades to employers or postsecondary institutions.
He reported that none of the applications under the current
regulations indicate that this provision is a problem. The
current application stipulates that a teacher must be involved
in the reviewing and assigning of grades.
Number 1020
DR. McLAIN said, "It came as ... an insight ... that not only
were a bulk of letters about the issue of districts approving
the curriculum, but now there was another group about the
teacher role. And again, both of those were, at least
nominally, part of the current practice." This raises the need
for clarification, he noted.
Number 1044
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Dr. McLain to detail provisions in the new
regulations which change the timing of that certification.
DR. McLAIN noted that the questions of "What would be an
adequate amount of time?" and "What does 'being involved' mean?"
were discussed. The team used public comment to garner input.
He stated that he has advised a number of people not to mandate
the type of contact, such as phone or e-mail, in order to allow
as much flexibility as possible. He said, "We put out there in
the comment to receive comment back that we thought that a once-
a-month check-in seemed to be a way of validating that indeed
there was some ongoing communication." Many comments received
indicated that [parents] were philosophically opposed to that
involvement. He explained that the suggestion for once-a-month
contact was not a "magic number", but it was a way to
substantiate an adequate amount of contact.
DR. McLAIN offered his belief that a significant amount of
common ground exists in the intent [of the involved parties].
His summary of discussion with the involved parties is that
there isn't district opposition to review of materials and
teacher involvement, but parents are concerned about these
issues. He added, "It's not really an educational issue as much
as [it] probably is a philosophical or direction [issue]. How
do you balance accountability with the freedom of the parents?"
SENATOR TAYLOR said, "You're doing a once-a-month check-up.
What are you doing on curriculum review and overview?"
Number 1263
DR. McLAIN clarified that districts do the monthly check-ups.
The proposed regulations are not significantly different in
process; they stipulate that the school board needs to approve
those materials. The regulations allow for this process to be
defined [by individual districts]. He noted that EED does not
regulate this in traditional schools; a local school board
establishes this process [to review curriculum]. Two statutes
speak to this. One states that boards approve textbooks; one
states that boards establish the process for the approval of the
curriculum and materials. The proposed regulations were built
on those statutes to keep the regulations as close to statutory
language as possible.
Number 1331
SENATOR TAYLOR indicated he didn't understand how this was not
occurring right now. He asked, "Aren't these correspondence
courses approved by or sanctioned by the district ... to
purchase these materials and offer them to parents within their
district?"
DR. McLAIN indicated that his understanding at the outset of the
investigation of the two programs was similar to Senator
Taylor's. He noted that the inquiry found that significant
numbers of students enrolled in home-school support - and this
is evidenced by the number of letters received - are not
enrolled in some other structured correspondence program, but
are in programs designed by their parents. Parents are
selecting materials that may or may not have been published as
curriculum materials. He expressed his certainty that some of
these materials may be very good for the children, but may lack
the [third-party] validation.
DR. McLAIN gave the example of parents who create a high school
English course by selecting materials and assignments based on
their knowledge of their child and then assign a grade for this
course [all without some outside verification]. He said:
That lack of verification leaves us open to the
potential for ... less than a clear picture. However,
I still want to allow that. So ... we've tried to ...
cut this fine line. What we're saying in the regs is
that if indeed you're going to do that, then simply on
the transcript, indicate that that course is a parent-
developed course or is a course from an outside school
or entity.
DR. McLAIN offered that this is similar to what districts
already do. He said that he had suggested to these schools'
leadership that they use a tool currently available to brick-
and-mortar schools; he suggested that they set up a process by
which that district can validate a learning experience. He gave
the example of the procedure in Kenai where students can bring
evidence of a course to the district for review and the district
can award credit. The transcript will specify the source of
that transferred credit. There is nothing that restricts
districts from awarding credit for a variety of learning
experiences, he stated. The intent is to determine how to
address the accountability desires of the state as well as
allowing as much freedom as possible for parents to direct their
child's education.
Number 1616
CHAIR McGUIRE inquired as to Dr. McLain's view of the
legislature's adoption of the exit exam and how it factors into
this discussion.
DR. McLAIN explained that in the state's assessment program,
especially as it will be modified by ASCA (Alaska State Council
on the Arts), does provide an excellent check in the areas of
reading, writing, and math. In the Third through Eighth grade
piece, the current benchmarks allow students to demonstrate
their proficiency in reading, writing, and math. The students
are able to demonstrate across the full array of state
standards. However, the problem is more difficult at the high
school level because the exit exam, as refined with SB 133,
focuses specifically on the minimum competencies of essential
skills. However, it doesn't focus on the full array of what one
would want children to know and learn. Furthermore, because the
exam is designed as an exit exam, the questions are clustered
around the minimum competency skill level. There aren't
opportunities for students to demonstrate advanced or proficient
[competency skill] levels. Therefore, Dr. McLain cautioned that
the check point in striving for excellence not be built on a
minimum competency test. Dr. McLain said, "I worry that what
was designed as a threshold assurance of basic skills could
become a target for the design. That's not what it's intended
for." He pointed out that tests aren't good or bad, they're
good or bad in relation to the purpose for which the tests are
designed.
DR. McLAIN pointed out that the state has been very active in
regard to the notion of having "fully developed citizenry."
Therefore, [the state] wants a child's education to consist of
more than reading, writing, and math. So, if the state
leadership accepts the notion of accountability, then there
should be some measure of accountability of the course. For
instance, if a student takes a psychology course, Dr. McLain
felt that there should be some measure of that particular course
rather than simply depending on the student's minimum competency
in reading, writing, and math. Although he recognized that this
is a policy question, he viewed it as an instructional piece as
well.
Number 1876
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern with some of Dr. McLain's
comments on the exit exam. She inquired as to whether Dr.
McLain meant to indicate that the exit exam has been "dumbed
down." She also inquired, "Do you believe that in that
evaluation as to whether or not these students ought to be able
to have a high school diploma that that should be expanded into
other areas to be sure that the child has well-rounded education
as opposed to just achieving those three issues."
DR. McLAIN disagreed with the term "dumbed down" but rather
agreed that that the exam was refocused. He explained that the
full array of math, reading, and writing standards were
reviewed. The exam questions don't focus on the full array;
that is, the exam doesn't provide opportunities for a student to
demonstrate skill in the higher levels of math. However, in the
full array of assessment methods and instruction there are such
opportunities. For example, if a student takes a Calculus
course that course is placed on the transcript with the grade
given. One could review the district's website or its records
and confirm the Calculus course and its content. Dr. McLain
said he believes that [the state] has said that districts set
the parameters. In regard to whether there should be more to a
student's education than reading, writing, and math, Dr. McLain
answered yes. Furthermore, he said he believes that [the
education beyond reading, writing, and math] should be accessed
and verified, which is done on the transcript. Therefore, these
regulations allow as much local control as possible to validate
[the education beyond reading, writing, and math].
Number 2114
DR. McLAIN remarked that the regulations are only one piece, and
the public doesn't see all the other avenues that are already in
place. There is some confusion over correspondence and home
schooling. The question-and-answer sheet [in the committee
packet] attempts to address some of the [confusion]. He noted
his openness to suggested language changes. Dr. McLain
announced that [the department] is looking at extending [the
public comment period] at the April meeting. Based on some of
the comments, some language changes are being crafted. He
commented on his belief that this process has gone well, and he
thanked the Galena School District for meeting with him.
Number 2212
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her understanding that Dr. McLain
is discussing a lot of administrative expense and chores.
Representative James related her belief that the public school
system has been failing over the years [due to the] high cost of
public education that is due to the administration expense.
Therefore, many people decide to teach their children at home.
She interpreted Dr. McLain to mean that there would be another
administrative duty to get this information on a transcript.
However, she said she understood the need for transcripts when
entering college, as well as when seeking employment.
Representative James inquired as to whether the value received
from this extra administrative expense would be worth the end
result.
DR. McLAIN said that he wasn't sure he would agree with
Representative James that this is an administrative chore. He
expressed the hope that there would also be instructional
support and thus be part of a teacher's [responsibility] rather
than that of an administrator. Even if this was administrative,
he didn't believe it was an extraordinarily large expense. Dr.
McLain informed the committee that many of the programs are
generating funds beyond those that are specifically applied to
that program. He noted that "we" tried to stay away from the
teacher-student ratio in order to provide some freedom.
However, he did recognize that additional regulation creates
additional expense. Therefore, the intent [of the regulations]
was to minimize the expense while meeting the accountability
piece.
Number 2433
SENATOR GREEN pointed out that many of the comments on the
regulations discussed how religious materials are approved and
used. She recalled a conversation with Dr. McLain on this
matter, and asked that he discuss the use of religious materials
[in correspondence/home schools] with the committee. She noted
that there is no restriction in regard to the use of religious
materials in the course of study but rather how the state would
reimburse [for those materials].
DR. McLAIN said that the intent was [to address] how to maximize
the opportunity while maintaining the requirements. Some
districts simply say that materials from certain publishers
aren't allowed. Although that was well intended [because it was
an attempt to deal with religious materials], Dr. McLain felt it
was overly restrictive. He related his belief that the
regulations seem to open up opportunities that would go beyond
what would happen in a traditional school. As long as the
district had its curriculum posted and approved what the parent
uses in the home to teach the child is less of an issue because
the parent is teaching [what the teacher is regardless of the
religious portions]. That couldn't be done in the public
school. Home schooling isn't the same as a traditional school,
which is one of the benefits. Therefore, the task was to
determine how to get around public school teachers being
involved in these religious pieces.
DR. McLAIN highlighted the following three ways that the
aforementioned [allowing religious materials to be used in the
home/correspondence school] could be accomplished. First, a
parent could apply for credit. For example, a parent who wants
to use a religious curriculum could simply not include [the
religious piece] in the core of programs and apply for credit
after the fact. In that case, the public school teacher isn't
involved other than to review whether [the curriculum is
acceptable]. Second, the [correspondence/home school] would
simply teach to the state-approved curriculum, which districts
are already required to do per statute. Third, if there is a
question, then [those courses/materials] should be kept out and
focus [should be] on the nonsectarian [courses/materials]. Dr.
McLain explained, "We tried, by separating correspondence from
this global thing of home school, to try to get us out of the
regulating what happens outside of that; just as we would ...
not be involved in what happens outside the brick-and-mortar."
Number 2756
CHAIR McGUIRE related her interpretation that the decision to
provide approval of curriculum by a teacher on a monthly basis
seems to have been an arbitrary determination. She requested
more analysis of that decision. As mentioned by Representative
James, if one is home schooling, then, in some people's opinion,
administrative costs are being reduced and more money is being
placed toward the subject matter and teaching. Therefore, when
another barrier is created, she questioned the point of it.
DR. McLAIN disagreed with the assertion that the monthly review
was arbitrary. He pointed out that the explosion of development
of cyber schools and home-school support programs isn't unique
to Alaska. Dr. McLain clarified that it isn't once a month
approval but is merely checking in once a month. One state that
was reviewed was Pennsylvania, who has cyber school charters.
In Pennsylvania's debate, the questions of how to know that a
student is really engaged in a program and that the program
isn't really a voucher program arose. Dr. McLain said that he
believes there is a valid role in correspondence. However, he
feared that without some ongoing [communication], then the
question regarding how correspondence is different than a
voucher would arise. Therefore, he said he feels it is
reasonable to question how that [communication] is happening.
Then the question becomes what is adequate. Pennsylvania
decided on a monthly check. He acknowledged that one suggestion
was to tie it to the current attendance laws for traditional
schools, which drop students from the rolls if the student is
absent for ten days. That avenue would have been overly
cumbersome. Still others suggested checking every other month,
which results in one check in the middle of the semester.
Therefore, the decision was to cut through the two suggestions,
which resulted in the once-a-month check. Dr. McLain emphasized
that this [monthly check] shouldn't be seen as an administrative
cost, and hopefully there would be instructional content.
TAPE 02-2, SIDE B
Number 2981
DR. McLAIN, in response to a question by Chair McGuire,
clarified that the check is done by the district, not a
certified state teacher. With the exception of the Alyeska
Central School (ACS), which is operated by the state, these
correspondence schools all are district programs. He explained,
"Whenever we talk about certified staff or staff being
[involved], we are specifically referring to the district." He
likened it to a brick-and-mortar facility where a student must
be in his or her seat at least once every ten days or be
withdrawn. No state teacher comes in, nor anyone from EED. Dr.
McLain added, "We don't have staffing to do that kind of
monitoring, nor would we want to."
Number 2930
CHAIR McGUIRE asked who Dr. McLain envisions will be doing this.
DR. McLAIN replied that a district would develop its own
process, using teachers. He noted that most districts have a
pupil-teacher ratio of 10-1 to 20-1, depending on the extent to
which aides are included. However, the pupil-teacher ratios in
these [correspondence] programs, for full activity, can run as
high as 100-1 or so. He added:
I would have some concerns about how effective that
can be, but we don't dictate or mandate a pupil-
teacher ratio. There reaches a point at which it just
gets difficult. I would come back and caution that
unlike ... the programs that happen inside a district,
where the board and the administration is charged
legally with defining and developing the best program,
doing the best they can for the kids in the district,
this is a case where the loss is very specific in
terms of the requirements ... or the responsibilities
of a local school board to look over ... the best
interest of the kids in their district.
There isn't ... a statute that says they have a legal
obligation to do their very best for the kids outside.
So without regulation I'd worry that ... it's a free
market. And there's good news to that, but in the
case of education, I do think that's a case where ...
it makes the argument [as] to why you want to have
some sort of parameters around it.
Number 2836
SENATOR TAYLOR offered his understanding that the district pays
the parent each month by check, based upon what that parent has
told the district he or she is purchasing. He asked whether
that is correct, then suggested a $3,000 check, for example,
could be sent to a parent with the message, "Buy whatever you
want. Have a good time with this money. We hope you educate
your kid."
DR. McLAIN disagreed. He said he doesn't know of any district
...
SENATOR TAYLOR interjected:
I don't either. Instead, that district says, "The
following courses, types of programs, computer things,
these are approved on our list." [How] are they
checking on them? ... If we want to go out and start
checking on folks in the hinterlands every month, by
God, I'd like to see somebody going into every
classroom every month and checking on the quality of
education that's going on in each one of those
classrooms, too, and let's have a little monitoring,
maybe a little mentoring, maybe a little help, and
maybe somebody doing at least something about
accountability in the classroom so that we in the
legislature don't have to pass laws so that you can go
create a "Lake Wobegon" test to find out whether or
not anything's going on in your classrooms at all,
other than counting kids and making sure that if
they're there every ten days, we're going to keep them
on the rolls.
Number 2763
SENATOR TAYLOR continued:
I can't believe we're even having this discussion. It
is in the law. The districts not only have the right
and the authority to do this, they are mandated to do
this. What you're really telling me is, "Gee, nobody
was checking the store. They might have been allowing
those parents to do things that would violate the
establishment-of-religion clause, or they might be
allowing those parents to teach a class that, gee, we
in the district don't really approve of; how do we get
a handle on this?" And now, as you attempt to get a
handle on it, we're looking at a monthly review of
some type.
I understand the validation questions. I understand
the concerns about transcripts. But my real concern
is, all of this is already in place. Every one of
these districts are currently doing it.
What I think I'm smelling is that the state board of
education and the central commission or department of
education here has decided that we need to go out and
audit the districts on what the districts are
currently approving for course, because they may not
be everything that should be in the soup kettle, here.
And, in fact, you don't have that authority. We gave
that authority to the local school board and district
to set and establish their curriculum and the
curriculum for their correspondence schools, right?
DR. McLAIN answered yes.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what these regulations are all about, then,
"coming from on high down to the individual districts." He
further asked, "Shouldn't we trust them to do what they're
doing, and if, in fact, the kids don't pass the test, then that
parent and that district have failed in the curriculum that they
should have structured." He then inquired, "How long are you
going to delay the implementation of these regs?"
DR. McLAIN answered:
That would not be a decision of mine. ... I think
we're getting some value in the comments that we're
receiving. We'll try to be responsive to those.
We'll be coming up with ... some revisions in this
next phase. We'll be asking to extend the comment
[period]. I'm assuming at this point that [would be]
open at least until the next board meeting. But ... I
can't tell you what the board would do from that point
on.
Number 2644
DR. McLAIN continued with his response to Senator Taylor:
The assumption that you started your statement with is
the same assumption that I started with when I was
given this assignment, and that is that districts have
those courses and parents are selecting from the set
of ... approved materials.
What I found is that it was not, all the time, how it
was occurring, that there were times when people were,
with all best of intentions, ... not simply selecting
from a list of approved specific materials. They were
sometimes purchasing from vendors that were approved,
but as we pointed out, in one case Barnes & [Noble] or
Amazon was the approved vendor; you can get anything
in Barnes & [Noble]. And, again, I simply asked the
question ..., "How ... do you assure comparable
quality," because that is a charge that they ... have.
It was simply one management to another management:
"How do you do that?" And in the conversations that
followed, we heard desire, we heard concern being
raised that they felt that they were doing that and
other people were feeling like that wasn't being done.
I want the same thing, I believe, as you do, when you
get down to it. I'm trying to clarify, open up
avenues. ... If we simply drop what these are and go
back to the current regs, you still have in place many
of the problems; from ... some of the parent comments
we've received, they still have problems with the
current regs.
When I was talking to Representative Dyson and Senator
Leman at a general meeting that was held in the House
... about a month ago, I relayed that I believe that
what we have here is a case where we have people who
have significant issues with the current
[regulations], to say nothing about the proposed. And
I think it's a legitimate public policy question to
get that addressed.
CHAIR McGUIRE expressed appreciation for Dr. McLain's testimony
and requested that he stand by. She emphasized the importance
of allowing an opportunity for others to testify as well. She
announced that the committee would hear as much testimony as
possible at the current meeting, but that there would be a
second hearing, perhaps in the next week.
Number 2485
KEN EGGLESTON, Superintendent, Nenana City Schools, testified
via teleconference, noting that with him was Tom Klever,
principal [of the CyberLynx Correspondence School]. He
expressed appreciation for the efforts to provide clarity. He
told members, "We would like to applaud the legislature in
passing regulations that allow parents to have an educational
process that they deem is appropriate for their children." Dr.
Eggleston pointed out that 9,000 students are schooled at home
or take correspondence study. He remarked:
That must say something very, very significant to the
State of Alaska on how we are educating our children.
And the legislature has answered those questions to
those parents, deeming those parents as responsible
for their education of their children in the way that
they feel is appropriate.
DR. EGGLESTON expressed confidence that "regulations out there
now" do an adequate job, and that "the new audit concerns that
the state gave us, which ... have been implemented this year"
are addressing under current statutes the needs of those
children." He added, "We have, I think, a program here that is
serving those children, and I think those parents are stating
that; we have a statewide parent advisory committee, which
represents all sectors of our state in the education program
that we're putting forth."
Number 2388
DR. EGGLESTON explained that when SB 36 was passed, one key
issue was accountability in testing. He pointed out that the
"proof in the pudding" is how these students are doing on test
scores including SATs [Scholastic Achievement Test], ACTs
[American College Test], exit exams, and benchmark tests.
Nationally and statewide, students who are in home school
situations or taking correspondence are scoring, on the average,
much higher than students in a traditional school setting; this
must say something about what parents are doing in their homes
with their children, he concluded.
DR. EGGLESTON offered a second point:
We just applauded the other night, at the "fly-in
legislature" with the school boards, the Chugach model
that is going nationally now, [which] has been
recognized by the President as the only school system
that won this prestigious award. That award talks
about standards-based education and those students,
looking at how they learn and how that model allows
students and parents to choose ways of learning that
... meet their needs.
And those test scores in the [Chugach] model, even
though there are not A, B, C, and Ds, and even though
the parents ... and the students are the engine that
is driving that model, there is a certain amount of
monitoring, but it is not the traditional model. And
these students are progressing [dramatically] on the
state tests, the benchmark tests and the qualifying
exam.
The school district in Seattle, which is 479,000
students, is now coming up to look at the [Chugach]
model that may be instituted in a large city like
that.
Number 2262
DR. EGGLESTON referred to Dr. McLain's scenario regarding how to
teach his children to drive. Dr. Eggleston said that is exactly
what he believes home schooling and a correspondence model are;
the proof is whether Dr. McLain's children do or don't pass that
driver's test, and how he chooses to teach that subject is "the
same argument we use in this model that we're using here."
DR. EGGLESTON referred to parental autonomy. He said his board
is now looking at every piece of curriculum and reviewing every
book. In regular schools, the school boards don't do that;
rather, the information comes back to them through committee.
DR. EGGLESTON indicated there are some areas that he believes
are being scrutinized a little more for his school district. He
mentioned correspondence and items that concern parents,
including Title I funds for the school district that could be
held up if the district doesn't give the "free and reduced
lunch" applications to the parents of correspondence students.
He said that is a problem for the district because the people
doing correspondence eat at home, rather than getting free and
reduced-price lunches. In addition, several parents don't want
to immunize their children; one issue is that the district would
have to make sure those students are immunized in order for them
to be in the program.
DR. EGGLESTON turned attention to testing. He explained:
We do test. We're spending thousands and thousands of
dollars to fly students to sites that are going to be
monitored by certified teachers. In some of the
regulations that are -- would like to be changed, it
would be that if those students aren't tested, we have
to disenroll them from our program. We don't do that
as far as a regular school system goes. Again, if
they don't take the test, the scores are against the
school district, as a zero.
DR. EGGLESTON referred to month-to-month monitoring and said
that in the public school system there are parent-teacher
conferences. [In correspondence/home schools] students are
monitored by their parents. Dr. Eggleston said:
[Is it that] we're going to meet with the children
[on] a month-to-month [basis], or is that that we're
going to meet with the parents to verify that the
students are doing it? We meet with parents in a
regular school two times a year in parent-teacher
conferences, sometimes three.
DR. EGGLESTON thanked the committee and those at the hearing in
support of the program. He concluded by pointing out that his
school system has both a public school and a correspondence
school.
Number 2064
ERNEST E. HALL, Vice Chair, Board of Education and Early
Development, testified via teleconference, noting that he was
mostly available to answer questions. He offered to share
thoughts from the board, however.
Number 2028
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether it was Mr. Hall's intention to delay
the end of public testimony.
MR. HALL answered:
We have already made that decision; we will formalize
it at our next board meeting. We had a special
meeting, but this wasn't on the agenda, so we weren't
allowed to be involved in that. But there's no doubt
that we're going to do a 90-day delay on this when
these regulations come back to us at the next meeting.
And hopefully during that period we would be able to
answer the concerns and issues that individuals are
talking about. And if not, ... there's nothing that
prevents us from doing an additional delay.
MR. HALL recounted a personal story that he said is driving that
thought process. His nephew remarried and ended up with a new
17-year-old daughter who had been in state correspondence
schools for two years. The family decided she would go to
public school, so they enrolled her as a junior at Service High
School. However, a check of the correspondence records showed
that she had no credits at all. The fault was not the
correspondence school's, which had provided everything requested
by law and had kept complete records. Rather, a conversation
with the mother revealed that not one course had been finished;
the family hadn't "closed the circle."
MR. HALL indicated state board members believe they have a lot
of responsibility towards having the child receive the
education. He expressed concern about the young student
discussed previously, who perhaps couldn't graduate until she
was 20 years old.
Number 1861
CHAIR McGUIRE clarified that the hearing was not being held
"because we think you're the bad guy or because we think Dr.
McLain's the bad guy." She said, "We're trying to address some
concerns that ... we see out there, just like you are, too."
She acknowledged that there must be a balance between the goals
of allowing a parent to provide an education that is "outside
the box" and ensuring that the child does get an education and
isn't in the situation Mr. Hall described. She thanked him for
his testimony. She also thanked him for recognizing that there
are some concerns "and that you're willing to delay that public
comment." She said that is very important to the committee
members.
Number 1821
SENATOR TAYLOR disagreed with Mr. Hall that the state board has
the responsibility. He said as a matter of public policy this
legislature established that the school board in a district
would have responsibility for that curriculum. The case that
Mr. Hall recounted involves a failure on not only the part of
the family to ensure that the courses were completed and sent in
for a grade; it also reflects failure on the part of the
district "because obviously nobody in the district ever even
bothered to inquire whether she had passed one single course in
two full years." He surmised that had she been in a regular
classroom and failed to pass a single course, somebody would
have sent her parents a note. He further indicated that the
payment for the correspondence course should have been cut off.
He suggested that the review of the state board perhaps should
be of the local school boards. He further suggested that the
responsibility "on our side" isn't to fix a system that is
producing a higher quality of education than that in the state's
public schools.
Number 1712
MR. HALL said he would tend to agree. He added that he feels
much better because he can go back to the young woman and tell
her that as a state board member, it isn't his fault. However,
the reality is that she will have to spend another two years
trying to get into college. He emphasized Senator Taylor's
point that responsibility lies with the individual school
districts. If it isn't the state board that can ask that
[school districts] be held accountable, he said, it is basically
the legislature. He concluded by expressing concern that
students [in the correspondence or home-school programs] will
try to get into college, for example, only to find they don't
have the qualifications.
SENATOR TAYLOR expressed appreciation for Mr. Hall's testimony
and said he had the same goal, to ensure that things like that
don't happen in the future.
Number 1589
JIM FOSTER, Assistant Superintendent, Galena City Schools, noted
that the [committee packet] should include [Galena City Schools]
complete testimony concerning the State Board regulations. Mr.
Foster informed the committee that this is his 34th year in
public education. He said that the Galena City School District
has been an absolute believer of the Quality School Initiatives.
When the legislature passed the [Quality School Initiatives],
the Galena City School District completely aligned its K-12
curriculum in one year. Mr. Foster recalled a State Board
meeting in which those districts with aligned curriculums were
asked to raise their hand. He said he was surprised to see that
not all the hands went up. However, [the regulations] are
asking the parents to align their curriculum when the public
schools can not.
MR. FOSTER informed the committee that last year 90 percent of
Galena's Third graders were proficient on the benchmark test.
However, the district board, parents, and administrators said
that wasn't good enough. Mr. Foster said, "We're not opposed to
regulations." He stressed that President George Bush is
requesting that no children should be left behind, and therefore
Mr. Foster stressed the need to not write regulations that leave
9,000 children behind.
Number 1411
MR. FOSTER told the committee that the other day [the Galena
City School District] asked if a certified teacher from Idaho,
who now lives in Alaska, could administer the benchmark test.
Because the teacher didn't have Alaska certification, two
children have to be flown [elsewhere to have the benchmark test
administered]. Mr. Foster informed the committee that if [a
district's] test attendance rate falls below 10 percent, then
[the district] runs the risk of losing its program. Mr. Foster
posed the following situation:
What if the state's attendance rate was 95 percent and
ours was 85 percent, and our home-school students
scored in the top third in the state on the test. By
the way, our program closes -- we're below the 10
percent. And another public school had an attendance
rate of 95 percent and they scored dead last on the
exam, they get to remain open. They got to write a
plan on how they're going to improve. If you're dead
last, I don't even know where you begin to write the
program.
Number 1294
MR. FOSTER emphasized that parents write in saying they don't
want regulation from anyone. He explained that in the [Galena
City School District] the parents have to sign an affidavit
saying that one parent will be in the home to teach the child.
Furthermore, an individual learning plan must be written for
each child, which [isn't] the case for each child in the public
school. Parents [in the Galena City School District
correspondence program] have to submit two written progress
reports for their child. He noted that each student has an
assigned contact teacher, and the ratio is about 1 teacher to
124 students. He asked, "And if that's too high, what's 1
teacher teaching 140 or 150 kids in the Anchorage public school
system in the high school.... Isn't that too high?" Mr. Foster
continued by noting that [the Galena City School District] has a
rule that religious materials can't be purchased and thus all
the requests that are denied are kept on file. If parents don't
submit progress reports, the parents are coached to do so.
Ultimately, the parent is thrown out of the program if the
progress reports aren't submitted. Mr. Foster said that the
program is monitored.
MR. FOSTER informed the committee that scores of the students in
the home-school program rank from second best to 29th in the
state. Those students are in the top third of the state, on
average. He mentioned another policy, which is that the parents
of the children in the home-school program sign an affidavit
agreeing to bring the students in to be tested. However, the
legislature delayed the implementation of the qualifying exam
for two years. At the end of last year, Galena had 13 of 24
students pass all three sections of the [qualifying exam]. He
said, "I venture to say that's one of the best."
Number 0998
MR. FOSTER commented that he thinks he has learned more what's
wrong with public education than what's right. He highlighted
Robert Marzano's (ph) research and paraphrased Mr. Marzano (ph)
as follows: "Teachers who teach in isolation from one another
have created large learning gaps in content in students." If a
district doesn't have an aligned curriculum, large learning gaps
are created. This [national assessment] is a national issue.
Mr. Foster pointed out that Galena, who operates three programs,
is the second lowest spending per student in the state.
Regulations to continue to do this are necessary.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER announced that the benchmark exam will
be occurring next week and would impact the ability of many to
attend a continuation of this hearing if it were held next week.
CHAIR McGUIRE announced, then, that the next hearing would be
held in two weeks.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked the Chair and her staff for the work put
into this matter. He also thanked the department for granting a
90-day extension.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the Joint
Committee on Administrative Regulation Review meeting was
adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|