Legislature(2013 - 2014)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/16/2013 08:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Teacher Evaluation | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
January 16, 2013
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Chair
Senator Mike Dunleavy, Vice Chair
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Charlie Huggins
Senator Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
REGULATIONS LINKING TEACHER EVALUATIONS AND STUDENT TESTING
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner
Department of Education & Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed the new regulation that pertained
to linking teacher evaluations and student testing.
JIM MERRINER, Chair
Alaska State Board Of Education & Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the new evaluation regulation.
BRUCE JOHNSON, PhD, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the new evaluation regulation.
ROB THOMASON, President
Alaska Council of School Administrators
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the new evaluation regulation.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed the potential implications from
the new evaluation regulation.
JOHN PILE, Executive Director
Alaska Association of Elementary School Principals
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Did not provide testimony.
JOHN POTHAST, President
Alaska Association of Elementary School Principals
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the new evaluation regulation and
provided options to consider.
ANDRE' LAYRAL, Executive Director
Alaska Association of Secondary School Principals
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the new evaluation regulation and
provided options to consider.
ADAM MOKELKE, President
Alaska Association of Secondary School Principals
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the new evaluation regulation and
provided options to consider.
ROD MORRISON, President-elect
Alaska Association of Secondary School Principals
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the new evaluation regulation and
provided options to consider.
JOHN ALCANTRA, Director
Government Relations
National Education Association-Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Updated the committee on NEAA activities.
LADAWN DRUCE, Vice President
National Education Association-Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed concerns regarding the new
evaluation regulation.
TODD POAGE, Superintendent
Alaska Gateway School District
Tok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the new evaluation regulation and
provided options to consider.
CHRIS REITAN, Superintendent
Galena City School District
Galena, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the new evaluation regulation and
provided options to consider.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:00:32 AM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS called the Senate Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Dunleavy, Huggins, Gardner, Stedman, and
Chair Stevens. He welcomed the new members of the Senate
Education Committee and noted the individual Senators' varied
backgrounds in education.
^Teacher Evaluation
REGULATIONS LINKING TEACHER EVALUATIONS AND STUDENT TESTING
8:00:56 AM
CHAIR STEVENS introduced Commissioner Mike Hanley and presented
a brief summary of the new teacher evaluation regulation. He
noted a newspaper article regarding a study from the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation and noted that involving students in
the teacher evaluation process was the main point. He said there
were ways to attain the desired results by motivating children
to learn and identifying the best teachers that deserved reward.
8:02:10 AM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education & Early
Development (DEED), said he would discuss the new teacher
evaluation regulation and affirmed that the new regulation would
strengthen the Alaska education process. He noted that public
comment made it clear that there was a lot of misunderstanding
around the new regulation. He stated that continued effort would
be made to clarify the regulation's parameters.
8:03:12 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the current policy was recognized in
state statute as a responsibility to ensure all students were
successful in their education and subsequent careers. He said
the DEED mission statement set the target of improved academic
achievement for all students. He addressed a 1996 statute that
designated local school boards with the responsibility to
implement an evaluation process based on eight content
performance standards for teachers and ten content performance
standards for administrators. He referenced a list for the
Teacher Content/Performance Standards and noted changes. He
explained that the standard: "A teacher can describe their
philosophy of education," was deleted. He said the standard: "A
teacher helps students grow academically as measured by learning
data," was added. He noted that the new standard had caught the
most attention. He explained that the reason for adding the new
standard was due to the fact that the other seven standards
focused on positive performance attributes and did not
specifically address student learning for next level
preparation. He stated that an affective teacher was provided
enhancement and the opportunity for student learning. He
affirmed that the public and parents expected students to be
prepared for the next step. He said the student-learning
addition would be a part of a teacher's evaluation.
8:05:30 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY stated that there were three basic
regulation changes. He explained that the first change would
address cultural standards consideration during an evaluation.
He noted that the cultural standards were not specific and did
not mandate a teacher be scored. He detailed the regulations for
cultural standards would include a culturally responsive teacher
who incorporated the local ways of knowing and teaching. He
added that the relevancy to education occurred when teachers
used the local environment and community resources. He said a
culturally responsive teacher worked closely with parents to
achieve common expectations between home and school. He said the
teacher should recognize the full educational potential of each
student and challenge them to meet that potential. He noted that
the cultural standards consideration would not be assigned a
particular percentage or points like the other content
standards.
He said the second change would provide training for evaluators
to ensure inter-rater reliability. He explained that principals
would be considered as the evaluators for teachers. He noted
that teachers would not know what to expect from an evaluation
if principals were not compared to other principals. He
explained that it was critical that there be a common
expectation for good teaching, best practices, and comparability
between principals.
8:07:15 AM
CHAIR STEVENS asked for Mr. Hanley to address the issue of
evaluation and to verify that the evaluation process occurred in
a classroom setting.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered correct. He explained that the
current evaluation process required observation along with
parent and student input.
SENATOR GARDNER asked the Commissioner for the definition of
cultural standards in writing.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that he would comply. He said the
previous definition of cultural standards was adopted by
reference and were relatively extensive. He explained that the
new regulation would clarify the cultural standards. He noted
that a statewide cultural standards model did not translate well
in urban and rural settings.
He said the last significant change was that student learning
would be tied to a teacher's evaluation. He explained that the
change had received the most attention. He noted that student
learning data was defined as measurements of a student's growth
during the time a student was taught by the teacher. He said
student learning referred to improvement and not proficiency. He
explained that goals remained for proficiency and success for
all students. He noted in the evaluation that every student
would not have to jump over a particular bar to be considered
proficient. He specified that the focus would be on the ability
to make gains towards the next level with each student. He said
one of the concerns DEED heard in comments pertained to special
education teachers being compared at the same level as teachers
who instructed high-level students. He explained that a special
education measurement would be used to compare student
performance when they walked-in and when they walked-out of a
classroom's session.
8:10:05 AM
He explained that the measurement components required multiple
measures of the student learning. He noted that another concern
was voiced regarding the strict use of the Statewide Test for
measurement. He explained that a single test was essentially a
snap-shot in time and two to four measures would be used to
measure a student's growth while in the classroom. He disclosed
that the measures would not have to be formalized assessments.
He said measurements could be curriculum based where a pre-test
was administered at the beginning of the year, a mid-test at the
middle of the year, and a post-test at the end of the year. He
explained that curriculum tests should be based on state
standards. He noted an example of possible testing for
elementary schools that were theme based education and relevant
education. He explained that a project could be used with a
proper rubric that measured reading components, writing
components, or presentation components. He said a district would
have to ensure that a certain grade would perform the same test
at all schools. He disclosed that another important part was
that the measurements were in the aggregate. He explained that a
teacher's proficiency would be class based and not based solely
on an individual student's performance. He said there was a
requirement to utilize a statewide assessment and explained that
the current assessment was the Standards Based Assessment (SBA).
He said a statewide assessment test would have to adequately
measure valid growth from year-to-year. He noted that the
current SBA did not measure valid year-to-year growth and would
not be used. He said DEED was in the process of developing a new
SBA for adoption in 2014-15 or 2015-16. He said the new SBA
would have the ability to adequately measure growth from year-
to-year. He explained that a district would use the SBA at the
same percentage and weight as the other measures being used.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY addressed the flexibility in the standards'
language and noted concerns that pertained to what a teacher
could not control. He said an example was the inability to teach
a student who does not go to school. He explained that the
objective was to attribute the measureable growth to a teacher
when it was appropriate while recognizing those things that were
outside of a teacher's control. He said districts would develop
procedures based on criteria to accurately reflect student
growth based on educator performance. He noted that the flexible
language would allow a district to address student attendance
and issues outside of a teacher's control during the state
evaluation process.
8:14:55 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if student inter-district movement would
be taken into consideration.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered yes. He noted that the state had a
significant transitory rate for students and it should be
considered in the evaluation. He noted that several principals
had remarked that the flexibility in the standards' language did
allow consideration for outside influences.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY summarized that teachers would continue to
be evaluated on each of the standards and noted the inclusion of
the student learning standard. He explained that teachers would
be evaluated on each standard as to whether they were rated as:
Exemplary, Proficient, Basic, or Unsatisfactory. He noted that a
district would not give a teacher a Proficient rating if there
was a Basic evaluation rating in one or more of the eight
standards. He stated there was no job issue or punishment that
required a step-in to fix a teacher. He explained that the end
result was a teacher would not have an overall Proficient
rating. He remarked that the Alaska State Board reviewed each
standard and was deliberate in their decision on a Basic
evaluation for an overall proficiency rating. He noted that new
teachers were recognized separately and were not expected to be
proficient in every aspect of teaching. He explained it could
take three or more years for a teacher to become proficient. He
commented that a Basic evaluation was strictly recognized as
Basic and no punishment was involved. He noted that a district
would be required to step-in and offer support if a teacher was
evaluated as Basic in two or more of the standards. He explained
that district support was not specified, but a district had an
obligation to support their teachers and help them to become
better. He noted that districts would be provided with the
flexibility to offer a specific plan of growth and support to
Basic evaluated teachers.
8:18:38 AM
He addressed the implementation timeline. He said 2015-16 would
be the first year that student learning would be incorporated in
the evaluation. He noted that there was a lot of work in
implementing the regulation for the state and the districts. He
explained that the districts would have to identify the tools
and enact the proper evaluation system. He said in 2015-2016 and
2016-2017, 20 percent of a teacher's evaluation would be tied to
student learning. He noted that the percentages would increase
in 2017-2018 to 35 percent and in 2018-2019 to 50 percent.
SENATOR GARDNER asked if the teacher performance ratings would
ever be public information and available to parents.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no. He noted that the question came
up several times during public comment. He explained that it was
very clear in statute that teacher performance ratings were not
subject to public information requests and were considered
private documents.
8:20:27 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if there were pre-discussion evaluations
with prospective candidates that were measured against a
teaching performance rating baseline.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded not specifically. He said a pre-
discussion was appropriate and noted that districts were allowed
to determine what was appropriate.
SENATOR HUGGINS addressed the importance of providing teachers
with cohort performance feedback.
8:22:38 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that he agreed. He said the current
system was subjective and lacked specific data to measure. He
noted that there may be inherent disincentives when using
subjective standards that do not drive teachers to take a next-
step. He explained that teachers had a lot of internal drive and
they continue to move forward, but the evaluation system does
not incentivize the process. He remarked that there was also a
disincentive for teachers who were doing a great job in moving
students towards the next level in addition to carrying the
students who required additional steps. He stated that he hoped
the new system would also recognize the great teachers and the
work they were doing.
SENATOR HUGGINS stated the importance of mentors for teachers.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that DEED worked very closely with
their teacher and principal mentor program. He said mentoring
was a key component to help teachers grow.
8:24:39 AM
CHAIR STEVENS commented that he liked the idea and presentation
from Commissioner Hanley. He declared that it would only work if
teachers and principals buy-in. He addressed the big step
involved with student learning data accounting for 50 percent of
a teacher's overall performance rating in 2018-1019. He asked
Commissioner Hanley if he felt comfortable that 50 percent was a
reasonable expectation.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that he was both comfortable and
nervous about going to the higher level. He explained that the
higher level would create additional intensity and was
appropriate. He noted that the decision to go to the higher
level was done prior to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's
Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Study. He explained that
the MET Study spoke to less volatility and more accuracy when a
teacher's evaluation from student test scores was increased to
the 30 to 50 percentage range.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if DEED had developing a tracking system
to correlate student data with teacher evaluations.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no. He noted that DEED's intention
was to establish a tracking program from pre-kindergarten
through the university system to create a common identification.
He explained that the goal would be to track both students and
affective teachers. He said the tracking program was on DEED's
table, but the proposition was not easy.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked how the evaluation process would work
when teachers move throughout the state during their careers.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that training principals would be
important in supporting the evaluation model at all schools. He
emphasized that the increased student data percentages would be
determined by timeline and not location.
8:27:53 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if an estimated fiscal note would be
presented. He inquired if DEED would ask for additional funds
for training and tracking systems.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that DEED recognized that time and
money would be required for implementation. He noted that the
Governor also recognized that same requirement. He explained
that there were three basic levels to consider: some districts
would move forward with grant funding to develop a template for
other districts, supporting principals, and supporting districts
to implement the program. He said DEED did not have a fiscal
note tied to the performance standards change. He expressed the
belief that DEED had the grant monies to get the program rolling
on template and internal work.
8:29:11 AM
SENATOR GARDNER asserted that teachers, administrators and
families had opinions in every school as to which teachers were
the best. She explained that she did not know how accurate the
perceptions were and asked if DEED's current evaluation system
tracked well with popular evaluation systems.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that the current evaluation system
provided students and parents with the opportunity to weigh in.
He noted his time as a principle that he did not use student and
parental input as a specific criterion, but as a confirmation to
what he already knew. He noted that the MET Study acknowledged
the value of student and parent input. He explained that the
added input was part of a larger picture that included
observation and student data in order to create a good
evaluation system.
8:31:45 AM
JIM MERRINER, State Board Chair, Alaska State Board Of Education
& Early Development, affirmed Commissioner Hanley's presentation
and the importance of addressing the details involved with the
new performance standards.
CHAIR STEVENS asked Mr. Merriner to address the timeline for
implementing the higher percentage inclusion of student learning
data for evaluations.
MR. MERRINER replied that he liked the proposed timeline and the
built-in time to allow for reevaluation prior to implementing
the higher percentages. He noted that Commissioner Hanley
addressed the availability of a state assessment for specific
grades and subject matters. He said the number of measures used
by a district would dictate the impact of the state assessment
for a teacher's overall rating.
CHAIR STEVENS asked Mr. Merriner's to provide the committee with
information on his background.
8:34:57 AM
MR. MERRINER answered that he was elected as the State Board
Chair in June, 2012. He said he had been on the Alaska State
Board Of Education & Early Development for close to three years.
CHAIR STEVENS commended Mr. Merriner for his contribution to
education in Alaska.
8:35:44 AM
BRUCE JOHNSON, PhD, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators (ACSA), explained that he also served as the
Executive Director for School Superintendents. He noted that
ACSA represented principals, business officials, and
superintendents.
DR. JOHNSON said ACSA felt somewhat left out of the process
during the early stages of the performance standards changes. He
noted that ACSA has become more involved in the process and
thanked the Commissioner for his assistance. He said ACSA was
not afraid of accountability and noted the change across the
country regarding accountability. He affirmed the demands from
Alaskans to be increasingly accountable for the dollars spent
and the service provided. He explained that ACSA would be
partners in moving forward with accountability. He disclosed
that he had attended a national meeting with administrative
cohorts that addressed the issue of implementing complex teacher
and principal evaluations with a focus on student growth. He
summarized data from the meeting and noted that the process was
costly, time consuming, and complicated. He noted that results
were mixed and the process would not be a magic-bullet. He
explained that a lot of work was required in order to implement
the program. He expressed his gratitude to Commissioner Hanley
for his willingness to meet with superintendents and address
what would be required to make the program a reality. He stated
that ACSA would feel much better when there was a full
understanding of things. He remarked that academic performance
may only be part of a district's evaluation process and noted
that student attendance as another means of measuring student
growth. He said the challenge for evaluating all staff on
student growth may not appear to be as difficult as it first
appeared. He explained that ACSA believed that using student
growth for evaluating was the fairest approach and fully
supported the program.
8:40:07 AM
CHAIR STEVENS recounted his experiences as a school board
president in the 1980's and noted a reoccurring administrative
issue regarding teacher evaluations. He explained an issue where
unsatisfactory teachers were retained due to the fact that do
one had time to evaluate. He stated that the key was finding a
way to properly evaluate teachers. He noted that it was a big-
step to go from the current evaluation process to the one that
DEED desired.
DR. JOHNSON answered that it was a big-step. He said he
acknowledged the importance of teachers in the classroom and
noted teachers as the most important ingredient. He explained
that Alaska's uniqueness had been used as an excuse to settle
for mediocrity and that was not acceptable. He stated that ACSA
was committed to work with legislators and department heads to
make the program work. He remarked that ACSA would probably be
back in the future to review the program and recommend
incremental changes.
SENATOR HUGGINS said the proposed system was one of many that
had been implemented over time. He noted the highlighted
attribute of the program was on teacher quality. He asked how a
new teacher and the quality of a person be evaluated prior to
entering a classroom.
8:43:06 AM
DR. JOHNSON answered that Senator Huggins' question was a puzzle
that had to be figured out. He explained that university
committees were attempting to work with kindergarten through
grade 12 to try and build a transition that made sense so that
graduates were ready for the job that they were trained to do.
He noted that graduates would be counted on to possess basic
universal skills or they would not receive their credentials. He
said the question on the other end was how to assist families in
sending the very best child to school. He asserted that there
were so many things that determined a child's opportunity for
success in later life and noted the impact started at
conception.
CHAIR STEVENS announced that the committee would be meeting with
university officials to address their development of teachers.
SENATOR GARDNER addressed words Dr. Johnson used such as:
costly, time consuming, complicated, and mixed results. She
asked if Dr. Johnson was referring specifically to using student
growth as an element of teacher evaluations.
DR. JOHNSON answered that he was referring specifically to the
new system that was being proposed. He noted that evaluations in
the past may have been a have-to requirement that no one placed
a lot of value on.
SENATOR GARDNER asked if the current system was effective and
served everyone well.
DR. JOHNSON responded that changes were in order. He noted that
many of his members believed student growth was a worthy element
of teacher evaluations that should be explored and improved
upon.
8:45:51 AM
ROB THOMASON, President, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, stated his appreciation to Commissioner Hanley
to involve superintendents in the process and the council
strongly supported inter-rater reliability. He explained that
inter-rater reliability addressed Senator Dunleavy's question
regarding competency tracking for teachers and administrators
who moved to different districts. He noted that mastering inter-
rater reliability would be a huge step forward. He said the
council was committed to the evaluation process and its
implementation. He noted that constructive feedback designed to
help educators and students was strongly supported. He remarked
that the ACSA was looking forward to the guidance and technical
support from DEED. He noted that the council welcomed consortia
and template development by larger districts to support smaller
districts. He agreed with Commissioner Hanley that it was
difficult to move forward with the present assessment system. He
explained that the council looked forward to a vertically
aligned assessment and a clear understanding of the standards.
He noted that courage was required and the superintendents were
committed to move forward. He cited one caveat that
superintendents strongly recommended that the end product be
technology based and mobile. He advised that the program not be
paper and pencil based. He noted that available technology
should be used to make the assessment system user-friendly
across multiple platforms.
8:48:35 AM
SENATOR GARDNER asked what the current system's flaws were.
MR. THOMASON answered that the emphasis on accountability would
be a good thing. He noted that the current system made it
difficult and costly to help a teacher improve or find
alternative employment. He explained that the process was
cumbersome and a lot of work.
8:50:20 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (ASSB), explained that it was important for school boards
to adopt sound public policy that could be implemented with the
least amount of friction. He stated that living in a litigious
society presented legal action possibilities when questionable
job action decisions were made.
MR. ROSE said he attended the 2012 Labor-Management
Collaboration Conference and noted that the meeting was hosted
by U.S. Secretary of Education. He explained that teacher
evaluation was not a major issue of contention at the
conference. He asserted that people understood that student
achievement and evaluation was not a bad idea. He stated that
the question was how much weight would be given to teacher
evaluations. He referred to the eight content standards
presented by Commissioner Hanley; seven where directional inputs
and the eighth standard measured student growth. He noted that
the final standard was the only one that would be measured and
would account for 20 to 50 percent of the evaluation.
8:53:24 AM
MR. ROSE declared that the eighth standard would lessen the
other standards if it moved to 50 percent of the evaluation in
2019. He said he agreed with Dr. Johnson that the performance
standards program would be tweaked over time. He stated that
using student performance data was appropriate. He explained
that it was sound public policy to decide what degree of gravity
would be given to the student achievement element and what
effect would it have on the Alaska educational system. He asked
if the state-directed decisions would ultimately have to be
defended in court. He asserted that teachers and administrators
did not see student achievement based assessments as a problem.
He noted that the issue was placing a high priority on student
achievement in regard to employment via an evaluation system. He
stated that the AASB did not have a position on the program. He
declared that local school boards would be put in harm's way if
the state did not provide a clear direction.
CHAIR STEVENS responded that Mr. Rose brought up many
interesting issues regarding the connection to employment. He
asked if teacher evaluations would have an impact on salaries.
MR. ROSE replied that he had not previously considered the
question. He noted his belief was that everything ultimately
came down to salaries. He stated that an employee right was the
issue and not salaries. He explained that an employer had better
have a good reason as to why an employee would not be retained.
He declared that unsound reasons would lead to placing
instructional dollars into litigation.
8:56:47 AM
JOHN PILE, Executive Director, Alaska Association of Elementary
School Principals, noted that he had been principal in Fairbanks
for 30 years and was currently retired. He introduced John
Pothast as the primary spokesman.
JOHN POTHAST, President, Alaska Association of Elementary School
Principals, stated that moving towards multiple measures had
been advisable since the No Child Left Behind Act was reliance
based on one day of testing. He noted that moving to the student
growth model was a tremendous direction to go in. He asserted
that principals understood and respected the fact that
accountability was a part of our lives and they had no issues
with that. He stated that teachers should be accountable for the
huge task of educating children and accountability was required
to show it was being accomplished. He said DEED had defined
their "sandbox" and their job was to figure out how it would
work. He addressed his concern that the multiple measures were
not defined and noted that a lot of work was required to clarify
the measures. He advised against prematurely presenting
undefined measures that could lead to negative repercussions. He
announced that he was a proponent for inter-rater reliability
and the importance to consistently evaluate teachers throughout
the state. He said a potential problem could occur if districts
used unstandardized assessments that were challenging to compare
with other districts.
9:02:07 AM
MR. POTHAST stated that he was an advocate of using the growth-
model, but expressed his concern that there was no definition
for growth. He explained how the Kenai School District used
Pearson's AIMSweb® as a universal screening of student's
performance and growth. He asked what the appropriate level of
growth was and stated his concern for a potential problem if
individual districts were left to decide. He expressed his hope
that a district would come forward and announce their findings
for appropriate student growth levels.
He said he was concerned that 50 percent of the student learning
data would be used for evaluations in overall performance
ratings. He noted that the Kenai School District used four
domains for teacher evaluations and student learning data would
become the fifth domain. He stated that using 50 percent of the
student learning data would overemphasize the domain. He
addressed the proficiency regulation regarding an allowance for
a single Basic rating and asked what would happen if the Basic
rating occurred in the area of student learning data. He
asserted that half of a teacher's proficiency evaluation could
be rated as Basic.
CHAIR STEVENS commended Mr. Pothast's for raising important
issues on districts evaluating differently, teachers moving to
other districts, and student growth monitoring.
9:05:52 AM
ANDRE' LAYRAL, Executive Director, Alaska Association of
Secondary School Principals, asked that Adam Mokelke and Rod
Morrison to testify first.
9:06:29 AM
ADAM MOKELKE, President, Alaska Association of Secondary School
Principals (AASSP), said he agreed with Dr. Johnson's and Mr.
Pothast's statements on not being afraid of accountability for
student achievement. He addressed Commission Hanley's statement
on training and cited training as a critical point for AASSP. He
commented that Senator Dunleavy's question on funding would play
a role in supporting proper training for effectively
implementing the new evaluations. He said he agreed with Mr.
Pothast in the use of multiple measures rather than using one
measure and the focus on student growth rather than meeting an
arbitrary test score. He said AASSP would ask that multiple
measures of student learning be defined and identified. He
explained the importance of having consistent measures
throughout the state. He asked if the measures would be
identified on a state level and how much local control would be
allowed. He voiced AASSP's concern on how the new evaluation
system would affect low performing schools and specifically the
impact on rural schools. He noted his concern for the effect on
recruitment and training for rural schools. He asserted that
teaching candidates might prefer to work in school districts
that have more resources, access, and educators to work with
students.
CHAIR STEVENS replied that he was also concerned on the possible
impact on small villages. He addressed the possibility of
teachers choosing some schools over another and the impact on
school staffing.
9:10:34 AM
ROD MORRISON, President-elect, Alaska Association of Secondary
School Principals, said implementation and training had to be
consistent throughout the state. He asserted that the current
evaluation system was inconsistent and communication between
districts was imperative. He noted that accountability was very
important.
9:12:16 AM
MR. LAYRAL said AASSP's national association identified six
important domains for principal evaluation. He stated that any
affective evaluation system for principals would have to
recognize a variety of roles and the regional district's effect
on administrative roles. He said AASSP believed that it was
important that the responsibility, authority, and autonomy be
taken into consideration when linking student performance to
administrative evaluations. He noted that AASSP's national
association recognized professional growth and learning, school
planning and progress, school culture, professional qualities
and instructional leadership, stakeholder support and
engagement, and student growth and achievement. He stated that
focusing 50 percent of the evaluation on student achievement was
going to be something that would take a lot of work. He affirmed
that no one would shirk their responsibility and accountability.
He noted that the emphasis on one domain would have an impact on
administrators having time in shaping a school's culture,
developing their own professional growth and learning, being
responsible for the professional growth and learning of
teachers, and planning and implementing programs.
MR. LAYRAL said there were a lot of nontraditional subjects
beyond reading, writing, and math. He questioned how teachers
for nontraditional subjects would be measured and held
accountable. He stated that flexibility in evaluations should be
considered for schools that had a high turnover rate for
teachers and administrators.
9:16:22 AM
JOHN ALCANTRA, Director, Government Relations, National
Education Association-Alaska (NEAA), announced that 400 NEAA
delegates were meeting in Anchorage during the upcoming weekend
to set education policy for 2013. He noted that LaDawn Druce
from NEAA would address the committee. He explained that Ms.
Druce also served as the President of the Kenai Peninsula
Education Association.
9:18:28 AM
LADAWN DRUCE, Vice President, National Education Association-
Alaska (NEAA), said she had testified before the Alaska State
Board of Education & Early Development regarding the new
evaluation regulation. She explained her involvement with the
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District's process of improving
their teacher evaluation model over three years ago. She
announced that NEAA had a vested interest in leading their
profession. She said NEAA welcomed a candid and honest
conversation to improve teacher effectiveness and student
success. She noted that the upcoming NEAA delegate meeting would
address the issues with teacher evaluation. She stated that one
of NEAA's main concerns with the regulation pertained to the
statute:
4 AAC 19.010 PURPOSES AND SCOPE OF EVALUATIONS,
subsection (g), A teacher, administrator, or special
service provider who receives a performance evaluation
rating of unsatisfactory on one or more of the content
standards or other criteria for which evaluation is
required under this section has not met the district
performance standards. By statute a teacher would
thereby be placed on a plan of improvement.
9:21:07 AM
MS. DRUCE explained that NEAA's concern was aligned with Mr.
Rose's prior statement on the issue of placing a higher emphasis
on one standard. She stated that when the student learning data
standard becomes 20 percent of a teacher's or administrator's
overall performance rating, in actuality it could become 100
percent due to the statute definition from 4 AAC 19.010(g). She
explained that any standard that was deemed unsatisfactory would
result in a plan of improvement and the possibly of termination.
She affirmed Mr. Rose's concern for employment type issues and
how the verbiage was written in the regulation.
She said there were many factors which contributed to student
success that were beyond the control of the classroom teacher.
She said she appreciated Commissioner Hanley's opening comments
and noted that many of her previous concerns were addressed. She
explained that factors outside of a teacher's control weighed
heavily on the success of a student in a classroom. She detailed
outside factors as: poverty, lack of supervision at homes,
neglect, abuse, and the potentially of parents not valuing
education. She said the regulations stated that a district
evaluation of a teacher shall provide information and analysis
that helps a teacher grow professionally. She asserted that NEAA
supported a professional growth model for its educators. She
stated that the lack of recognition that a new to the profession
teacher or a teacher with a major change of assignment, may be
considered Basic in many or potentially all of the standards.
She noted that the lack of recognition did not value the aspect
of a growing professional. She explained that the Kenai
Peninsula School District used the Danielson Group's model as a
foundation for teacher evaluations and noted how new teachers
were classified as Basic due to their stage of learning the
craft. She advised that the way a Basic rating was given may
have an unintended consequence of putting everyone in a
Proficient or Distinguished category when not deserved. She
stated that the hope was DEED would continue to involve NEAA in
the discussions. She affirmed NEAA's desire to support a
positive change to a system that definitely could be better.
SENATOR GARDNER asked if Ms. Duce was saying that because of the
potential consequences of Basic ratings, there would be some
sort of ratings inflation to avoid those consequences.
MS. DRUCE answered yes.
9:25:41 AM
TODD POAGE, Superintendent, Alaska Gateway School District, said
it was important to have funding, training, and consistency
across the state.
9:26:29 AM
CHRIS REITAN, Superintendent, Galena City School District, said
it was important for the committee to be aware of what was
behind the push for the new evaluation regulations. He stated
that the real push behind the regulations was the flexibility
waiver from the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) guidelines. He
explained that DEED had submitted a waiver from the current NCLB
guidelines and noted that teacher and administrative evaluations
were a key component in the application. He explained that if
the state had not applied for a NCLB waiver, every school would
have been considered to be a failing-school. He noted that NCLB
would have required that every student would have to be rated as
Proficient in all areas of testing by the end of 2014. He
commented that the state in doing an outstanding job in
developing the new standards and noted that developing
accountability in student growth was outstanding. He stated that
the topic that was discussed in the committee meeting was a
little nebulous in regards to how everything would be built into
an evaluation tool for principals and teachers. He said he was
nervous that the state had not fully moved into the new
standards, assessments were not established to be aligned with
the new standards, and some of the student achievement dialog
bordered in the grey-area because the meaning of the standards
would not be known until an assessment item was attached. He
advised that everyone involved in the process be cautious and
prudent. He expressed the importance of building flexibility
into the system to allow for changes.
CHAIR STEVENS stated that the issue addressed during the meeting
was an important topic. He noted that he would talk to
individual committee members to find out what direction to go.
SENATOR GARDNER asked the Commissioner Hanley if the state had
invented the new regulations or if a template had been followed
from other states.
9:30:57 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that over 40 states had implemented
some version of tying teacher evaluations to student learning.
He said DEED had gleaned the best from other states and
developed one that worked for Alaska.
CHAIR STEVENS stated that Senator Gardner's question was
important. He said there were issues that the committee should
cover further on the entire subject.
9:31:21 AM
There being no further business to come before the Senate
Education Committee, Chair Stevens adjourned the meeting at 9:31
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01162013_ChicagoTribuneArticle.pdf |
SEDC 1/16/2013 8:00:00 AM |
New Regulations - Teacher Evaluations & Student Testing |
| 01162013_EXISTING_REG's_4_AAC_04.200.pdf |
SEDC 1/16/2013 8:00:00 AM |
New Regulations - Teacher Evaluations & Student Testing |
| 01162013_Hanley__TeacherEvalStudentTesting.pdf |
SEDC 1/16/2013 8:00:00 AM |
New Regulations - Teacher Evaluations & Student Testing |
| 01162013_NEW_REG's_4_AAC_04.200(f).pdf |
SEDC 1/16/2013 8:00:00 AM |
New Regulations - Teacher Evaluations & Student Testing |