Legislature(2013 - 2014)Anch LIO Conf Rm
01/07/2014 08:30 AM Senate EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Informational Hearing - Discussions & Presentations On: "the Common Core and Alaska's Academic Standards" | |
| 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 7, 2014
8:32 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Chair
Senator Mike Dunleavy, Vice Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins
Senator Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bert Stedman
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French
Representative Lynn Gattis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
INFORMATIONAL HEARING - DISCUSSIONS & PRESENTATIONS ON: "THE
COMMON CORE and ALASKA'S ACADEMIC STANDARDS"
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRIS MINNICH, Executive Director
Council of Chief State School Officers
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the "History,
Context & Current Implementation of Core Standards."
PAM GOINS, Director of Education Policy
Council of State Governments
Lexington, Kentucky
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented "Common Core State Standards: An
Overview of Policy Conditions in the States."
KATHLEEN PORTER-MAGEE, Senior Director
Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented "The State of State Standards."
SANDRA STOTSKY, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus
University of Arkansas
Department of Education Reform
Brookline, Massachusetts
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed concerns with the Common Core
State Standards.
JAMES MILGRAM, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus
Department of Mathematics
Stanford University
Stanford, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented "Comments on the Common Core Math
Standards."
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Education & Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented "Why Alaska Needs Internationally
Comparable (Benchmarked) English Language Arts Standards."
SUSAN MCCAULEY, Ph.D., Director
Teaching & Learning Support
Alaska Department of Education & Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented "Development & Overview of the
Alaska's Academic Standards."
JIM MERRINER, CHAIR
Alaska State Board of Education & Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented "Mission Statement & Adoption
Efforts of Alaska's Academic Standards."
DANA THOMAS, Ph.D., Vice President
Academic Affairs
University of Alaska - Statewide System
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented "Vetting Alaska's Academic
Standards: How They Address Remediation and the Gap Between
Alaska's Secondary and Postsecondary Education Systems."
DIANE HIRSHBERG, Ph.D., Director
Center for Alaska Education Policy Research
Institute of Social and Economic Research
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented "Results of the Alaska Content
Standards Validity Study."
ED GRAFF, Superintendent
Anchorage School District
Anchorage, Alaska,
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information about how the Anchorage
School District is implementing the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS).
DARLA JONES, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent
Curriculum & Instruction
Anchorage School District
Anchorage, Alaska,
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information about how the Anchorage
School District is implementing the Common Core State Standards.
PETE LEWIS, Superintendent
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
Fairbanks, Alaska,
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed implementing the Alaska Academic
Standards in the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District.
MELANIE HADAWAY, Coordinator
Secondary Curriculum
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
Fairbanks, Alaska,
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed implementing the Alaska Academic
Standards in the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District.
PEGGY COWAN, Superintendent
North Slope Borough School District
Barrow, Alaska,
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced the North Slope Borough School
District presentation.
LISA SKILES PARADY, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent
North Slope Borough School District
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented "Implementation Efforts &
Considerations at the District Level."
SUNNI HILTS, President
Association of Alaska School Boards
Seldovia, Alaska,
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified about implementation of the new
Alaska Academic Standards.
NORM WOOTEN, Member
Kodiak Island School Board
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented "Implementation Efforts &
Considerations at the District Level."
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:32:40 AM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS called the Senate Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:32 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Dunleavy, Gardner, Huggins, and Chair
Stevens.
^Informational Hearing - Discussions & Presentations On: "The
Common Core and Alaska's Academic Standards"
8:33:30 AM
CHAIR STEVENS commented on federal and state control of
education as follows:
I think we can all agree in Alaska that we want to
make sure that our students are prepared to compete in
the world and compete in the United States. We want to
have our students as prepared as possible when they go
out into careers or into college education. The second
thing that I assume most Alaskans still believe in is
local control. I served for three years as a president
of the local school board at home and I know how
important that is. I know others have served on local
school boards. We are always having confrontation with
federalism and the issues of what rights belong to
federal government and what rights belong to the
state. I think generally there is a belief here that a
lot of the rights that we had as states have been
taken away by the feds over the years. We want to make
sure that we control here in the state of Alaska our
education.
8:34:30 AM
CHRIS MINNICH, Executive Director, Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO), Washington, DC, said he will explain the basis
of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) with multiple states
working together. He said CCSSO is the membership organization
for commissioners of education across the United States. He
noted that he was the CCSSO's Director of Membership and led the
development of the CCSS prior to being CCSSO's Executive
Director. He divulged that he was with the Oregon Department of
Education where he led the state's standards and assessment work
prior to being involved with CCSSO.
8:35:49 AM
MR. MINNICH explained that CCSSO is a membership organization
and noted Commissioner Hanley from the Alaska Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) is a member of CCSSO.
He set forth that it is important to talk about the distinction
between standards and the curriculum that is taught to get
students to the CCSS. For example, a Common Core Standard is set
for second graders to successfully estimate a measurement
equation and noted that a teacher is not told how to have their
students achieve the CCSS; it just says by the end of second
grade a student needs to achieve the set goal. The latitude
given to teachers allows for regional variances. In English
Language Arts (ELA) that a Common Core Standard in second grade
asks students to describe how characters in a story respond to
major events and challenges. It is up to the teacher to find the
appropriate story that allows students to achieve their CCSS. He
emphasized that no one in the Common Core is told what they have
to teach; that is local control and a very important part of the
Standards Movement.
8:37:18 AM
He explained why the decision was made to develop CCSS. The
first conversations were initiated with state superintendents in
2007 regarding the possibility of developing standards for ELA
and mathematics. He said CCSSO was committed to clear and
rigorous primary and secondary education (K-12) expectations for
all students. He noted Senator Stevens pointed out that everyone
agrees with the desire to have all students compete on a state
and national level after K-12.
He said CCSSO noticed that standards dramatically varied from
state to state. Alaska's standards were not at the highest
levels across the country and every state needed to upgrade
their standards. He remarked that all state superintendents
recognized the need to upgrade standards.
He said a lot of time and effort was required whenever standards
were revised. Oregon spent almost $2 million every time their
standards were upgraded and CCSSO felt that every state was
individually spending similar amounts. States found out that
different expectations were being set and the consensus was for
setting the CCSS on a multi-state level. He emphasized that the
key was focusing on what the expectations should be, rather than
how the subject matter was taught.
MR. MINNICH revealed that as states developed new CCSS criteria,
advocacy groups and research institutions criticized the lack of
quality in the standards and the lack of student growth
achievement. States were criticized for low graduation rates and
for graduating students who were being remediated at high rates
and who were not ready for college.
8:39:02 AM
He said the business sector reminded states that schools were
not graduating with the knowledge and skills aligned with the
demands of the workforce. It was disheartening for CCSSO to
receive the constant criticism while they were working hard to
improve education opportunities for students.
He noted that one telling criticism that states were having
challenges was with the difference between the results in the
national assessment and the results on the individual state
assessments. The numbers in Alaska mirrored what was going on in
the rest of the country; but in 2011, 74.8 percent of students
passed the Alaska State Math Test and 75 percent in ELA. On the
National Assessment, 36 percent passed the mathematics, and 28
percent passed the ELA.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked for the specific name of the National
Assessment.
MR. MINNICH replied the National Assessment of Education
Progress (NAEP).
8:39:57 AM
CHAIR STEVENS welcomed Senator French to the committee meeting.
MR. MINNICH explained that the differences between the Alaska
Assessment Test and NAEP were hard to justify and Alaska was not
the only state receiving criticism for the disparity. He said
CCSSO and state governors felt the need to take action. States
were asked to sign-on to a memorandum-of-understanding (MOU)
that would allow CCSSO to create a set of standards that were
higher than what was going on in states across the country.
State education leaders found partners in the National Governors
Association (NGA) and CCSSO worked with NGA to develop CCSS. He
said that states could choose whether to adopt or not and nobody
was forcing any state to adopt CCSS.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked to clarify that there was no loss of
federal money if a state did not adopt CCSS.
MR. MINNICH answered that there was no loss of federal money. He
said he will address the federal incentive for extra money if
CCSS was adopted.
8:41:13 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver
process will be addressed.
MR. MINNICH answered yes.
He said he will address how CCSS was developed and some of the
misunderstandings. The standards were developed for and with the
states. There were five public drafts with many more drafts that
were circulated amongst state teachers and state departments of
education. He said CCSSO was trying to get the best standards
amongst states and among the world. He explained that CCSSO was
relying on the expertise of teachers, content experts, and
states. Feedback was provided by the business community, higher
education groups, American College Testing (ACT) group, and the
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) group. He noted that the intent
was to make sure that CCSS was consistent with college
expectations.
He said he will address the academic standards being formed by
the best standards in the states. He pointed out that
Massachusetts had very high standards coming into CCSS. He noted
that Massachusetts insisted that they not be required to adopt
lowered standards during the CCSS writing process. Massachusetts
adopted CCSS and the current standards are higher than previous
standards. He emphasized that the CCSS focus has always been
about higher expectations for kids. He noted that Alaska has
taken CCSS and made the standards right for Alaska.
8:43:04 AM
CHAIR STEVENS remarked that the difference between the standards
and the curriculum is a crucial issue. The committee's goal is
to try to diffuse some of the criticism, miscommunication, and
misunderstanding about CCSS. For example, people have claimed
that the states will be teaching their children either pro-
abortion or anti-abortion and requiring papers to be written on
the topics; the assertion was not accurate. He explained that
the curriculum will specify to defend a position on an issue
where there are definitely two sides. He said the curriculum
never says that a student has to defend or oppose something that
is a moral or political issue. He noted that a contentious issue
might come into a classroom, but it is not an issue that will
come through the curriculum.
MR. MINNICH commented that the standard in Chair Steven's
example would be to defend an opinion and the CCSS would not say
what the opinion is. He added that the teacher or school
district would decide on the topic. He said the curriculum is
what is taught to students and the standards themselves are just
the expectations of students.
SENATOR GARDNER asked if there is any direct link between the
standards and a curriculum. She explained that her understanding
is the CCSS are just that and every state in the union can have
their own curriculum without having to buy into anything.
MR. MINNICH answered correct. There is always a link where the
state has to teach the standards, but a state can have whatever
curriculum. He explained that it was more appropriate in a state
like Alaska that requires a curriculum to meet the state's
needs. He asserted that there should be no reason why a
curriculum would be specified. He explained that the distinction
between standards and curriculum is important. A lot of
criticism has been based on the assumption that teachers will be
told what to teach or forcing certain things to happen in the
classroom. He assured this was not happening in CCSS.
8:45:48 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if there is recommended curriculum by
some of the major textbook companies.
MR. MINNICH answered that some states do adopt curriculum. He
noted that Alaska does not adopt curriculum and districts would
make the choice.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if there are some textbook companies that
are developing curriculum to support CCSS.
MR. MINNICH answered yes. He explained that developing
curriculum made sense because CCSS was going on in 46 states.
SENATOR GARDNER asked if developing curriculum was a different
practice by the textbook companies. She queried if textbook
companies typically tailor their work to the greatest market.
MR. MINNICH answered that textbook publishers were usually using
Texas, California, and New York standards due to market size.
8:47:55 AM
He emphasized that the federal government played no role in
developing CCSS. He pointed out that he was in the middle of the
development of CCSS and there was no one from the federal
government during the development phase. The federal government
was not involved in any of the decision making in developing
CCSS. The federal government did encourage states to use CCSS by
awarding a small number of points for those using a common set
of standards in the Race to the Top (RTTT) Program. Alaska did
not apply for RTTT and there is no meaningful incentive for
Alaska to do anything around CCSS from the federal government.
He added that there is no link to federal Title I or Title II
money and the federal government is not withholding money if
states do not adopt CCSS.
He said ultimately CCSS should be a choice about what is best
for Alaska, and Alaskans should be making the decisions. He
noted that he has provided testimony in multiple committees
where he has repeatedly said CCSS is about what is best for the
state and that was the idea from the very beginning. He asserted
that CCSSO's only goal was to get states to raise their
standards across the country. He said CCSSO has been able to
raise standards fairly successfully. However, CCSS has created a
political controversy that CCSSO is hopeful to see its way
through.
He announced that he would address the waiver process that
Senator Dunleavy brought up. He said there were two options in
the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver process. He explained
that a state could either adopt CCSS or have their universities
validate their standards. He summarized that there were other
options of how a state would get an NCLB waiver other than
adopting CCSS. Nowhere in federal policy does the federal
government refer to CCSS; it is all college and career readiness
standards.
He noted that four states have not adopted CCSS: Alaska,
Nebraska, Virginia, and Texas. All four states have upgraded
their standards and have not used CCSS as the final set of
standards, but the states have gone through a process that has
enabled them to have higher standards. He reiterated that the
CCSSO's goal at the very beginning was to get states to raise
their standards. He said CCSSO is very pleased with what Alaska
has done in the common core process.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked to verify that there were two methods by
which a state could apply for the waiver process: adopt CCSS in
totality or have a state's universities set academic standards
to get into college.
MR. MINNICH answered yes.
8:49:51 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked to verify that Alaska went with Option 2.
MR. MINNICH answered that he was pretty sure Alaska did go with
Option 2.
CHAIR STEVENS noted that national newspaper headlines have
stated that other states are now backing out of the CCSS
process. He asked Mr. Minnich to bring the committee up to date
on the political scene regarding CCSS.
MR. MINNICH answered that no states have withdrawn from CCSS and
46 states are using CCSS. Most of the pushback comes from the
concern with the federal government getting too involved. He
disclosed to the committee that he shared the "federal
government involvement" concern because CCSSO represents state
commissioners. State commissioners, as a whole, are very
concerned about the federal government having too much control
over what is going on in the states. State legislators will have
conversations pertaining to federal government involvement. He
asserted that whether or not a state pulls out of CCSS is not
the issue to focus on, but the focus should be on higher
standards for students. He noted that there are benefits for
having the same standards because shared textbooks and standards
will allow students in Alaska to more easily get into college in
Washington or Oregon; however, that does not necessarily mean
that a state cannot raise its standards without using CCSS and
that is what Alaska has actually done. He explained that Alaska
started with CCSS and went through a feedback process to enable
a solid set of standards.
8:51:27 AM
SENATOR GARDNER asked when all of the education commissioners or
their delegates were meeting during the CCSS process, if any
states found the process or the whole idea of CCSS
objectionable. She inquired if state objections to CCSS occurred
during or after the process, whether or not a state signed on.
MR. MINNICH replied that Texas and Alaska were the two states
that did not sign on originally; at that point there was some
concern that the federal government would get involved. He
remarked that the only state that was adamantly opposed was the
state of Texas.
SENATOR GARDNER asked to clarify that when Alaska and Texas did
not sign originally, the states did not participate in the CCSS
discussions.
MR. MINNICH answered that Alaska and Texas were enabled to
participate in the CCSS discussions; the two states just did not
sign the agreement. He said CCSSO sent drafts to the Alaska
Commissioner's office; they did several review sessions and gave
feedback from Alaska's teachers on the CCSS. He stressed that
Alaska did a separate process of review for their Alaska
Academic Standards (AAS).
8:52:53 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked who determined the methods for the CCSS
waiver process.
MR. MINNICH replied that Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of
Education did. He commented that the involvement of Secretary
Duncan has spurred conclusions that the federal government is
involved in CCSS.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY responded that his concern is the University of
Alaska has determined the state's standards by validating the
AAS. He explained that CCSS was the template and the state
"Alaskanized" the ASS with the university system's approval.
MR. MINNICH concurred that Senator Dunleavy's explanation was
the process used.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked what would happen if the state's
university system did not approve the AAS.
MR. MINNICH remarked that the situation Senator Dunleavy
described has not occurred. There would be a problem if a state
has a set of standards in K-12 that is not preparing students
for its university system.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY questioned if the AAS are geared to prepare
students for the university system.
MR. MINNICH countered that the standards also prepared students
for careers. There are a set of careers in Alaska that are very
important to the state's economy; those particular careers
should be part of the standards process.
8:54:17 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY responded that the assumption is if the
standards are good enough for the university, the standards are
good enough for blue-collar or military careers.
MR.MINNICH answered that he did not agree with Senator
Dunleavy's assessment. He explained that the AAS process
included more than just the University of Alaska. The Secretary
of Education required a connection to higher education.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY stated that he did not want to belabor the
point regarding Alaska's university involvement with AAS. He
noted that the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED) will have their opportunity to address the AAS process.
MR. MINNICH stated that Senator Dunleavy is on the right issue
of getting standards that are at the correct level for careers
and higher education in the state; CCSSO had the same goal with
CCSS. He explained that Alaska did their process and made AAS
work for Alaska.
He addressed state ownership of standards. There have been a lot
of comments regarding who owns CCSS and the ability for states
to do what they want with CCSS. Alaska is a great example of
being able to change the standards if a state is interested in
doing so. There are no standards-police who check a state's
standards. States are in full control of their own standards and
use their own process to adopt CCSS. He explained that Alaska
went through a process with the State Board of Education to
adopt their standards. He pointed out that CCSS adoption also
included the option to add specific pieces. He said the CCSS
adoption did not have a binding commitment for the states with
CCSSO, the National Governors Association (NGA), or anyone else.
He emphasized that the choice for CCSS adoption will always
remain the choice of the state. The Alaska State Board of
Education has control of AAS.
8:56:21 AM
He said there are benefits of being "common." He noted that
Senator Gardner brought up the issue of textbooks. He said
instructional materials and assessments developed with other
states would be beneficial to the state of Alaska. One of CCSS's
ideas is to try to get assessments that will enable students to
be judged against national competition.
CHAIR STEVENS asked how CCSS started. He inquired if CCSS began
with NGA.
MR. MINNICH replied that CCSS started in 2007 with the state of
Florida. Florida's education commissioner noted an interest in
rewriting the state's standards and asked if any other states
were interested in joining the process to avoid duplicate
efforts. He said CCSSO approached NGA and a decision was made to
put out a call to see which states would want to write academic
standards together. He said CCSS projected 10 to 15 states
involved in the CCSS process and 48 states signed up to write
CCSS. Texas and Alaska were the two states that did not signup
initially.
HE said the next process involved getting states to participate
in the writing of CCSS. He related that 48 states were a lot of
states to try and make happy during the CCSS writing process.
The highest quality standards were used from states like
Massachusetts in addition to internationally-based academic
standards. The CCSS process was a two and half year process from
the beginning to end. He disclosed that CCSSO did not think the
CCSS process would be controversial because states had adopted
standards all along. Oregon spent about $2 million writing
standards during his tenor with the state. He pointed out that
Oregon tried to get news media coverage during the process and
nobody paid attention. He remarked that CCSS with 46 states is
receiving a lot of media coverage. The original impetus was the
idea that the U.S. was falling behind as a country and the
states were having lower expectations than they probably should.
CHAIR STEVENS welcomed Senator Hollis French to participate with
the committee's proceedings.
SENATOR HUGGINS stated that CCSS was the beginning of the agent
of change. He asked Mr. Minnich to describe the cycle of the
academic standards change.
8:59:22 AM
MR. MINNICH answered that the new expectations really are just
the first step. He asserted that the next stage has to be a
local conversation with school districts, given the time and
space to make sure that teachers are being trained, lessons
being taught are being upgraded, and higher expectations are
being assessed. Assessments will be harder with fewer students
initially meeting the new standards. Kentucky just went through
the assessment process in 2010 and a big drop occurred in the
first year with the number of students that were meeting the
CCSS. The second year saw an increase in Kentucky's students
meeting their standards. He noted that the pattern for a system
change will show a small drop initially, followed by growth and
achievement. If Alaska's teachers are similar to teachers in
other states, the state's teachers really just want clarity of
what the academic standards are with the belief that they can
get students to the standards. He asserted that teachers need
help to get students to meet the new standards.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked what happens in the teacher training phase
with universities.
MR. MINNICH replied that one of the most important things is to
make the universities understand what the new standards are.
Universities have not always been the best at listening to what
was going on across the country in K-12. He remarked that CCSSO
is pushing with higher education associations to assist with
changing the way teachers are being educated. Teachers have to
be taught more in the classroom by spending more time with
student teaching, have hands-on experience, and be taught how to
deal one-on-one with parents and students. He said most places
have somewhere between six months and a year of student
teaching, CCSSO would like to see much more. He added that
teachers should also receive continued professional development.
9:02:08 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked about the increased academic standards'
timeline-cycle and when results will be realized.
MR. MINNICH answered that Kentucky saw results in two years with
more students meeting the CCSS. Miracles should not be expected
within two years and the process should be thought of more as a
cycle. Each state has a different timeline. He said he did not
know what timeline was best for Alaska and each state is
different. He divulged that he does not want his two-year-old
child to get through high school with the current standards in
the state of Virginia. He suggested that the state should be
thinking about a three-to-four year transition to the new
standards. Alaska's Commissioner of Education should ultimately
provide the committee with a timeline.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked about the relationship between CCSS and
RTTT.
MR. MINNICH replied that Alaska did not apply for RTTT. In the
RTTT application process, states were given a small amount of
points for participation in writing a set of common standards.
He said most of the states that put in applications used CCSS as
evidence to show participation. Funds provided to states for
participation was extra money and not a title program. He
reiterated that Alaska did not participate.
9:04:13 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS said the U.S. ranked 26th or 27th amongst other
nations in education. He added that Alaska ranked in the forties
amongst other states. He asked if regrouping is possible if the
data he noted was taken into account with a 65 percent
achievement level in executing CCSS along with teaching training
and other support necessities.
MR. MINNICH answered yes. He asserted that standards themselves
are not going to teach kids; teachers have to be helped to teach
kids. He said the CCSS and AAS set a high bar for students.
Dedication to getting students and teachers to the higher levels
will lead to regrouping in state orders. He mentioned
Massachusetts as the best example where high standards were set
in the early '90s and the state was not the highest ranked in
the country when the change was made. Massachusetts became the
number one ranked state ten years after their standards change
with the state remaining ranked as the highest. He explained the
importance of dedicating to the CCSS and really being willing to
say the standards are the right things for students when it gets
hard. Dedicating to higher standards will be hard politically at
times. He encouraged the committee to think about AAS as an
important goal for students.
9:06:04 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY noted that Mr. Minnich mentioned that
internationally the U.S. should do better. He asked if there was
any study done in terms of correlation between CCSS and the
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA).
MR. MINNICH replied that CCSSO looked at PISA.
CHAIR STEVENS asked Mr. Minnich to explain PISA.
MR. MINNICH answered that PISA is an international assessment
given by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OCED). He said PISA's recent results ranked the
U.S. in the 20's. He explained that PISA noted in their recent
study that implementing CCSS should result in growth by the U.S.
in PISA.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY noted Senator Huggins addressed what the next
steps were with AAS and Mr. Minnich replied that universities
have to change teacher training. He set forth that universities
were the very group that validated AAS. He asked if the
universities were actually changing internally to do exactly
what was discussed.
MR. MINNICH answered that Senator Dunleavy's question was
outside of the scope of his testimony. He encouraged the state
to think about how it is dealing with higher education as a
separate issue, whether Alaska had CCSS or not. He asserted that
higher education should be getting better across the U.S. Higher
education has to train teachers better and be more relevant to
what is going on in K-12 classrooms. He remarked that Senator
Dunleavy's question is not a CCSS issue, but should be
considered a training issue for universities across the U.S.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY reiterated that the university system validated
AAS. He noted that the focus is on all students being prepared
to go into college if they so choose. He agreed that addressing
the universities is an internal issue for the state to deal
with. He asserted that the university systems have to be
prepared for those incoming students.
MR. MINNICH replied that Senator Dunleavy is on to something and
the issue is really important. He explained that he did not know
enough about Alaska's university system to answer Senator
Dunleavy's question.
9:09:04 AM
SENATOR GARDNER stated that she had attended previous CCSS
meetings through the National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL) and the Education Commission of the States (ECS). The key
emphasis from the meetings in improving student outcomes is not
only high standards, but also really effective teachers. Part of
the effectiveness of teachers is to have more time as student
teachers and a more rigorous course load for teachers. She
mentioned Kentucky as an example of a state that implemented
CCSS and made progress in two or three years. She asked what
role effective teacher training has in Kentucky's making
progress. She called attention to previous testimony where the
state of Maryland presented their systematic way of mentoring
new teachers and supporting building-by-building in supporting
new teachers.
MR. MINNICH identified Maryland, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and
Tennessee as states that have a systematic way of bringing new
teachers into the system. There are states where a person gets a
sense that teachers just get thrown into the classroom in year
one and learn as they go. States have really changed the way
they are doing things. He noted that CCSSO did a report about
teacher training and made ten recommendations to states about
what they should be doing.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if Mr. Minnich had any closing comments.
MR. MINNICH replied that he appreciated the detail level of the
questions posed to him. He noted that the committee members have
done their homework. He summarized that his goal was to simply
try to get some facts on the table about the process CCSSO went
through in developing CCSS. He explained that the committee will
hear from opposition in the day's meeting and noted that there
are issues worth debating. He asked the committee to focus on
the issue of how to get students to the CCSS. Upcoming
presentations by the school districts in Alaska will show that a
good job is being done in implementing AAS.
9:11:43 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Mr. Minnich to address student drop-outs
and the net effect when college-oriented standards are moved.
MR. MINNICH replied that drop-outs are a national plague. The
career-side of the conversation is really important and there
has to be relevance for students who drop out. He emphasized
that drop-outs have to have a reason to come back to the
classroom. He said curriculum is important and not the
standards. Kids are starting to see how what is being taught in
classrooms is connected directly to a job. Career-tech education
is one of the major ways to solve the drop-out conversation so
that the non-college student after high school has options.
9:13:13 AM
CHAIR STEVENS thanked Mr. Minnich for his testimony. He
commented that he had received calls regarding the perception of
"stacking the deck" and only presenting one side of the Common
Core issue. He asserted that his intention has been to get
comments from all sides of every issue. There will be an
opportunity at tomorrow's committee meeting for anyone to speak
with the intent that everyone has had an opportunity to give
their opinion and their take of what is going on.
9:14:08 AM
At ease from 9:14 a.m. to 9:18 a.m.
9:18:36 AM
CHAIR STEVENS called the committee back to order.
PAM GOINS, Director of Education Policy, Council of State
Governments (CSG), Lexington, Kentucky, said she would talk
about the legislative role in CCSS adoption and implementation.
She explained that she would provide background on what CSG has
seen across the country with state legislatures. She noted that
she was a director of CSG's "Center for Innovation and
Transformation Education." She said CSG allows for a great
opportunity and perspective to bring all three branches together
to address CCSS conversations: states' departments of education,
states' boards of education, and states' legislators. She noted
that she is a parent of a fifth grader and explained that CSG's
location in Lexington, Kentucky, allows her to watch the state's
progression with adoption and implementation of CCSS. It has
been very interesting to see what is happening in the
classrooms, talk with teachers to learn about CCSS, address
teachers' professional development, and to see assessment scores
change to the new CCSS, from a parent's perspective.
MS. GOINS stated that she will share what is happening with the
legislature. She noted that the committee has heard about the
emphasis on "college and career readiness." However, CSG really
wants to say "college workforce and life readiness" because that
is critical and demands more from students than ever before.
Remedial courses continue to be necessary before students can
take credit-bearing courses once they enter college and higher
education. Also, CSG continues to hear from business and
industry that they cannot find employees who can think
critically, communicate, problem solve, collaborate, and have a
basic ability to read and write effectively. The same skills
noted by business and industry are missing in the college
classrooms. She said CCSS will better prepare all students to be
successful in college and careers through deeper, more rigorous,
and clearer expectations for the learner. CCSS will emphasize
more complex content and the development of real-world skills
with authentic purpose. CCSS will ultimately lead to job
creation, economic development, and prosperity for the state.
She continued that AAS will allow teachers, administrators,
students, and parents to use a common language by preparing the
best educational environment for the state's students. Beyond
the in-state commonality, Alaska also has an opportunity to
learn what is happening around the country and share the good
work happening in Alaska. The world opens up for a classroom
teacher when they can obtain lesson plans, textbooks, and other
materials to customize instruction for their students.
9:21:35 AM
MS. GOINS addressed the policymaker's role in the CCSS adoption
process. She pointed out that 41 states lean to their state
boards of education or boards of regents. The chief state
officers have been given the authority to authorize CCSS in
North Dakota, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. American Samoa
authorizes CCSS by executive order through their governor. She
remarked that the legislature plays a key role in Idaho,
Kentucky, Maine, and Minnesota. She noted that the state of
Washington only adopted the English Language Art (ELA)
standards.
She remarked that there seems to be some growing misconception
about what an academic standard really is. Mr. Minnich talked
about the purpose of the CCSS statements and expectations. She
detailed that CCSS are not curriculum or curriculum materials,
but rather a rigorous roadmap of what students should know and
be able to do at each grade level.
She said standards are not new to states; the standards movement
happened years ago. The national movement to utilize a common
set of standards is new and the focus now is on creating and
preparing students for college, work force, and life. She noted
that the committee heard that academic standards alone do not
take a student to the next level. It takes a well-rounded
curriculum, classroom materials, professional development for
teachers, formative and summative assessments, and a large
cultural shift in the school to guide students to their own
self-directed learning using a teacher as their guide.
9:23:19 AM
She reviewed Kentucky's process, noting the state's landmark
legislation happened before CCSS ever came to be. Governor Steve
Beshear signed Senate Bill (KY-SB) 1 into law in March 2009. She
said KY-SB 1 was a foundational piece of legislation which
really changed and transformed Kentucky's entire state
educational system; it focuses on college and career readiness
in addition to degree completion. She revealed that KY-SB 1
mandated the Department of Education, the Board of Education,
and the Council on Postsecondary Education to come together as
three previously separated agencies and develop a unified plan
to reduce college remediation rates by at least 50 percent by
2014. KY-SB 1 also requires an increase in college completion
rates of those students who were in developmental and remedial
education by 3 percent annually from 2009 to 2014. She noted
that KY-SB 1 adoption served as a critical foundation to move
forward when CCSS were adopted at a later date.
9:24:28 AM
CHAIR STEVENS asked if Kentucky is on track to accomplish their
goals by 2014.
MS. GOINS replied that the numbers look really good and an
annual progression has been achieved.
SENATOR GARDNER asked if Kentucky provided additional funding to
school districts to reach for their goals or if the school
districts were expected to make the changes at the same funding
levels.
MS. GOINS responded that there were some appropriations in
Kentucky's budget to assist the local school districts. She said
Kentucky House Bill (KY-HB) 37 on the Districts of Innovation
comes with some funding as well. Districts can apply to be a
District of Innovation to ask for forgiveness from some state
board requirements in addition to some statutory and regulatory
requirements.
SENATOR GARDNER asked to clarify that in the effort to achieve
the new goals, districts in Kentucky are asking for exemptions
from some standards and regulatory requirements.
MS. GOINS said that was correct.
SENATOR GARDNER replied that districts' obtaining exemptions was
very interesting.
MS. GOINS explained that Kentucky has 175 school districts and 4
districts have been approved to be a District of Innovation.
Those districts are doing remarkable and some of the following:
dual enrollment - transporting students from school to the local
college or community college while they have internet on their
school bus to do some other high school work; proficiency; based
and competency-based learning with problems; and taking teachers
from higher performing schools into lower performing schools in
the Louisville School District. School districts actually apply
to the State Board of Education and ask to be exempt from
certain regulatory and statutory requirements of the state. A
great deal of oversight comes from the commissioner at the state
level. She said the District of Innovation program is in its
second years and test scores will provide a status update as the
program moves forward.
9:26:47 AM
SENATOR GARDNER addressed Kentucky's strategy to move high
performing teachers to low performing schools. She asked how the
high performing teachers were moved, if the transfers are
involuntary, and whether teachers are provided with an incentive
to transfer.
MS. GOINS replied that the school districts sought teachers who
are high performing and have great test scores from their
students. She explained that high performing teachers are asked
to mentor other teachers directly in the classroom, as co-
teachers in classrooms, or with the use of the internet with
video calls.
She continued with more examples of what is happening to
Kentucky with the unified plan that KY-SB 1 put into place.
There is a huge emphasis on advanced placement and opportunities
for increased dual-credit. Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) is a huge focus as Kentucky boosts
opportunities for students and teachers pushing towards the STEM
fields. She noted that there are also targeted interventions
happening for those students who are not on track for college or
career-readiness.
9:28:24 AM
She addressed the state of Washington and noted the state's
legislature being a part of the implementation and adoption
process. The Washington State Legislature provisionally adopted
CCSS in 2010 and gave some very direct feedback to the state's
Department of Education during the adoption process. Cost and
benefit analysis occurred with Washington's policymakers and
stakeholders. The Washington State Legislature formally adopted
CCSS the following year and the state is on a good projection to
continue their efforts. Washington provided a lot of support
during the three-year transition process for special populations
that included students with disabilities and English Language
Learners. She said CCSS for Washington, in the present and
future, entails looking at bringing leadership teams together,
providing new assessments, and keeping the statewide steering
committee together to address CCSS success.
9:30:00 AM
MS. GOINS addressed Maine and noted CCSS adoption was a
legislative act. She said Maine knew that more than 50 percent
of their students were entering community colleges with the need
to take developmental remedial courses without the ability to go
straight in to a credit bearing course. Maine put their emphasis
on college, career, and civic life. Maine's business and
industry was very vocal on its inability to employ skilled
people. The Maine Legislature put CCSS in place in 2011 and the
event became known as "Maine's Learning Revolt Standards." She
noted that more and more states are emphasizing state standards
in CCSS as Alaska has done.
She addressed what is happening in legislatures. She explained
that there was a flurry of activity in 2010 as states were
adopting CCSS. Legislatures in many states asked for the CCSS
process to slow down and allow for legislative involvement.
Legislatures were not aware of what the standards were or what
action the states had taken. However, after more education took
place with policymakers, the legislative action really started
to heat up. Although the majority of states rely on their state
boards of education, there are far reaching implications that
the legislature needs to be aware of: state assessments, teacher
evaluation systems, accountability, funding for local school
districts, and appropriations. The legislature is a vital
stakeholder in academic standards. Alaska's legislature oversees
the educational systems from early learning to K-12 and
postsecondary education. She asserted that the legislature's
role in understanding the standards that impact and align with
the state's educational goals in strategic planning is critical.
She said in 2012 there were approximately 120 unique bills
related to CCSS, but that number surged to almost 300 in 2013.
She noted examples of bills that were enacted by western states
as follows:
In California, through Assembly Bill 86, there was a
one-time appropriation of $1.25 billion and it is
specifically to help the local education agencies and
the implementation of the Common Core, new investments
in professional development technology. Also in
California, the [State Schools] Chief must monitor the
quality of the standards based curriculum that is
being implemented and then they put a specific
emphasis on English Language Learners as well. There
was another $1.1 million in California appropriated to
improve the teaching quality related to the new
standards. In Colorado, Senate Bill 87 was a
supplemental appropriation to the Department of
Education to create the Colorado Student Assessment
Program aligned to the Common Core; so they took the
role to say these new standards must be directly
aligned to the Common Core. In Hawaii, House Bill 200
funded the Department of Education to implement a
pilot-program designed to help the state meet the new
standards.
9:33:37 AM
CHAIR STEVENS welcomed Representative Lynn Gattis to the
committee meeting. He noted that Representative Gattis is the
Chairperson of the House Education Committee.
MS. GOINS continued to note unique CCSS related bills in western
states as follows:
Idaho Senate Bill 1200 was funding for the Public
Schools Educational Support Program and this was
nearly $1.6 billion put into the fund for the fiscal
year 2014, and $3.8 million specifically for
professional development in training on Idaho's Core
Standards. In Nevada we saw a couple of bills, one
requiring the P-16 Council to determine whether or not
their teachers in the schools are understanding and
teaching the curriculum required by the Common Core.
Also, the State Chief has to select a standardized
curriculum-based college entrance exam to replace the
High School Proficiency Test, which also requires the
State Board to determine the course of the study that
is aligned to the Common Core subject areas. In New
Mexico, House Bill 2 gave a special appropriation to
the State Education Agency for the development of a
statewide formative Common Core related assessment;
they also gave $365,000 for the purchase and
development of new information technology to support
implementation and assessment of college readiness
standards in a varied diverse and culturally difficult
geographic region of New Mexico. As you will hear as
the day goes on today and tomorrow with the
assessments and the use of technology in digital
learning, New Mexico put this funding directly to
boost the use of technology, the broadband width, in
ensuring students had access to that technology. In
North Dakota, they are aligning statewide achievement
tests with the Common Core.
9:35:48 AM
In Oregon, they established the Network of Quality
Teaching and Learning, which specifically looks at
teacher quality, student achievement, and how they are
implementing the Common Core. In Utah, they are
looking at their LEA's or their local school district
and their charter schools as well, to administer
college readiness assessments and admission tests that
includes language arts, math, and science standards
that are most commonly accepted by most universities
in the state. Washington extended their 2012 deadline
for the State Chief to issue an estimate of the cost
for implementing the Common Core and in doing so they
must get public input and feedback regarding the
recommendation to enhance those standards.
9:36:40 AM
CHAIR STEVENS asked about the state of Washington's cost
estimate.
MS. GOINS replied that she has not seen the final report of
exactly what amount Washington came up with.
She said Wyoming also looked at extending a timeline that is
legislature-established for phase 1 of their new accountability
system, which has a direct correlation to implementation of the
Common Core.
She asserted that Alaska's legislature certainly knows that the
Common Core implementation has budget implications, but the key
is that the legislature shows support for implementation with
fidelity. One of the key opportunities with the Common Core is
to have a common set of high expectations for all students; but
they must be implemented with fidelity. She advised the Alaska
Legislature to look at redirecting funds to districts to support
implementation and to review available funding streams for
teacher professional development. Alaska is already training its
teachers, looking at the professional development components,
and how the Department of Education's is involved. She remarked
that Alaska possesses vast Common Core opportunities to learn
and share with neighboring states.
9:38:15 AM
CHAIR STEVENS said Alaska is going through a lot of difficult
times fiscally and noted that the House has established a task
force to try to find ways to reduce the costs of education. He
explained that the task force set forth that the state needs to
look at a reduction of monies going into education. He asked
Representative Gattis if his assessment was fair.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS replied that Chair Stevens' assessment was
not fair. She explained that the task force's preliminary report
indicated that Alaska needs to find newer and different ways of
thinking. Alaska has an education system that the legislature
created over time. She asserted that if the legislature does not
change the education system, then the state will be forced to
fund the system.
CHAIR STEVENS replied that the point is Alaska's legislature is
taking a look at the cost of education and at the same time
addressing budget implications regarding the Common Core. He
asked Ms. Goins for her comments on his statement.
9:39:23 AM
MS. GOINS replied that Alaska is already spending the money for
teacher training and professional development. She said the
state should look at its education funding streams coming in and
opportunities for school districts to apply for funding through
different opportunities.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if Ms. Goins is finding that the
universities are changing their approaches to anything. He said
it sounds like the state is starting to lineup two historically
different systems. He asserted that the K-12 system is becoming
a feeder-program for universities or the "minor league" for
universities when the two groups have disparate missions. He
said the argument in the past is that Alaska's kids were not
prepared for the university; but there are two different
missions. He asked if Ms. Goins is finding that the universities
are changing their approach to things. He noted that Alaska used
to have a community college concept that really does not exist
anymore.
MS. GOINS replied that converting higher education institutions
has been a slow process. Universities initially felt that they
were not part of the conversation with the Common Core. She said
universities are now given the message that the CCSS process
requires their participation.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY noted that the university just validated
Alaska's standards.
MS. GOINS replied that she was talking nationally in the
conversation as a whole. Just as the legislature felt very
frequently that they were not a part of that initial
conversation as the standards were being developed, the same is
true from higher education. Universities are certainly onboard
with the Common Core with the understanding that CCSS is
critical for graduating K-12 students that are college and
career-ready. She remarked that the aspiration for a quick
turnaround has not occurred and the change process is going to
be a slower-moving process for higher education systems.
Universities are certainly looking at the Common Core and
analyzing requirements for training teachers. She said it is
critical that higher education institutions, state boards, and
licensors come together and talk about how teachers need to be
trained as they enter the classrooms.
9:41:58 AM
She said the Council of State Governments (CSG) was asked to
compile a policy-framework for deeper learning, critical
thinking, and an inquiry-based approach by students. In
addition, CSG was asked to identify what the state legislative
role is. She explained that a national group of experts was
assembled comprised of legislators, state chiefs, state board of
education members, and local implementers. CSG asked the expert
group to identify what to say to legislators regarding college,
career, workforce, and life readiness. Recommendations from the
expert group fall around five major policy areas:
1. Curriculum and instruction
2. Teacher professional development
3. Teacher and leader effectiveness
4. The use of time
5. Assessments and accountability
MS. GOINS explained that the recommendations are a roadmap of
opportunities for state legislatures to consider as they have
academic standards conversations in transforming educational
systems.
9:43:29 AM
She said she would leave the committee with some questions. She
explained that in many states the boards and departments of
education lead the way on local school districts' academic
standards. However, the state legislatures have to be a major
player in the standards conversation. She reviewed guiding
questions she used when talking with Commissioner Hanley and
individuals from preschool to higher education as follows:
· How can we look at state licensure requirement?
· How can we ensure that our educators can demonstrate
mastery of the Common Core for that initial licensure
as well as renewal?
· How can postsecondary change their courses and program
approval standards so that pre-service teachers are
showing competency in standards, ensuring that they
can deliver the instruction in the classroom?
· How can your funding provide some support for more
rigorous teacher evaluation systems that include the
Common Core?
· What about revealing, amending, or changing
professional development? Again, this is something
that goes on school year by school year that making it
much more focused on your academic standard; how that
connects to the curriculum, the curriculum materials,
and the instructional strategies.
· How do you evaluate the effectiveness of that
professional development?
· Can you consolidate any of your services here in the
state to free up some of those monies we were just
talking about?
· Can you purchase more collectively?
· Can you look more as a state to offer resources for
CCSS implementation and professional development?
· How can you possibly incentivize local school
districts to share or consolidate their services?
9:45:12 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY specified that Alaska did not adopt Common
Core.
MS. GOINS replied that Alaska has AAS and college and career
readiness standards.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY stated that Alaska is going to substitute AAS
for CCSS.
MS. GOINS answered correct. She explained that the Common Core
is that high expectation set of standards for all students and
Alaska has done that with AAS.
CHAIR STEVENS replied the Alaska State Standards.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY recommended a new acronym.
MS. GOINS addressed policy enaction for the use of time as
follows:
We are seeing so much more problem-based learning and
competency-based learning for students that requires
now learning both inside and outside of the classroom.
So, can you take a look at opportunities to provide
credit for students that are not necessarily a "seat
time" or a Carnegie Unit? How can you be flexible with
your schedules, calendars, and class sizes? All of
these things can come together for improving your
budget outcomes as well. And then, as I talked about
Kentucky in their "innovation zones," are you willing
to do that here in Alaska to look at some of the
districts to implement your state standards in more
transformative ways? Finally, how do you engage other
key stakeholders? Certainly today is one way of doing
that, but engaging the stakeholders in this
discussion. Your academic standards will always be
here for your students. I applaud you for raising the
expectations for all of your students. We can be a
resource to you at CSG and I would certainly be glad
to do so.
9:47:12 AM
SENATOR GARDNER said the meeting is about trying to improve
educational outcomes for all kids across Alaska and nationwide,
too. She noted hearing a lot of previous testimony about the
importance of early childhood education and pre-K programs. She
said she was surprised that there was no mention, whatsoever,
about pre-K during discussions about policymakers, leadership
roles, and system assessments. She asked if not mentioning pre-K
is intentional.
MS. GOINS replied that not mentioning pre-K was not
intentionally left off of the table because early learning is
critical, whether it be in a childcare setting, head start, or
pre-school formal programs. She said pre-K is critical to
prepare students for kindergarten and beyond. She noted that
CSG's initial CCSS focus for state legislatures was on K-12. She
said CSG understands that the conversation has to also address
pre-school, early learning, as well as postsecondary. She
explained that her presentation to the committee was a result of
CSG's focus group looking at K-12 education.
9:48:28 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if there were representatives from the
University of Alaska (UA) at the committee meeting.
CHAIR STEVENS replied that UA representatives will be present
during the afternoon meetings, as well as online.
SENATOR HUGGINS noted that input from UA is an important
component. He remarked that Alaska's stakeholders need to be
advised on academic standards at the same time. Alaska has a
history where accreditation was unfortunately lost for one of
the state's teacher producing bases. The state went through the
"agent of change" and the practice exam and the requirement for
a five-year education. He asserted that the state was back where
it started with a four-year education requirement. He said the
state has migrated back to where it began.
He called attention to Senator Dunleavy's remarks regarding the
Alberta Model for learning. He asked if Ms. Goins had taken a
look at the Alberta Model.
9:49:38 AM
MS. GOINS answered that she was not familiar with the Alberta
Model.
CHAIR STEVENS commented that he appreciates Senator Dunleavy's
comments about the change that occurred in Alaska's universities
by doing away with the community college system. He remarked
that the community college system probably plays a very
important role in Kentucky's ability to provide students with
classes when they are in high school so that they can earn
credit at college.
MS. GOINS answered yes. She explained that Kentucky's community
colleges play an important role for students, as well as for
businesses. She noted that businesses were doing much more in-
sourcing with community colleges to train their own employees.
CHAIR STEVENS thanked Ms. Goins.
9:50:30 AM
At ease from 9:50 a.m. to 10:02 a.m.
10:02:19 AM
CHAIR STEVENS called the committee meeting back to order.
KATHLEEN PORTER-MAGEE, Senior Director, Thomas B. Fordham
Institute (TBFF), Washington, DC, explained that TBFF is a
"right leaning" education policy think tank. She noted her
background in policy work, in addition to rigorous standards
implementation, in urban, Catholic, and public charter
classrooms, both as a teacher and also as a network
administrator.
MS. PORTER-MAGEE explained that she would address both the CCSS
and the AAS that were in place prior to 2012. She said her hope
is to explain why the CCSS is clearer and more rigorous than the
vast majority of state standards and why it is superior to those
that Alaska replaced in 2012. She detailed the CCSS and the AAS
as follows:
For nearly two decades, state standards have been a
cornerstone of our modern education system. State
governments have long set minimum expectations for
each grade level or grade band across all grades, K
through 12. These are meant to ensure that all
students, regardless of race or socioeconomic status,
are held to the same rigorous standards. And there is
ample evidence that, without clear objectives,
teachers will often unconsciously raise or lower their
own expectations based on the abilities and
backgrounds of the students in front of them, rather
than based on what will help ensure students are on
path towards college or the workforce.
Yet, we have known for a long time that, in far too
many states, including Alaska, the existing state
standards set the bar far too low, leaving a content
and expectations gap between schools and classrooms.
10:05:17 AM
But, are the Common Core the right solution to this
problem? In order to answer that question, it's
important to understand five facts:
1. The Common Core effort is, and has always
been, a state-led effort to improve the quality
and rigor of K-12 academic standards, of which
Alaska leaders were initially full participants,
and which is why Alaska was able to opt out of
the CCSS without penalty.
2. The Common Core State Standards are
significantly stronger than the Alaska standards
that were in place prior to 2012.
3. Common Core English standards emphasize the
importance of reading rigorous, high-quality
literature in English class, plus non-fiction in
history, science, and other courses.
4. The Common Core math standards prioritize the
most important math content at each grade level,
including a heavy dose of 'math facts' and
arithmetic in the early grades.
5. Whether Alaska choses to adopt or adapt the
Common Core or not, educators will retain full
control over curriculum, instruction, and
pedagogy where it belongs - at the local level.
10:06:20 AM
Let's dive deeper into rigor of the standards
themselves. If I leave you with nothing else, I really
hope that I am successful in underlining this critical
point: the Common Core is significantly clearer and
more rigorous than the Alaska ELA and math standards
that were in place prior to 2012.
We at the Fordham Institute have been evaluating state
standards for more than 15 years. In 2010, we released
a comprehensive review of the clarity and specificity
and content and rigor of every state's existing ELA
and math standards, along with our final evaluation of
the Common Core. In that analysis, the Common Core
earned a B-plus from our ELA experts and an A-minus
from our math experts. In the same evaluation,
Alaska's ELA and math standards earned an 'F' and a
'D' respectively.
Even still though, when the final version of the CCCSS
were released in 2010, the standards were not meant to
serve as the totality of the state's expectations, but
instead to define the 'core' - the essential ELA and
math knowledge and skills that students need to be
college and career ready.
As leaders of the CCSS Initiative made clear at the
time, states who adopted the Common Core were
encouraged to customize the standards to meet their
state's unique needs by adding state-specific features
that build upon this Core; also to strengthen the
standards so that the expectations meet the needs of
the students and teachers in their state. Several
states have done precisely that. In Massachusetts, for
instance, the State Board of Education asked a
committee of educators, including English teachers and
university professors, to review the Common Core and
compare them to the Massachusetts Curriculum
Framework, which was widely considered to be the best
in the nation. That committee unanimously recommended
Common Core adoption because its members felt that the
Common Core 'is unequivocal in its insistence upon
academic rigor and high expectations for all students
K-12.'
But their support came with some recommendations. They
did not, for instance, want to lose Massachusetts's
strong standards for pre-kindergarten, nor did they
want to lose the guidance that was found in the
state's list of exemplar texts. To address those and
other concerns, the State Board of Education voted
(also unanimously) to adopt the Common Core, but with
several strategic additions. The Board added the
Massachusetts pre-K standards; they added specific
standards, including several that included important
genre-specific content in ELA; and they included their
own list of exemplar texts. That means that today, the
Massachusetts Common Core standards look different
than those that guide teaching and learning in other
states. It also means that Massachusetts did not
simply replace its previous strong standards with
something less rigorous. It took the best of both and
created something even stronger that kept them, in the
words of Commissioner Mitchell Chester, 'Right where
[they] should be, at the table with other states to
collaborate on innovative curricular and instructional
strategies that will benefit students and educators
for years to come.'
10:09:09 AM
There are benefits from the 'commonness' of the Common
Core that should be acknowledged. Teachers in Common
Core states have access to a far greater number of
curricular and instructional resources, many of them
free, than states in non-Common Core states. Indeed,
because publishers, both large and small, have access
to a larger market for Common Core-aligned materials,
the possibly of innovation is far greater, whereas, in
the past, educators were subject to the whims of a
smaller number of textbook creators who were able to
define quality and control the market. In the Common
Core era, their monopoly has been challenged. And the
result is teacher access to a far greater number of
resources that can meet the needs of a more diverse
set of learners. In addition, Common Core states have
had the opportunity to collaborate with other states
on assessment development and professional development
in a way not possible for states who have not adopted
the Common Core.
Of course, the benefits of the 'commonness' of the
Common Core are less important than the quality of the
standards themselves. But on this point again, let me
be clear, the Common Core are among the clearest, most
rigorous standards of any K-12 ELA and math standards
in the nation or the English-speaking world. By
choosing to leverage the Common Core and add to them
the best of Alaska's previous standards, you have the
opportunity to create a set of standards that will
rival the best in the world. That is a goal worth
shooting for and something that would position Alaska
students where they need to be in terms of national
and international competitiveness.
10:10:24 AM
As I mentioned earlier, we at the Fordham Institute
have been evaluating state standards for more than 15
years. In 2010, we released a comprehensive review of
the clarity and specificity and content and rigor of
every state's existing ELA and math standards along
with our evaluation of the final draft of the Common
Core. In that analysis, the Common Core earned a B-
plus from our ELA experts and an A-minus from our math
experts. Even Sandra Stotsky, one of Common Core's
fiercest critics, has acknowledged that, for most
states, going backwards makes little sense, 'States
are unlikely to want to return to the standards they
once had;' because they would be rightly accused of
returning to 'non-rigorous' standards.
When judged against international standards for ELA
and math, the Common Core fares equally well. Between
2009 and 2010, we at the Fordham Institute reviewed
the quality of the standards that provide the
foundation for several national and international
assessments: the [National Assessment of Educational
Progress] (NAEP), the [Program for International
Student Assessment] (PISA), and [Progress in
International Reading Literacy Study] (PIRLS). In
these comparisons, the Common Core outperformed all
three. In short, these standards are not just
internationally competitive; they are among the best
in the world.
10:11:35 AM
In spite of this evidence of rigor of the Common Core,
critics have spread countless myths about what the
standards ask, who is behind them, and what they mean
for our teachers and students. For the purposes of
today's conversation, let me address four of the most
prominent critiques to demonstrate how these attacks
don't hold up under scrutiny.
First, many critics mistakenly believe that the Common
Core inappropriately prioritize nonfiction over
literature in language arts classrooms. This argument
rests on two dubious assumptions or
misrepresentations. First, many have either misread or
deliberately misrepresent a two-paragraph section that
appears on page 5 of the introduction to the Common
Core. That introduction suggests that teachers should
'Follow NAEP's lead in balancing the reading of
literature with the reading of informational texts,
including texts in history/social studies, science,
and technical subjects.' Following NAEP's lead would
mean that fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders would
spend 50, 55, and 70 percent of their time
(respectively) reading informational text.
Some have led people to believe that these percentages
are meant to direct learning exclusively in English
classrooms; but they are not. In fact, the Common Core
immediately clarifies that 'The percentages reflect
the sum of student reading, not just reading in ELA
settings. Teachers of senior English classes, for
example, are not required to devote 70 percent of
reading to informational texts.' What high school
seniors read in history and science class would count
as well.
That means that the only place where the Common Core
explicitly mentions the amount of time teachers should
spend on literary versus nonliterary reading is to
clarify that literary study should dominate text
selection in literature classrooms.
To be clear, though, the Common Core does ask for an
increase in the amount of time and attention devoted
to informational texts and to literary nonfiction,
both in literature class and in science and social
studies. But this is merely a correction to the
distressingly small percentage of time currently
devoted to reading the appropriately complex; content-
rich informational texts that students need to build
vocabulary and deepen comprehension. This is
especially important in the elementary grades where
students have almost no access to rigorous and
interesting informational texts. In fact, research has
suggested that has few as 10 percent of books in
lower-elementary classroom libraries are
informational, and that first graders spend as little
as 3.6 minutes each day interacting with informational
text. That puts them behind their international peers
and does not equip them with the skills they need to
succeed in a 21st century information economy. Yet
reading informational texts, particularly in the early
grades, is a well-documented way to increase academic
and domain-specific vocabulary, two necessary elements
of reading comprehension. This is precisely why
education leaders like E.D. Hirsch are supportive of
the Common Core; because the standards, if faithfully
implemented, have the potential to bring content and
rigor back to the curriculum.
10:14:24 AM
But the fear that informational texts will somehow
supplant literary study in Common Core classrooms,
rather than supplement it, is unfounded. The standards
devote two entire appendices to helping to clarify
text complexity and to outlining 'exemplar' texts that
meet the standards' complexity requirements. And those
exemplar texts address a variety of genres; they
include works written by literary giants like Thoreau,
Chaucer, Shakespeare, Harper Lee, and Nathaniel
Hawthorne. The small numbers of advanced technical
documents included in these lists, while important,
are dwarfed by the volume of great authors and works
of literature and literary nonfiction that the Common
Core holds up as exemplary.
In other words, while some suggest that the Common
Core will lead to the end of great literature, the
reality is that, for the past several decades, we've
seen erosion in the quality and complexity of texts
being assigned in schools. This dumbing down of the
curriculum comes at a time when our students need
rigorous preparation the most. The Common Core seeks
to right that wrong by refocusing our attention on
reading texts that are worth reading, and doing the
kind of higher-order literary analysis that will
prepare students for college-level work.
10:15:26 AM
A second common myth is that the Common Core standards
promote low-level mathematical skills, or that they
prioritize mathematical 'practices' or 'fuzzy math'
over critical content. Again, a close reading of the
standards reveals the opposite is true.
The Common Core math standards prioritize essential
content and allow the time and space needed for deep
mastery of that content. In the early grades, this
means that arithmetic is heavily weighted and that
students are asked to learn to automaticity their
basic math facts; and that they are asked to master
the standard algorithms. This is content they need to
know-cold in order to be prepared for the upper level
math work they will do in high school and beyond. If
there is one thing we know with certainty is that math
is cumulative. You can only move on to more advanced
content until you have fully mastered essential
prerequisite knowledge and skills.
Third, some critics complain that the Common Core
don't require Algebra in the eighth grade, something
that many think is essential to prepare students for
advanced math in high school. The reality, however, is
that the Kindergarten through seventh grade Common
Core standards include all of the prerequisite content
students will need to have learned to be prepared for
Algebra I in the eighth grade. And that means that
it's the states, districts, and/or schools who decide
for themselves course and graduation requirements.
10:16:40 AM
Finally, some argue that adoption of the Common Core-
or any K-12 academic standards will usurp local
control over curriculum and instruction. On the
contrary, by setting standards, rather than adopting
statewide curricula, state education leaders are
ensuring that local district, school, and teacher
leaders remain in control of the decisions that most
directly impact the students they serve. On the ELA
side, this means that local leaders and teachers can
and will choose the texts students will read. It means
that parents, teachers, and leaders still need to work
together to define the 'content-rich curriculum' their
children should be learning.
Standards set a minimum bar, a floor, not a ceiling.
They are designed only to help define student outcomes
to help ensure that all students have the opportunity
to learn the content they need to succeed. But,
educators still drive curriculum and instruction and
leaders still make critical school-level decisions.
10:17:28 AM
In the end, Common Core is a classroom-level reform.
It is meant to refocus planning, curriculum, and
instruction on the things that matter most to reading
comprehension: books that are worth reading; content
that is worth learning; and reading and writing that
is tied directly to both. Whether the promise of the
Common Core is realized depends on whether leaders are
able to look past the politics into the classroom and
make decisions that are in the best interest of the
students we all hope to serve.
10:17:56 AM
CHAIR STEVENS noted the importance to address the CCSS myths in
detail. He inquired about the issue of local control and asked
if there are many Alaska things the state would need to add to
its curriculum that other states would not. He noted that
Massachusetts has a little different curriculum.
MS. PORTER-MAGEE replied that there are a number of different
things that are not included in the CCSS that a state might make
the decision to add. She cited the pre-K standards as one
example. CCSS covers K-12 and does not include standards for
pre-K. Massachusetts made the decision to include pre-K
standards because the state had them in the past and felt the
inclusion was critical. The Fordham Institute's evaluation of
Alaska's previous standards found that the state had pre-K
standards that were strong. She said pre-K would be an example
of a standard that Alaska leaders might want to keep in the
transition to new standards.
She noted another example is a state specific reading list or
exemplar text list. She explained that CCSS contains Appendix B
that has some examples of the quality and complexity of text
that teachers might assign at each grade level. Appendix B is
not part of the CCSS; it is just offered as an addendum.
Massachusetts decided to adopt their Massachusetts Reading List,
rather adopting Appendix B. Other states might choose to adopt
their own reading list so that local authors are selected in the
text exemplars that used schools.
She noted that there has been some controversy in some states
where previous state standards may have required cursive
writing; that is in no way incompatible with the requirements of
CCSS and a state may choose to leave in state specific college
and career-ready standards. She reiterated that Massachusetts
and California chose to retain their state specific standards.
She asserted that there are a number of things that state
leaders might choose to prioritize and leave in their CCSS.
10:20:43 AM
CHAIR STEVENS thanked Ms. Porter-Magee. He remarked that he
liked Ms. Porter-Magee's comment about minimum-bar floor and not
a ceiling; often CCSS is looked at backwards.
10:21:17 AM
At ease from 10:21 a.m. to 10:29 a.m.
10:29:44 AM
CHAIR STEVENS called the committee back to order.
DR. SANDRA STOTSKY, Professor Emeritus, University of Arkansas,
Department of Education Reform, Brookline, MA, addressed "Why
Alaska Needs Internationally Comparable (Benchmarked) English
Language Arts (ELA) Standards." She said the most relevant
aspects of her experience include being the Senior Associate
Commissioner in the Massachusetts Department of Education and
helping to develop all the state's standards in K-12, a citizen
appointment for the Massachusetts Board of Education, and the
Common Core's Validation Committee.
DR. STOTSKY provided the committee with the following prepared
statement and paraphrased as follows:
Thank you for the opportunity to give testimony to the
Alaska State Senate Education Committee on Common
Core's ELA standards and Alaska's current Academic
Standards for ELA. I begin with remarks on Common
Core's Validation Committee, on which I served from
2009-2010. I then offer comments on Common Core's and
Alaska's current ELA standards. They appear to be
identical, so comments on Common Core's standards
apply to Alaska's current standards as well. As I
talk, I will give examples relating to the vocabulary
standards and reading standards for literary and
informational texts because these are the most
damaging of these ELA standards. I end with
recommendations.
Common Core's K-12 standards, it is regularly claimed,
emerged from a state-led process in which experts and
educators were well represented. But the people who
wrote the standards did not represent the relevant
stakeholders. Nor were they qualified to draft
standards intended to 'transform instruction for every
child.' And the Validation Committee that was created
to put the seal of approval on the drafters' work was
useless if not misleading, both in its membership and
in the procedures they had to follow.
She specified that the Validation Committee was supposed to be
the committee that would make sure that whatever was developed
would be internationally benchmarked, research based, and
rigorous. She asserted that the Validation Committee could not
in any way fulfill its obligations to ensure those kinds of
qualities.
DR. STOTSKY continued with who was on the Validation Committee
and paraphrased from her prepared statement as follows:
In the absence of official information to date from
the two private organizations themselves, it seems
likely that Achieve, Inc. and the Gates Foundation
selected most of the key personnel to write the
college-readiness standards. Almost all the members,
it turned out, were on the staff of Achieve, Inc. and
three other test/curriculum development companies:
American College Testing (ACT), America's Choice (a
for-profit project of the National Center on Education
and the Economy (NCEE), and the College Board (CB).
Not only did the Standards Development Work Group fail
to include any high school mathematics teachers, it
failed to include any English professors or high
school English teachers. How could legitimate high
school "college-readiness" standards in either subject
be created without the very two groups of educators
who know the most about what students should and could
be learning in secondary mathematics and
English/reading classes? Because the 24 members of the
Standards Development Work Group labored in secret,
without open meetings, sunshine-law minutes of
meetings, or accessible public comment. Their reasons
for making the decisions they did are lost to history.
10:33:31 AM
The absence of relevant professional credentials in
the two grade-level standards-writing teams helps to
explain the flaws in these standards. The "lead"
writers for the grade-level ELA standards, David
Coleman and Susan Pimentel, had never taught reading
or English in K-12 or at the college level. Neither
has a doctorate in English, nor has either of them
ever published serious work on K-12 curriculum and
instruction. Neither has a reputation for literary
scholarship or research in education. At the time they
were appointed, they were virtually unknown to English
educators and higher education faculty in rhetoric,
speech, composition, or literary study.
Two of the lead grade-level standards-writers in
mathematics had relevant academic credentials for the
subject. Jason Zimba was a physics professor at
Bennington College at the time, while William McCallum
was (and remains) a mathematics professor at the
University of Arizona. The only member of this three-
person team with teaching experience, Phil Daro, had
majored in English as an undergraduate; he was also on
the staff of NCEE. None of the three had ever
developed K-12 mathematics standards before.
Who recommended these people as standards-writers and
why, we still do not know. No one in the media
commented on their lack of credentials for the task
they had been assigned. Indeed, no one in the media
showed the slightest interest in the qualifications of
the grade-level standards-writers. Nor did the media
comment on the low level of college readiness they
worked out.
Mr. Zimba is reported in the official minutes of a
public meeting the Massachusetts Board of Elementary
and Secondary Education in March 2010 as saying: 'The
concept of college readiness is minimal and focuses on
non-selective colleges.' The video tape of the meeting
provides the context for this statement¹. Mr. Zimba
exemplified this statement in many ways, e.g., 'The
minimally college-ready student is a student who
passed Algebra II.' And [Common Core's document is]
'Not only not for STEM, it's also not for selective
colleges.'
In contrast, Mr. Coleman and Ms. Pimentel have never
explained in public how they defined college and
career readiness in ELA or how they would exemplify
its practical meaning with respect to the level of
reading difficulty or specific texts students would
have to demonstrate they understand. While Appendix B
in the Common Core ELA document offers a range of
titles in grades 11/12 indicating the 'quality and
complexity' of texts that students should be able to
read, the titles span such a wide range of reading
levels in grades 11/12 that it is not clear what level
constitutes 'college and career readiness.' Titles in
grades 11/12 include Dreaming in Cuban, with a low
middle school reading level according to a widely-
known readability formula titled ATOS for Books, and
Thomas Paine's Common Sense.
Who were members of the Validation Committee? The
federal government could have funded an independent
group of experts to evaluate the soundness and
validity of the standards it was incentivizing the
states to adopt, but it did not do so. Instead, NGA
and CCSSO created their own Validation Committee (VC)
in 2009 of 28 members to exercise this function. Some
were ex officio, others were recommended by the
governor or commissioner of education of an individual
state. No more is known officially about the rationale
for the individuals chosen for the VC. Similar to the
composition of the Standards Development Work Group
and the standards-writing teams, the VC contained
almost no academic experts on ELA and mathematics
standards; most were education professors or
associated with testing companies, from here and
abroad. There was only one mathematician on the VC-R.
James Milgram-although there were many mathematics
educators on it (people with doctorates in mathematics
education, appointments in an education school, and/or
who worked chiefly in teacher education). I was the
only nationally recognized expert on English language
arts standards by virtue of my work in Massachusetts
and for Achieve, Inc.'s American Diploma Project high
school exit standards for ELA and back-mapped
standards for earlier grade levels.
What was the purpose of the Validation Committee?
Culmination of participation on the committee was
reduced to signing or not signing a letter by the end
of May 2010 asserting that the not-yet-finalized
standards were:
1. Reflective of the core knowledge and
skills in ELA and mathematics that students
need to be college and career-ready.
2. Appropriate in terms of their level of
clarity and specificity.
3. Comparable to the expectations of other
leading nations.
4. Informed by available research or
evidence.
5. The result of processes that reflect best
practices for standards development.
6. A solid starting point for adoption of
cross-state common core standards.
7. A sound basis for eventual development of
standards-based assessments.
Professor Milgram and I were two of the four members
of the VC who did not sign off on the standards. So
far as we could determine, the Validation Committee
was intended to function as a rubber stamp in spite of
the charge to validate the standards. Despite our
repeated requests, we did not get the names of high-
achieving countries whose standards were used as
benchmarks for Common Core's because Common Core's
standards were (intentionally) not internationally
benchmarked (or made comparable to the most demanding
sets of standards elsewhere). It did not offer any
research evidence to support its omission of high
school mathematics standards leading to STEM careers,
its stress on writing over reading, its division of
reading instructional texts into 'information' and
'literature,' its experimental approach to teaching
Euclidean geometry, its deferral of the completion of
Algebra I to grade 9 or 10, or its claim about the
value of informational reading instruction in the
English classes. It couldn't because there is no
evidence to support Common Core's revision of the K-12
curriculum. Nor did Common Core offer evidence that
its standards meet entrance requirements for most
colleges and universities in this country or
elsewhere-or for a high school diploma in many states.
The lack of an authentic validation of Common Core's
so-called college-readiness standards (that is, by a
committee consisting largely of discipline-based
higher education experts who teach undergraduate
mathematics or English/humanities courses) before
state boards or commissioners of education voted to
adopt these standards suggests their votes had no
legal basis.
10:40:14 AM
General Comments:
1. Most of Common Core's college-readiness and grade-
level reading standards are content-free skills. Most
of the statements that are presented as vocabulary,
reading, and literature standards (where content would
be indicated if it is indicated anywhere) point to no
particular level of reading difficulty, little
cultural knowledge, and few intellectual objectives.
These statements are best described as skills or
strategies when they can be understood at all and
therefore cannot be described as rigorous standards.
Here is one example. The Anchor Standard is: 'Analyze
how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and
interact over the course of a text.' The grades 11/12
standard 'clarifying' this Anchor Standard is:
'Analyze a complex set of ideas or sequence of events
and explains how specific individuals, ideas, or
events interact and develop over the course of the
text.' This is clearly a free-floating skill and can
be applied to anything from 'The Three Little Pigs' to
Moby Dick.
Skills training alone doesn't prepare students for
college. They need a fund of content knowledge. But
Common Core's ELA standards (and its literacy
standards for other subjects) do not specify the
literary/historical knowledge that students need. The
document provides no list of recommended authors or
works, just examples of 'quality and complexity.' The
standards require no British literature aside from
Shakespeare. They require no authors from the ancient
world or selected pieces from the Bible as literature
so that students can learn about their influence on
English and American literature. They do not require
study of the history of the English language. Without
requirements in these areas, students are not prepared
for college coursework or a career (or active
citizenship) in an English-speaking country.
10:41:30 AM
2. Common Core's ELA standards stress writing more
than reading at every grade level-to the detriment of
every subject in the curriculum. There are more
writing than reading standards at almost every grade
level in Common Core, a serious imbalance. This is the
opposite of what an academically sound reading/English
curriculum should contain, as suggested by a large and
old body of research on the development of reading and
writing skills. The foundation for good writing is
good reading. Students should spend far more time in
and outside of school on reading than on writing to
improve reading (and writing) in every subject of the
curriculum.
3. Common Core's writing standards are developmentally
inappropriate at many grade levels. Adults have a much
better idea of what 'claims,' 'relevant evidence,' and
academic 'arguments' are. Most elementary children
have a limited understanding of these concepts and
find it difficult to compose an argument with claims
and evidence. It would be difficult for children to do
so even if Common Core's writing standards were linked
to appropriate reading standards and prose models. But
they are not. Nor does the document clarify the
difference between an academic argument (explanatory
writing) and opinion-based writing or persuasive
writing, confusing teachers and students alike. Worse
yet, Common Core's writing standards stress emotion-
laden, opinion-based writing in the elementary grades.
This kind of writing does not help to develop critical
or analytical thinking, and it establishes a very bad
habit in very young children. There is no research
evidence to support this kind of pedagogy.
10:43:20 AM
4. Common Core expects English teachers to spend at
least half of their reading instructional time at
every grade level on informational texts-a percentage
from which students cannot benefit intellectually.
Common Core lists 10 reading standards for
informational texts and 9 standards for literary texts
at every grade level, thus reducing literary study in
the English class to less than 50%. However, there is
NO body of information that English teachers are
responsible for teaching, unlike science teachers, for
example, who are charged with teaching information
about science. English teachers are trained-by college
English departments and teacher preparation programs-
to teach the four major genres of literature (poetry,
drama, fiction, and nonfiction) and the elements of
rhetoric, not a large body of fragmented information
on a variety of contemporary or historical topics.
5. Common Core reduces opportunities for students to
develop critical thinking. Critical, or analytical,
thinking is developed in the English class when
teachers teach students how to read between the lines
of complex literary works. Analytical thinking is
facilitated by the knowledge that students acquire in
other ways and in other subjects because it cannot
take place in an intellectual vacuum." As noted in a
2006 ACT report titled 'Reading Between the Lines:'
'complexity is laden with literary features.'
According to ACT, it involves 'literary devices,'
'tone,' 'ambiguity,' 'elaborate' structure, 'intricate
language,' and unclear intentions. Critical thinking
applied to low-complexity texts, ACT concluded, is
inferior to critical thinking applied to high-
complexity texts. Thus, reducing literary study in the
English class in order to increase informational
reading not only reduces the opportunity for students
to learn how to do critical thinking but also, in
effect, retards college readiness.
10:44:58 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked when MS. Stotsky realized that the
Validation Committee was not going in the right direction.
DR. STOTSKY answered that during the first month the committee's
members were given a confidentiality agreement to sign. She
explained that she had been on many civic committees and knows
what Sunshine Laws are in addition to how the public needs to be
informed. The committee was given a confidentiality agreement to
sign that meant members could never talk about what happened in
meetings during the course of committee's lifetime. She stated
that she had never been on a committee where rights were signed
away to talk about what the committee did. The committee was the
"watch dog" committee and the requirement to sign the
confidentiality agreement was the beginning of the process.
She informed the committee that members had no way of really
influencing the Common Core Standards writers even though that
was one of the Validation Committee's charges. She explained
that the Validation Committee was charged to ensure, for
example, that the CCSS were internationally benchmarked. She
said she asked for her very first critique on what countries
CCSS would be internationally benchmarked with and noted that
she could never get the names of the countries. She said she and
Professor Milgram could not sign-off on the CCSS because
information that the Validation Committee was supposed to
receive was not received. People who support CCSS continue to
say that they are internationally benchmarked, but a person
cannot find out what countries. There were a number of clues
throughout about the Validation Committee "going south" and the
CCSS document going even farther south.
10:47:58 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY addressed previous testimony on the waiver
process and noted that there were two steps for a waiver process
for NCLB; one was to accept CCSS outright and the other was to
have universities validate the standards. He said that the
University of Alaska validated the standards that the state
adopted.
DR. STOTSKY answered that having universities sign-off on
standards has happened in many states. She asked who actually
signed-off in Alaska, the president or the chancellor. She noted
that the teaching faculties in many states have not signed-off
and individuals who do not teach have signed-off. She asserted
that higher level university administrators are not people who
typically have read the math standards, in addition to not being
a mathematician, scientist, or engineer, or an individual who
can look at the math standards and understand whether the
standards meet college-readiness. She said it is hard to answer
Senator Dunleavy's question if the individual from the
University of Alaska is not known.
10:49:28 AM
CHAIR STEVENS stated that the committee will find out who
signed-off at the University of Alaska. He noted that Dr.
Stotsky was talking about the Alaska Standards as compared to
the CCSS and asked if the testing was the same. He remarked that
he understood that Dr. Stotsky was not happy with the
"secretism" of the process of developing the test.
DR. STOTSKY answered that Alaska would have been able to take
the Smarter Balanced Test if the state formally adopted the
CCSS. She noted that Alaska has similar tests to the CCSS.
Alaska could adopt some tests developed by other testing
companies, but they have all become aligned to CCSS. She the
problem is no one knows where the cut-scores or test passages
are going to be. She addressed the issue regarding not knowing
what the reading levels will be. She said she is reviewing what
Smarter Balanced and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for
College and Careers (PARCC) have been releasing regarding
reading levels for grade 11. Smarter Balanced was closer to
grade 9 or grade 10 in reading level and noted that subject
matter dealt with informational issues that would not constitute
a body of information that an English teacher would be teaching.
She emphasized that English teachers teach reading skills. She
asserted that she did not know why Alaska's institutions of
higher education would think the Smarter Balanced test would be
the kind of test the state would want for college readiness; but
they need to be able to speak. She asked if the committee has
heard from anybody from Alaska's institutions of higher
education in engineering, math, science, English, or the
humanities; those are the people the committee needs to hear
from, not people from the Fordham Foundation or Washington D.C.
10:52:52 AM
CHAIR STEVENS replied that the committee has not reached that
point yet, but the intent is to hear from the University of
Alaska within the next one to two weeks. He asked that Dr.
Stotsky continue with her comments.
DR. STOTSKY responded that the committee needs to make sure that
they are communicating with the people who are actually teaching
faculty in the state's institutions of higher education.
Teaching faculty members are the only ones who can tell the
committee whether the state has a good set of standards that
will determine admission. She continued with her prepared
statement and noted that she left off when addressing literature
standards and paraphrased from the prepared statement as
follows:
6. Common Core's standards are not 'fewer, clearer,
and deeper.' They may appear to be fewer in number
than those in many states because very different
objectives or activities are often bundled
incoherently into one 'standard.' As a result, they
are not clearer or necessarily deeper. It is
frequently the case that these bundled statements
posing as standards are not easy to interpret and many
are poorly written. For example, a literature standard
for grades 9/10 asks students to: 'determine a theme
or central idea of a text and analyze in detail its
development over the course of the text, including how
it emerges and is shaped and refined by specific
details; provide an objective summary of the text.'
This wretched sentence is a jumble of at least three
different activities: determining a theme, analyzing
its development, and summarizing a complete text. If
Common Core's ELA standards are to be used, they must
first be revised by experienced, well-trained high
school English teachers for clarity and readability so
that they can consistently guide curriculum
development. Since Alaska's Department of Education
claims it has not adopted Common Core's copyrighted
documents, Alaska is free to revise these standards as
it sees fit.
10:55:39 AM
7. The vocabulary standards are weak, often
inappropriate, and more often poorly exemplified.
These standards should be the strongest strand in
Common Core's ELA standards because of the importance
of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. But
they are not rigorous and often contain inappropriate
pedagogical advice. For example, in grade 2, students
are to 'use sentence-level context as a clue to the
meaning of a word or phrase' as the first of many
strategies to determine the meaning of an unknown
word. In grade 2, students should be first asked to
sound out unfamiliar words to see if they recognize
them as part of their own vocabulary since the
'meaning' of text-appropriate words should not be the
problem in grade 2. Identification of a written word
(a reading skill) is. Moreover, students need to be
able to read the 'context' in order to use it as a
clue.
As another example, in grade 2, students are also to
'use glossaries and beginning dictionaries to
determine or clarify the meaning of words and
phrases.' However, they have not been taught the
difference between these two types of references; one
gives the technical meaning, the other the most
frequent meaning (which may not be the technical
meaning). This advice is a particular disservice to
children who need strong vocabulary development.
As yet another example, in grade 2, students are to
'distinguish shades of meaning among closely related
verbs (e.g., toss, throw, hurl) and closely related
adjectives (e.g., thin, slender, skinny, scrawny).'
Since many of these words are unlikely to be found in
grade 2 texts, it is not clear what grade 2 teachers
can do with this standard.
Summary:
(1) Common Core's ELA standards are NOT rigorous. They
were designed to allow mid-level grade 11 students to
enroll in credit-bearing courses in a non-selective
college.
(2) Common Core's standards are NOT internationally
benchmarked and will not make any of our students
competitive.
(3) There is NO research to support Common Core's
stress on writing instead of reading.
(4) There is NO research to support Common Core's
stress on informational reading instead of literary
study in the English class.
(5) There is no research to support the value of 'cold
reading of historical documents, a bizarre pedagogy
promoted by the chief architect of Common Core's ELA
standards.
(6) Available research suggests exactly the opposite
of what Common Core's document and standards promote
in the ELA classroom.
10:57:48 AM
Suggestions to Alaska Legislators:
1. Return to, revise, and strengthen your own ELA
standards. The adoption and implementation of Common
Core's ELA standards (no matter what they are called)
does not improve the academic education of Alaska's
children, especially its neediest students, nor should
Alaska base state assessments in reading on Common
Core's English language arts standards. It would be a
waste of taxpayers' money to base assessments on
standards that need even more revision than its own
standards did.
2. Develop a set of entrance exams (matriculation
tests) for your own institutions of higher education,
drawing on their engineering, science, and mathematics
faculty and literary/humanities scholars. They could
also ask these faculty members to collaborate with
mathematics and science teachers in Alaska's high
schools in designing syllabi for the advanced
mathematics and science courses in Alaska's high
schools. Why should federal education policy-makers or
test developers mandate low admission requirements in
mathematics, science, or English to Alaska's colleges
and universities?
11:01:19 AM
3. Offer two different types of high school diplomas.
Not all high school students want to go to college or
can do the reading and writing required in authentic
college coursework. Many have other talents and
interests and should be provided with the opportunity
to choose a meaningful four-year high school
curriculum that is not college-oriented. One diploma,
like the old New York Regents Diploma, would be for
students willing to do advanced work in mathematics
and science leading to a STEM career, or in English or
the humanities. The other could be a Common Core
Minimal Competency Diploma.
4. Review and revise if needed all standards at least
every five to seven years using identified Alaska
teachers, discipline-based experts in the arts and
sciences, and parents. All assessments should also be
reviewed by Alaska teachers and discipline-based
experts in the arts and sciences before the tests are
given.
11:02:19 AM
5. Restructure and reform teacher and administrator
training programs in Alaska's institutions of higher
education to ensure that the teachers and
administrators from these education schools have
stronger academic credentials than they now have.
Raising the floor for all children should be our
primary educational goal, not closing demographic gaps
among groups of children. The only thing we know from
education research on teacher effectiveness is that
effective teachers know the subject matter they teach.
We need to raise the academic bar for every
prospective teacher we admit to a teacher training
program in an education school. That is the first step
in raising student achievement in this country, not a
set of paper standards.
(Note: Dr. Stotsky presented references in her prepared
statement.)
11:03:44 AM
CHAIR STEVENS thanked Dr. Stotsky and noted that she made a good
point regarding making sure teaching faculty is involved, not
just administrators.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS addressed states making their own
standards. She asked how many states have not chosen CCSS and
have come up with their own standards.
DR. STOTSKY answered that there are four or five states that
chose not to adopt CCSS. She noted Texas, Nebraska, and Virginia
as three states that have not adopted CCSS. In 2010, most states
had boards of education simply vote to adopt CCSS, in many cases
before they were even written. She pointed out the issue with
adopting standards without having expert advice.
11:05:04 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked what her expectations were going to
entail when she first signed on to be a part of the CCSS
process.
DR. STOTSKY replied that she had a clear charge to the committee
to ensure that the standards were internationally benchmarked,
rigorous, and research based. Drafts were provided to review and
critiques were submitted in kind to standards writers or to some
"black box." She informed the committee that she never got a
word back on her critiques. She explained that whatever she
suggested was never done. She said she had spotted some of the
same problems that are currently in Common Core's final version
right at the beginning and she never could get to speak to the
standards writers.
She explained that she was on a committee that was supposed to
be overseeing the standards-writers and the Validation Committee
was totally ignored. She said her experience was bizarre because
she had never been on any kind of committee in her life like the
Common Core's Validation Committee. She noted her experience in
civic committees and the Common Core's Validation Committee was
not a civic committee. The Common Core's Validation Committee
was a committee appointed as a kind of "fig leaf" for a rubber
stamp by two private organizations that were funded by the Gates
Foundation to develop national standards. The Gates Foundation
gave money to groups that would evaluate state standards and
come up with a grade for the CCSS, but making sure the CCSS got
a high enough grade so that it could then use the CCSS as a
"boiler plate." The "boiler plate" effect did not occur with
Alaska's Academic Standards. The "boiler plate" phrase was used
for at least eight or so different states that said, "These
standards are among the worst in the country and you are better
off adopting Common Core."
She explained to the committee that a person could only imagine
what happened in states with the media when the bottom-line
evaluation quotation "worst in the country" was noted. She noted
that state boards of education, including Massachusetts, had
never read the CCSS that they adopted. No questions were asked
about college-readiness or standards; it was given because
states would be given $250 million of "Race To The Top" money.
Massachusetts was promised $250 million in exchange for giving
up such wonderful standards. She noted that the Massachusetts
Governor was friends with President Obama and the state was
promised $250 million in "Race To The Top" money and the state
received the money if prior standards were given up for the
CCSS.
She said the CCSS process was all about politics and not about
education. She asserted that CCSS is about centralized control
of education in Washington, D.C. She declared that Alaska's
legislators have recognized the pattern of what she previously
noted.
11:08:36 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY addressed the Accuplacer Test, American College
Testing (ACT), Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and other
national assessments used to predict college readiness, success,
or as a tool to measure where students are in terms of being
able to succeed in college. He asked to confirm that all of the
primary national assessments have been aligned to CCSS.
DR. STOTSKY answered correct. She explained that there are
almost no independent points of reference other than Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). She
explained that TIMSS is controlled by an international group of
educators and is not aligned to CCSS. TIMSS is the only
international test that can provide some sense of what is
happening to high school students. The Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA) is only a test of skills and that is
what the Department of Education is pushing for, because the
assessment only tests 15-year-old students, and the level of
math content is pitifully low. She specified that ACT, SAT, and
the General Education Diploma (GED) have all been aligned down
to CCSS, leaving almost no way to determine how "dumbed down"
high school curriculum will be.
She noted that she is not talking about grades 1, 2, or 3; this
is part of the problem that confuses a lot of people. She said
CCSS has a lot of very impressive and tough sounding standards
in the very early grades; but it peters out totally by high
school.
She noted the lack of Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) standards in high school. She asserted that
states end up with a "dumbed down" set of high school
mathematical standards with CCSS. English Language Arts (ELA)
standards cannot be easily assessed until the passages and where
the cut-score is in CCSS. There is no way of measuring direction
unless there are before and after tests used in states to find
out what is happening. She said she recommended "before and
after" testing to a few states. She suggested that a state with
its own test should be kept on file and readministered five
years later to see if students are doing better, worse, or
simply cannot even address it at all.
11:11:48 AM
CHAIR STEVENS addressed the Gates Foundation (GF) and noted that
the legislature is pretty much removed from GF. He asked to
clarify that Dr. Stotsky feels that GF is headed in the wrong
direction.
DR. STOTSKY replied that GF is going in the wrong direction. She
explained that GF has supported the development of the set of
standards and gave money to: the National Governors Association
(NGA), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) trade
organizations, Parent Teacher Association (PTA), Achieve, and
the Fordham Institute. She said GF has given money wherever it
could to promote the adoption of CCSS. One could still have an
argument even if CCSS were first class standards. Only GF can
answer why they are going in the direction that they chose. She
said GF has more money than anybody else and has funded every
organization, but they could not fund parents.
She explained that a rising opposition has been occurring with
parents all over the country. She revealed that she has been
speaking to a lot of parent groups. Parents are looking at what
their kids are doing in class and they are getting very upset.
Home-schoolers are particularly upset because they worry what is
going to happen when it is time for their children to apply for
college due to a CCSS aligned test that will have to be taken.
She noted that GF could not get state legislatures to buy-in
because there are too many. State legislatures in the past year
are being hit with bills for the CCSS testing and the technology
that has to be purchased due to a certain level of bandwidth.
Bills are coming due for state legislatures that were never
anticipated.
She said when speaking to state legislatures the question is
always addressed regarding what exactly is the Common Core. She
explained that 45 or more state boards of education voted in
2010 to adopt a set of standards that nobody in higher education
in any state had vetted. She revealed that she had gone state-
by-state and verified that engineering, science, and math
faculty were not invited to look at the standard prior to state
adoption. She noted that Michigan did not reach out to its
first-rate universities, faculty, and experts to review the
standards.
11:16:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked if there were any state legislatures
that have paused, slowed down, or even undone the CCSS.
DR. STOTSKY answered that Indiana has paused and Georgia is
trying to have review committees. She said no state has been
able to undo the sticky mess that their boards of education put
them in without a lot of thought. States are discovering that it
is not easy to legally get out of a vote by a governor and a
board of education. She asserted that state boards of education
have restructured entire school systems for a set of standards
that unqualified people had written.
11:18:04 AM
CHAIR STEVENS thanked Dr. Stotsky for her comments.
11:19:45 AM
DR. JAMES MILGRAM, Professor Emeritus, Department of
Mathematics, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
presented the committee with his prepared statement on "Some
Problems with Mathematics Core Standards" as follows:
I am an internationally known research mathematician
at Stanford University. As a research mathematician, I
have a large number of honors. For example, I am one
of the very small numbers of 20th century
mathematicians whose collected works are slated for
publication by a major publisher. I've also had many
International honors such as the Gauss professorship
in Germany, and even recently, I gave lecture series
in Japan, China, and Canada on my recent work in
Robotics and Bioinformatics. In 2009 I was appointed
to the Common Core Validation Committee. I was the
only actual mathematician and, indeed, the only member
with a Ph.D. in a content area and not in education on
Validation, so I took in on myself to try to get the
best possible document in mathematics.
DR. MILGRAM noted that unlike Dr. Stotsky's experience, he was
able to interact directly with the lead authors for the CCSS. He
said he was able to considerably strengthen what had originally
been planned by some of the sponsors. He said the Gates
Foundation was not so involved in the math. Marc Tucker
[National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE)] and
Achieve were very much involved. He said he ended up doing some
considerable discussion with groups to try to explain why the
standards had to be tougher. He remarked that he was able to
achieve a little bit of improvement over what the original plan
was.
11:21:41 AM
DR. MILGRAM continued with his prepared statement as follows:
However, in the end, I could not sign off on a
statement to the effect that CCMS was benchmarked at
the level of the top international standards. Today,
I'd like to describe my reasons, and to try to help
you understand why I think adopting CC is a very bad
idea.
The famous education historian, Diane Ravitch, noted
in her book Left Back, that every 20 years or so, the
education schools notice that our K-12 outcomes are
not improving in math, in fact, they seem to be
getting worse. They then say 'We can fix the
problems.' And they present to us exactly the same
programs and curricula that they presented 20 years
earlier. They tell the small group that remembers 20
years back, that we had improperly implemented their
programs then, so the failure was not the fault of the
schools of education. This time we need to spend more
money and everything will be fine.
He asserted that legislatures are finding out that the costs of
the CCSS tests are astronomical. Legislatures routinely buy-in
to the wishful thinking. He said he is reminded of Albert
Einstein's famous definition of insanity, "Doing the same thing
over and over again and expecting different results." He
continued with his prepared statement as follows:
So, welcome to California in 1993. We are hearing
exactly the same rhetoric now as we heard then and we
are being presented with the same curricula and
programs as then. Indeed, the chief difference between
then and now is that this time they are presenting
them to the entire country. The terrible math
textbooks that we got rid of in California with such
difficulty are now back.
The foundation for this advance is the Common Core
Math Standards (CCMS) a political document that was
written in such a manner that it could be interpreted
in many different ways. The point was to get buy-in
from as many states and education establishments as
possible.
11:24:42 AM
CCMS claims that its intent is to correct the problems
with U.S. K-12 mathematics and, if followed
faithfully, will make all high school graduates
workforce and college-ready. It is said that CCMS will
also strengthen the Science, Technology, Engineering,
Math (STEM) pipeline, and rescue our economy by
dramatically increasing the number of students
majoring in STEM areas at university.
In order to do this it is claimed that CCMS will
correct our 'Mile Wide and Inch Deep' K-12 math
curriculum, making our instruction much more like the
focused teaching in the high-achieving countries.
There will be far fewer standards and they will focus
on key topics, exactly as is done in the high
achieving countries.
Indeed, grade by grade, CCMS does have fewer
standards, but to do this they produce things like the
following monstrosity, a first grade addition and
subtraction standard:
Add within 100, including adding a two-digit
number and a one-digit number, and adding a
two-digit number and a multiple of 10, using
concrete models or drawings and strategies
based on place value, properties of
operations, and/or the relationship between
addition and subtraction; relate the
strategy to a written method and explain the
reasoning used. Understand that in adding
two-digit numbers, one adds tens and tens,
ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary
to compose a ten.
11:27:02 AM
This is a glom of separate standards. In the high
achieving countries only a small amount of the
material above is covered in first grade or even first
and second grade together, and yet this material is
the main focus of instruction most of these years.
Moreover, some of the standard is probably absurd to
ask of first or second graders. For example, relate
the strategy to a written method and explain the
reasoning used. Also, the number of choices given,
using concrete models or drawing and strategies based
on place value, properties of operations, and/or the
relationship between addition and subtraction is
clearly overwhelming for students of this age.
11:28:58 AM
It seems that the reason for this omnibus glom was to
include the many different approaches to addition and
subtraction that are advocated in the interested
states and associations such as the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). As a result, CCMS
has often preserved the "mile wide" structure of our
standards, just using fewer, often incomprehensible,
paragraphs to do it.
Another major issue is that the standards develop very
slowly. Indeed, by the end of sixth grade CCMS is more
than one year behind international expectations, and
by the end of eighth grade, more than two years
behind. For example, internationally, one expects
fourth graders to be quite fluent with ratios, rates,
and motion-at-constant-speed types of questions.
11:30:17 AM
I would grade the standards as follows: K-5
considerably above average for our states, not nearly
as good as the best which are CA, MA, IN, MN, WA, but
better than 90 percent; sixth to seventh grade is
about average; eighth grade mostly just spinning
wheels; and high school is a serious, serious,
problem.
DR. MILGRAM noted that the mathematics issue is very similar to
English Language Arts (ELA) in that things are okay for the
first five years and really fall apart by high school. He
continued his prepared statement as follows:
Indeed, in March, 2010 one of the two lead authors of
CCMS, Jason Zimba, testified as follows, 'We have
agreement to the extent that it's a fuzzy definition,
that the minimally college-ready student is a student
who passed Algebra II.'
DR. MILGRAM explained that the original intent in CCSS was to
have Algebra I as the minimal standard for a college-ready
student, one of the things that he succeeded in changing. He
noted that the change involved an enormous fight in order to get
a simple change from Algebra I to Algebra II. He continued with
his prepared statement as follows:
But even Algebra II is an extraordinarily weak
standard. Only about one in three students whose
highest math course in high school was Algebra II will
obtain a four year college degree in any subject and
there is only a 1 in 50 chance that a STEM intending
student with this background will ever get a four year
degree in any STEM area. Of course, even Algebra II is
a considerable improvement on the original draft where
the definition of college-ready student is a student
who passed Algebra I; U.S. government provided data
shows that with this standard only 7 percent of
students will ever obtain a 4 year college degree.
11:33:00 AM
Mr. Zimba clarified the Algebra II definition later in his
testimony by stating that CCMS is not for STEM and he expanded
on it by saying the following:
Not only not for STEM, it's also not for selective
colleges. For example, for UC Berkeley, whether you
are going to be an engineer or not, you'd better have
pre-calculus to get into UC Berkeley.
Thus we are talking about preparing kids for 'success'
at community colleges and perhaps non-selective
colleges like University of Phoenix. In particular, it
entirely abandons the top 30 percent of a typical high
school class.
Here is the reason I say 30 percent. In California we
have two university systems, the University of
California (UC) system and the California State
University system (UCS). The UC system guarantees
admission to about the top 10 percent of the
California high school graduating class, while the CSU
system guarantees admission to about the top 30
percent. In the case of the UC system, currently a
student who has not gone further than the CCMS
expectations will not be eligible for admission, and
in the CSU system, they may be eligible, but the
expectation is that they would have to start with
trigonometry and pre-calculus, which, as I've
mentioned, severely curtails the likelihood that they
will ever major in a STEM area, or, indeed, even
graduate.
11:35:13 AM
We can assume that our education schools are well
aware of all this. Consequently, it should be no
surprise that a key requirement for states to apply
for 'Race to the Top' money was to include signed
agreements with the heads of all public colleges and
universities or systems stating that students with the
CCMS background, passing the SBAC or PARCC Algebra II
exam in mathematics and a similar ELA requirement,
would be eligible for credit bearing introductory math
courses in any public college or university. This
severely threatens the international dominance of our
university system by forcing public colleges and
universities to make most of their non-credit bearing
remedial courses into courses that can be taken for
credit, which has a dramatic effect on the expected
subject knowledge of their math and ELA majors.
So I would judge that, in spite of the quality of CCSS
in the early grades, the overall effect of these new
standards is extremely risky not only for students,
but, indeed, for our very economic wellbeing.
11:36:51 AM
SENATOR GARDNER stated that her understanding is CCSS is
designed and required for all students. She said we all know
some students want to, or will be able to pursue, STEM careers,
particularly at selective universities. She said she is not
certain that it is fair to require, as part of graduation, that
students take the rigorous mathematics courses. She asked if she
misunderstood Dr. Milgram's presentation regarding the necessity
for all students to take more advanced math courses.
DR. MILGRAM replied yes. He explained that the CCSS becomes a
ceiling because schools basically have to teach to the tests. He
noted the negative impact on ambitious students. Data will show
that wealthy districts test high and low income districts are
negatively impacted when there is no expectation that more
advanced courses should be available.
11:40:15 AM
SENATOR GARDNER remarked that she has a different opinion. She
said students in Alaska have the option to take math classes far
beyond the three years required for a high school diploma in the
major and urban schools.
DR. MILGRAM revealed that his grandson attends school in
Anchorage and he is well aware of what occurs in the Anchorage
School District.
11:41:08 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked to verify that the university system
officials in California have signed off on the CCSS process.
DR. MILGRAM answered yes. He detailed that California applied
for, but did not receive, "Race to the Top" money. In order to
apply it was necessary for California's high officials to sign a
letter agreeing to give the students a college credit course for
passing either the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for
College and Careers (PARCC) or Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium (SBAC) exams.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY assumed that California will continue to have
international students apply to Stanford. He asked if the
university's benchmarks, standards, or assessments change to
determine readiness for international students.
11:42:41 AM
DR. MILGRAM noted that Stanford University is not a public
university. He explained that Stanford University has
anticipated the issue Senator Dunleavy mentioned by redefining
itself as the dominant core-university for countries that border
the Pacific Ocean. He remarked that it is becoming more
difficult for Stanford University to find U.S. citizens for
admission and the entry number keeps going down. Stanford
University's structure of their undergraduate system has
appeared to change. He asserted that Stanford University has not
changed their expectations in the terms of its courses.
11:44:14 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked what admission benchmarks Stanford
University uses for non-CCSS students from foreign countries.
DR. MILGRAM replied that Stanford University informally requires
calculus as remedial. He explained that it is very difficult for
a student to be admitted into Stanford University without taking
a high school calculus course. Other elite universities in the
U.S. have the same approach as Stanford's requirements. He
asserted that CCSS will limit the number of students taking
calculus in high school. Approximately 19 percent of U.S. high
school students take calculus, whereas 90 percent take calculus
in the high achieving countries. Fewer U.S. citizens will end up
at the elite schools. He remarked that none of the elite schools
are going to lower their standards.
11:45:49 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said the committee is hearing two starkly
opposing views of CCSS. He asked to confirm that Dr. Milgram
believes the CCSS are too weak.
DR. MILGRAM answered yes. He qualified that standards do not
have a huge effect on curriculum; but they do have a real effect
on expectations. He clarified that CCSS is better than the old
standards. However, the reality is CCSS is not near good enough
for the U.S. to remain competitive internationally. The U.S.
will pay the cost of lower standards. He said to not expect CCSS
to be a solution to the country's real problems.
SENATOR FRENCH noted prior testimony from Dr. Stotsky on her
belief regarding the influence of Gates Foundation money on
producing some of the decisions. He pointed out that Dr. Stotsky
specified that she was not getting paid by anybody to appear to
testify on CCSS. He asked if Dr. Milgram is getting money from
either side of the debate.
DR. MILGRAM answered no. He specified that he only asks that his
travel expenses be compensated for when providing testimony in
person.
11:48:32 AM
CHAIR STEVENS thanked Dr. Milgram for his comments and asked the
committee for their input.
MR. MINNICH reviewed the testimony from Dr. Stotsky. He remarked
that Dr. Stotsky was not truthful in certain situations and the
committee hit on the fact that Dr. Milgram believes everybody
should be taking calculus. He said Alaska would really face a
different challenge from its constituency if the state requires
all students to take calculus.
He said he would correct some of the information said in
previous testimony. The CCSS Validation Committee was 28
members, 24 members signed off; Dr. Stotsky and Dr. Milgram
obviously did not sign off. He noted that the 24 members not
being mathematicians was not accurate.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked for confirmation that 24 out of 28
Validation Committee members did sign off. She inquired about
the two other individuals that did not sign off.
MR. MINNICH replied that the two other members felt like they
did not have enough information to make their decision. He noted
that Ms. Stotsky said that there was a lack of focus on
literature. He read the introduction to the CCSS as follows:
Because the ELA classroom must focus on literature,
stories, drama, and poetry, as well as literary
nonfiction, a great deal of informational reading in
grades 6 through 10 must take place in other classes
if the [National Assessment of Educational Progress]
(NAEP) assessment framework is to be matched
instructionally.
He continued that the CCSS do call for much of ELA instruction
to take place in other classes and a continued focus on
literature.
He pointed out that the Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO) is partially funding by the Gates Foundation (GF). He
noted that a lot of organizations are funded by GF and he is
happy to provide additional information if the committee so
desired. He summarized that the bottom line is that states
decided to do CCSS well before funding was provided. He
explained that CCSSO sought funding to try to save states money.
The first proposal on the CCSS was to actually have states pay-
in and work on developing the standards with states' money. He
pointed out that commissioners at the time did not feel like
they would be able to get an appropriation to be involved with
CCSS as initially proposed. CCSSO raised money to write CCSS.
He addressed a claim on Michigan and their standards. He said
one of the members on the Validation Committee was Bill Schmidt,
a mathematics professor from Michigan State University and an
individual who signed-off on CCSS.
11:52:07 AM
SENATOR FRENCH noted Dr. Milgram twice iterated that the CCSS
were not benchmarked at the top of international standards. He
asked if Mr. Minnich agreed or disagreed.
MR. MINNICH replied that he disagreed. He said Dr. Milgram is
suggesting that many more people are taking calculus in other
countries. He stated he cannot validate Dr. Milgram's claim that
90 percent of kids in other countries take calculus. He set
forth that an interesting conversation would occur if the states
were to go to a standard where 90 percent of kids take calculus.
He asserted that the current mathematics level in the U.S. would
not allow for an immediate jump to 90 percent of kids taking
calculus. He summarized that the CCSS was benchmarked against
other countries; Finland, Singapore, and a long list of other
countries.
11:53:21 AM
CHAIR STEVENS asked Dr. Milgram and Dr. Stotsky to respond.
DR. MILGRAM replied that the number of people who graduate from
high school in the high achieving countries is over 90 percent
and most do not allow high school degrees without calculus. It
is not realistic to say this country's kids cannot get to
calculus because they can with proper instruction. He asserted
that students are not being properly instructed and changes will
not occur under CCSS. The cost of CCSS, especially in the near-
term future, is going to be dramatic. The U.S. cannot compete
long term with the other countries and related the challenge to
China's rapid growth in space exploration. He said the U.S. has
to realize the potential impact from the education the country's
children receive.
11:56:18 AM
CHAIR STEVENS noted that Mr. Minnich agreed.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked to clarify that Alaska's current
standards are better than the old standards.
DR. MILGRAM answered yes. He specified that Alaska's current
standards were virtually identical to the CCSS. He detailed that
90 percent of the states' standards for lower grades are better
than the standards the states had. He said where Core Standards
fall apart is in the higher grades.
DR. STOTSKY addressed Mr. Minnich's response to her
presentation. She said the information she provided was
accurate. She specified that her emphasis pertains to what is in
the CCSS. She said Mr. Minnich's rebuttal refers to the CCSS's
introductory text and not the standards.
11:58:33 AM
CHAIR STEVENS announced that the committee will stand at-ease.
1:01:21 PM
CHAIR STEVENS reconvened the meeting.
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Education &
Early Development (DEED), Juneau, Alaska, introduced himself and
described it as good news that Alaska adopted the Alaska
Academic Standards rather than the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) for English/Language Arts and Mathematics. He explained
that nine university professors were on the committee that
developed the standards, a different team did the vetting, and
the process did not require any confidentiality agreements.
1:03:51 PM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the presentation today would look at
how the English/language arts and math standards were developed,
and the difference among states on how the standards are
adopted. In Alaska, the starting point was the state education
policy that is in statute. It is a powerful statement about the
responsibilities for education in Alaska to ensure that all
students will succeed in their education and work and lead
satisfying lives. He noted that the DEED website refers to this
as [Preparing College, Career and Culturally Ready Graduates.]
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said it appeared in testimony this morning that
there were two methods for the waiver. One was to adopt the CCSS
and the other was to get the university to validate the Alaska
Academic Standards. He asked for confirmation that Alaska chose
the second method.
COMMISSION HANLEY agreed that Alaska did not adopt the CCSS.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY commented that it sounds like the mission
statement is changing.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY replied the mission statement isn't
changing, but there is recognition that too many students need
remediation. Both employers and the university have said that
students were not being adequately prepared for further
education, further training, or work. The idea is to bridge the
gap and prepare students for the next step.
1:07:06 PM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY pointed out that university validation ensures
that kids are educated to be college ready, but all kids don't
want to go to college. He questioned how it was possible to
merge the systems without changing the mission.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY replied that the mission isn't changing;
it's being clarified and shifting from graduation to
preparation. He added that validation is something the
university system did.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY responded that if the university system is the
only one that did validation then students are being prepared
for university.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY clarified that the university validated the
standards in regard to the waiver, and employers were involved
with the development of the standards. A student who is
proficient in these standards will match the expectations for
entry-level courses. That was the validation process.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if the mission does what is going to be
done or if the statement needed to be revisited.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he believes the mission works.
1:09:12 PM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY continued the presentation explaining that
Alaska statute states that the duties of the Department of
Education and Early Development are to "develop performance
standards in reading, writing and mathematics to be met at
designated age levels by each student in public schools in the
state." It further states that the department "Shall develop a
comprehensive system of student assessments, composed of
multiple indicators of proficiency in reading, writing and
mathematics."
He highlighted that in Moore v. State, Judge [Sharon] Gleason
identified and defined the clause to establish and maintain a
system of public education in Alaska as meaning four things.
Development of standards and assessments were two key components
of the responsibilities as a state; funding, oversight and
support were the others.
1:10:12 PM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said that the corresponding regulation
speaks to the general definition of standards and curriculum. [4
AAC 04.010(c)] says, "The content standards identify student
abilities that evidence mastery of a subject area. The content
standards are not graduation requirements of curriculum, but
they establish what constitutes excellent educational results
and allow a school district to tailor its curriculum to the
conditions, goals, and expectations of its community."
CHAIR STEVENS asked if Alaska would be free to use national
exams based on CCSS since the Alaska Academic Standards are
substantially similar.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY offered his belief that the state would have
the option of maintaining control of the standards while also
accessing an assessment around the CCSS. He said that's why in
April Alaska joined the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
as an advisory state. It is a better match than the Partnership
for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
which is being developed for the CCSS. He noted that DEED just
finished a request for proposal (RFP) to provide or develop an
assessment. The components of that assessment will be addressed
in tomorrow's presentation, he said.
CHAIR STEVENS asked what the state is giving up and what it is
getting by going from common core to the Alaska Academic
Standards.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY replied that he didn't believe the state was
giving up anything, but it could be argued that it would give up
access to curriculum that's aligned to the CCSS. What's gained
is local vetting by educators of the higher education system,
ownership, and no outside influence as to what can and cannot go
into the standards and what students are expected to learn. He
opined that the Alaska Academic Standards are aligned with the
standards and expectations of other states.
1:14:30 PM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if this was a national movement and not a
federal imposition.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY replied that CCSS is a relatively new
movement.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if a member of the Council of Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO) who was in the audience would agree that
it's a national movement.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY stated that the Alaska standards are not a
national movement.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY observed that a timing issue was causing
confusion, because Alaska got involved with the national
movement associated with CCSS as it was sweeping the country.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed that the state capitalized on the
national movement.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if he agreed that there was a
relationship with the waiver under the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB).
COMMISSIONER HANLEY agreed there was a distant relationship.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if the state would still be under the
NCLB paradigm if it hadn't applied for the waiver.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said yes.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if the state could have gotten the waiver
if the university had validated the old standards.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said no, because the old standards were not
rigorous enough to be considered college and career ready.
1:17:24 PM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if the university system had to validate
standards that were common core-like in order to be accepted.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY replied that there were several components
to get a waiver, one of which was to have college and career-
ready standards. Secretary of Education Duncan recognized that
the CCSS represented college and career-ready standards. A state
that didn't have those common core standards had to prove that
its standards were college and career-ready and that's done by
having the university system vet the standards.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if he agreed that federal money was tied
to the NCLB Act.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered no.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY pointed out that the Race to the Top Fund is
federal.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the first round specifically
spoke to common standards.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY commented that the national movement, the
university looking at standards and the NCLB waiver appear to be
a series of interesting coincidences.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that those were totally separate
processes. The Alaska Academic Standards were being developed
long before Secretary Duncan thought about a waiver from NCLB.
1:20:59 PM
CHAIR STEVENS related that he had received calls from people who
described the state standards as common core by a different
name. He asked if there were substantial differences between the
Alaska Academic Standards and the CCSS.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said yes, and Dr. McCauley would speak to
the similarities and differences. He added that when the state
joined the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) it said
the Alaska Academic Standards were substantially similar and
that the assessment would adequately measure Alaska students.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked what penalty Kathleen Porter-Magee was
referring to when she talked about opting out without penalty.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY explained that her point was that there is
no penalty for adopting or not adopting.
CHAIR STEVENS asked Commissioner Hanley to continue the
presentation.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY displayed the "Alaska English Language Arts
and Mathematics Standards" notebook, which is organized by grade
level. He explained that the standards were developed by DEED
and adopted by the State Board of Education in its entirety.
Everything that was adopted is in the notebook and it includes
nothing that was not adopted. He deferred to Dr. McCauley for
further discussion.
1:24:55 PM
SUSAN MCCAULEY, PhD., Director, Teaching & Learning Support,
Alaska Department of Education & Early Development (DEED),
Juneau, Alaska, said she wanted to review a few of the Alaska
Academic Standards, but she was also prepared to discuss what
the standards are, what they're not, how they compare to the
CCSS, and how they compare to the previous standards. She
directed attention to the English/Language Arts Standards for
kindergarten as an example. The kindergarten standards include
reading standards for literature, reading standards for
informational text, reading standards for foundational skills,
writing standards, speaking and listening standards, and
language standards.
DR. MCCAULEY noted that there had been a lot of interchangeable
use of the terms "standard" and "curriculum," and emphasized
that they are very different. Standards are guidelines that
describe the skills students are to master at each grade level
and curriculum describes methodology and means by which the
standards will be met. Curriculum includes everything from the
textbooks to the lesson plans that teachers will develop to meet
the standards. In Alaska, the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) is charged with adopting standards, whereas
curriculum is a local decision.
DR. MCCAULEY reviewed the reading standards for kindergarten and
third grade emphasizing that the standards do not talk about how
a child will attain the standard. They are a roadmap for
building incrementally, grade-by-grade so that there are no gaps
or redundancies in the instruction. They provide consistency
with regard to what is taught at each grade level. There is
nothing in the standards that tell how the instruction takes
place.
1:28:25 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked what happens when a student does not meet
the standard for his or her grade level.
DR. MCCAULEY said it is first very important to ensure that the
standards are clear, concise and coherent enough that teachers
understand precisely what should be taught at each grade level.
She opined that the new Alaska Academic Standards provide that
clarity. She said that states have taken different approaches,
but school districts in Alaska are looking at what intervention
structures are needed when students aren't mastering grade-level
standards. This can't be ignored because the problem compounds.
A student who hasn't mastered third grade math and doesn't
receive additional support is unlikely to master the on grade
level skills in subsequent grades.
DR. MCCAULEY suggested that individual school districts could
talk about the assessment and support measures they have
developed to help students who aren't working at grade level,
and reiterated the importance of having clarity in the on grade
level standards to begin with. What standards do is to
concretely clarify what skills, if mastered at each grade level,
will result in the student being prepared for what comes next.
SENATOR HUGGINS suggested that if 10 teachers read the standards
for any grade level there would be a great variance in the
interpretation of those standards.
DR. MCCAULEY said districts take a varied approach, but they are
all required by regulation to review curriculum on a cycle. They
work at the local level to bring clarity to the standard.
1:34:55 PM
CHAIR STEVENS highlighted the importance of being able to read
at grade level in the third grade.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if a child is passed on, failed, or sent
for remediation if they don't meet the standard for reading in
third grade.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY replied that there is no statute or
regulation that determines that; it's done at the local level.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked, theoretically, what happens if none of
the students meet the standards.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said that one of DEED's constitutional
responsibilities is support and oversight. In that regard, DEED
does a lot of curriculum alignment and work with districts to
answer the question at the local level of what to do when
students aren't proficient.
1:37:20 PM
SENATOR GARDNER asked if more intervention training and
curriculum alignment is being done than in the past.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said yes; over the last year he's heard more
thanks from districts for helping and that more would be
appreciated. He acknowledged that compliance is part of the
leadership role, but support is what DEED is defining as the key
role with regard to standards.
1:38:24 PM
DR. MCCAULEY highlighted the differences between the Alaska
Academic Standards and the Common Core State Standards. In the
area of English/language arts, the Alaska Academic Standards
have a total of 320 individual standards, and 133 or 42 percent
of those standards are different than the CCSS. However, the
content is substantially similar. For example, in fourth grade
Alaska students are required to write a multi-paragraph essay,
and CCSS has the same requirement. Alaska changed its standard
to meet what is expected nationally.
She discussed the process that educators, post-secondary
teachers and representatives from business and industry went
through to develop the standards, and that they felt that Alaska
needed modifications in the case of 42 percent of the standards
that are in the CCSS. None were insignificant or token
modifications. She provided examples, including the addition of
culturally relevant reading materials.
DR. MCCAULEY said that the CCSS has 229 standards for math and
the committee decided to modify 49 percent of those and add 26
more. The additions included things like solving real world
problems involving elapsed times between time zones.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if modifying nearly 50 percent of the math
standards might be a disadvantage when Alaska students take the
common core tests that are given nationally.
DR. MCCAULEY said she didn't believe so, because the standards
are substantially similar. She explained that the Alaska
Academic Standards were developed because DEED wanted autonomy
and control over the standards, and to ensure that Alaska
students will be prepared and competitive.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if the Alaska Academic Standards are more
rigorous or just different.
DR. MCCAULEY replied they're different and equally rigorous.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if there would be any discussion later
about the process for adoption of standards, the federal
nationalized approach, and joining the assessment consortium in
an advisory role. [He indicated that he received an affirmative
response.]
1:45:17 PM
DR. MCCAULEY summarized that Alaska did not adopt the CCSS, and
those standards are not identical to the Alaska Academic
Standards.
CHAIR STEVENS remarked that that was helpful.
DR. MCCAULEY compared the Alaska Academic Standards to the
previous standards. She explained that when the development
committee considered objectively the rigor of the previous
standards compared to what was happening nationally, they found
a significant gap. As previously mentioned, an independent
analysis of the previous standards corroborated what the
development committee found. It was clear that Alaska needed to
significantly upgrade its standards. The old standards were more
than six years old, had no speaking and listening skills in
English/language arts, and only went to tenth grade. The upgrade
attempts to be comparatively rigorous while maintaining autonomy
to develop standards that are specific to Alaska students.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if she would agree that the standards
changed and so did the goals and purpose. Previously, the
approach was an exit concept, and now it's an entry concept for
university.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he described it as a change from
graduation to preparation.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY reiterated his belief that the mission was
changing, but the mission statement hadn't changed.
DR. MCCAULEY responded that the changes were in response to some
very compelling Alaska data that would be irresponsible to
ignore. It demands a response when 50 percent of incoming
freshmen at the University of Alaska have to take remedial
classes and 22 percent of Alaska jobs are exported to non-
Alaskans. This isn't solely about college preparation; it's
about preparation for any post-secondary training, she stated.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY remarked that it was only the university that
was part of the validation process.
DR. MCCAULEY clarified that it was not just the university that
was involved in the development of the standards, and that the
term validation was about whether or not students who met the
standards would need remedial course work.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY reiterated that teachers want to know what the
mission is; previously it was to prepare students to exit [high
school] and now it's preparing them to enter [post-secondary
school]. He opined that there would be more conversations about
this, because the purpose has changed for K-12 education.
1:51:27 PM
CHAIR STEVENS asked if the standards would be upgraded on a
regular basis.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY replied that school districts are being
asked to review their curriculum every six years and it's
appropriate that the standards are reviewed in a similar
timeframe. Future adjustments to the standards are unlikely to
be as extensive as this, he said.
DR. MCCAULEY summarized her talking points about the new
standards. They intend to effectively prepare kids for what
comes after graduation, and they address the gaps that existed
between high school preparation and what comes next. The
standards development process involved 8 meetings of 230 Alaska
representatives from 56 organizations, including teachers of
mathematics, language arts, special education, English language
learners, post-secondary educators, and industry
representatives.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY added that it is DEED's responsibility to
help develop standards and to work with the Alaska State Board
of Education & Early Development in the adoption of those
standards. He briefly summarized the subsequent presentations.
1:55:16 PM
SENATOR GARDNER asked if the Alaska State Board of Education &
Early Development adopted the standards.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY confirmed that it is the responsibility of
the state board of education to do the official adoption and to
put them in regulation.
SENATOR HUGGINS commented that the development of standards is
the easy part; the vigor of the execution is the difficult part.
He asked to have a conversation later about three structural
things she'd like to do, based on the new standards.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY expressed appreciation for the insight, and
noted that the district had been working on the standards since
2012.
DR. MCCAULEY agreed that the focus should be on how to
effectively implement the standards and help students meet them.
SENATOR HUGGINS commented on the high percentage of students
taking remedial classes and the low percentage of students who
actually graduate from university, and stressed the importance
of figuring out what the difficulty is, regardless of the
standard.
1:59:41 PM
At ease from 1:59 pm to 2:06 pm.
2:06:41 PM
CHAIR STEVENS reconvened the meeting and introduced Mr.
Merriner.
2:07:01 PM
JIM MERRINER, Chair, Alaska State Board of Education & Early
Development (State Board), Juneau, Alaska, presented "Mission
Statement & Adoption Efforts of Alaska's Academic Standards."
MR. MERRINER said the State Board's mission was adopted in 2003.
It is "To ensure quality standards-based instruction to improve
academic standards for all students." Adopting educational
standards, which is what will be taught and learned, is central
to the State Board's mission. Board members and DEED take it
seriously.
He explained that Alaska first adopted standards in 1994-1995
for grades 3 through 10. It made a significant revision in 1998-
1999, minor revisions in 2004, and in June 2012 the State Board
adopted new and more rigorous standards for grades K-12.
MR. MERRINER provided an overview of the presentation. He said
he would discuss the State Board's engagement in the standards
revision process, the discussion leading to the decision to
submit the standards for public review and comment in December
2011, the public comment period, legislative communication
regarding the standards, and approval by the State Board in June
2012.
2:09:40 PM
MR. MERRINER related that the topic of revising Alaska's 3rd-
10th grade standards was first discussed in November 2008 at a
statewide education summit that was attended by 400 stakeholders
from across the state. A consensus among the summit participants
was that world-class schools have strong academic standards and
high expectations for all students. The summit action plan
called for a review of the 3rd-10th grade standards to determine
alignment with world-class 21st century skills, and Alaska's
graduation outcomes for student's post-secondary opportunities
of their choosing.
He said that following up on the summit's action plan, the State
Board and DEED initiated a standards review process. During 11
board meetings over the course of three years, the State Board
was regularly briefed on, and engaged in, discussion about the
standards development work in Alaska and nationwide.
MR. MERRINER highlighted some of the relevant board meeting
discussions. In June 2009, then-Commissioner LeDoux discussed
the nationwide movement to develop common standards, and that
states are ultimately in control of standards. Alaska was asked
but did not join the process of developing common standards, but
the state did stay engaged in the process. In March 2010, DEED
briefed the State Board regarding the results of the alignment
study that compared Alaska's 3rd-10th grade standards with the
CCSS. In December 2010, the State Board discussed with the
university president how new Alaska standards could help to
better align the K-12 and post-secondary arenas. Commissioner
LeDoux indicated that the University of Alaska already had a
seat at the table during the standards development process.
In June 2011, Alaska's K-12 assessment director reviewed with
the State Board the standards development process to date, and
Representative Dick testified about engaging industry in the
standards development work. In September 2011, Commissioner
Hanley told the State Board that the draft K-12 standards would
be brought to the board meeting in December, and that they would
meet the high benchmarks of national and global competitiveness.
MR. MERRINER said that in December 2011, the State Board
submitted the draft K-12 standards for extended public review
and comment. Before doing so, the State Board sought information
from DEED on public engagement efforts during the department-led
standards development process. They learned that eight meetings
were held to develop the standards and invitees and participants
included mathematics and language arts teachers, special
education teachers, English language learner students, post-
secondary educators, and industry representatives. The eight
full-day meetings ultimately included 230 Alaska representatives
from 56 different organizations.
2:14:16 PM
MR. MERRINER explained the process for putting a regulation out
for public comment. It is sent to all school districts,
superintendents, school principals, education organizations,
legislators, and public and school libraries. The regulations
are also published in the Anchorage Daily News, online and in
DEED's newsletter. During the extended public comment period,
DEED held five open public community meetings, eight webinars,
and 17 in-person presentations statewide. Additionally, 18
requests for public comment were sent out through DEED's weekly
newsletter, and 125 Alaskan organizations were asked to review
and provide feedback.
In January 2012, the draft standards were discussed in the State
Board's annual report to the legislature. During the legislative
session, each State Board member met with at least one member of
the legislature regarding the draft K-12 standards.
MR. MERRINER stated that in January 2013 he reported on the
adoption of the K-12 standards in the State Board's annual
report to the legislature.
2:16:17 PM
MR. MERRINER reported that during the five month public comment
period, the State Board received 66 pages of public comment from
33 individuals and groups. Every comment was read and reviewed
by each State Board member. Many of the comments expressed
thanks for including all the stakeholders in the development of
the standards. Some commenters urged adoption of the CCSS rather
than separate Alaska standards. A few of the comments
specifically asked for literacy standards for history, science
and technical subjects in secondary grades, and a few supported
the distinction between narrative and informational text. Some
of the public comment supported adoption of the draft standards
on the condition that the state also invests in an assessment
system that is aligned to the standards that is comparable to
peers nationwide. Concern was raised that the standards may be
written for college bound students only, and about the
developmental appropriateness of some of the proposed
kindergarten math standards. There was mention that the draft
standards were too wordy and some comments voiced appreciation
that speaking and listening standards were included. Concern was
mentioned about the increased rigor of the draft standards,
particularly for math. Comment was received about the need for
professional development in the implementation of the new
standards.
MR. MERRINER said that all public comments that made educational
sense for Alaska students were incorporated into the final
version that went before the State Board for discussion and
consideration in June 2012. For example, literacy standards in
history, science, and technical subjects were added for grades
6-12, and a table emphasizing math computational skills expected
by the standards at each grade level was added. In June 2012 the
State Board adopted the new standards.
2:18:34 PM
MR. MERRINER said that during the final discussion, Esther Cox,
the State Board chair during the standards development process,
reminded the members that "This conversation will never be over
because we need to constantly review our standards." He
concluded by reiterating that adopting educational standards is
central to the State Board's mission and the members taking it
seriously. He reminded the committee that the State Board begins
each meeting with public comment, and anyone who has comments or
suggestions regarding the new Alaska standards should feel free
to bring them to the board. He offered to answer questions.
CHAIR STEVENS recognized Ms. Cox and thanked her and all the
board members for their service.
He asked Mr. Merriner if he was comfortable that the new
standards refer to vocational, career, and life studies in
addition to college bound students.
MR. MERRINER said he was and related his impression of one of
the day-long meetings he attended looking at the math standards.
2:21:19 PM
CHAIR STEVENS thanked Mr. Merriner and introduced Dr. Thomas.
DANA THOMAS, PhD., Vice President, Academic Affairs, University
of Alaska Statewide System, Fairbanks, Alaska, stated that he is
a product of the Alaska public school system and a 33-year
faculty member at the university, six of which were as chair of
mathematics at UAF. He provided an overview of the topic areas
he was asked to address: UA view of the standards, engagement in
development of the standards, vetting the standards, expected
impact of the new standards.
DR. THOMAS confirmed that the University of Alaska validated and
submitted a formal letter of support for the new standards to
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan as part of Alaska's
application for a waiver from elements of the No Child Left
Behind Act. One of the questions that arose during that
conversation was whether UA would have done that under the old
standards. He said his answer would be "No," because the rate of
need for developmental education of high school graduates from
Alaska coming to the university makes it clear that the old
standards aren't preparing high school graduates to be college
ready.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if he would address the group that looked at
the new standards.
DR. THOMAS explained that they were discussed with the chief
academic officers of the three institutions, and as the chief
academic officer for the UA system, he gave the advice to the
president.
CHAIR STEVENS asked for confirmation that faculty were involved
in the process.
DR. THOMAS replied that many faculty members were involved later
in the development and vetting process; the decision to write
the letter was an administrative decision.
He reviewed some of the ways that UA demonstrates support for
the new Alaska Academic Standards. These include: educating
teacher candidates to use the new standards in designing and
assessing instruction; providing in-service opportunities for
teachers both by distance and in person; aligning the new
standards with UA's current work on revising baccalaureate
general education requirements; [documenting alignment of the
standards, instruction and assessment for Alaska's Learning
Network courses; and Alaska standards are used in the
implementation of a dual credit course for K-12 students
participating in Future Education of Alaska].
DR. THOMAS highlighted that another demonstration of support is
that the university has a member on the Smarter Balanced
Assessment team in order to decide whether that is a good
college-ready assessment.
2:26:06 PM
DR. THOMAS compared the old and new standards, primarily
mathematics. He said that it's of great concern that the vast
majority of the need for developmental education for students
coming to UA is in the area of mathematics. The new standards
are much more advanced and more specific than the old standards.
As previously mentioned, the old standards only went through the
10th grade, which didn't reflect college ready. The new Alaska
Academic Standards include a greater emphasis on functions,
trigonometry, data analysis and probability, which makes it more
likely that high school graduates will complete a college level
degree. Emphasis is placed on developing an ability to apply
mathematics to novel situations and to identify and explain
logical and/or flawed reasoning. The new standards extensively
discuss the use of matrices and what a student needs to be able
to do with them, whereas the old standards had just one
statement about matrices. The positive aspect for the university
is that things like multiplying matrices won't have to be taught
in introductory statistics if high school graduates have
achieved the skill.
He said the new standards have much more detail and content on
conditional probability, random variables and distributions, and
the use of probability in decision making. This helps prepare
students for the real world, far beyond just college ready.
2:29:12 PM
DR. THOMAS discussed how the new standards are helping prepare
students to be career ready, not just college ready. He
explained that certain labor union certifications require a
significant background in trigonometry, and that a lot of
laborers currently can't achieve the certification because the
old standards didn't have that. The situation is the same for
plumbers and pipefitters. He relayed that his son recently
became a journeyman after completing a five-year apprenticeship
program that started with a cohort of 30 and finished with a
cohort of 14. The most common reason for dropping out was that
the apprentice could not do the math, particularly trigonometry.
The new standards are helping to better prepare students for
career or college.
The old standards were very generic on reading and writing,
whereas the new standards provide more specifics. For example,
there are now specific standards for reading and writing and
science and technology, and reading and writing and history and
social studies. There are new standards on speaking and
listening skills, and adapting your speech to your audience.
Many of those elements did not exist in the old standards.
Furthermore, there have been significant upgrades in the use of
technology.
DR. THOMAS discussed how the University of Alaska engaged in the
development of the new Alaska Academic Standards. He said that
19 different faculty took part in the College & Career Ready
Standards Revision meetings over the two-year process. Faculty
from the three large and rural campuses in the fields of
mathematics, English composition and reading, education,
chemistry, and early childhood development participated in the
meetings.
UAA's Center for Alaska Education Policy Research partnered with
the Oregon Educational Policy Improvement Center to conduct a
survey of faculty who teach entry-level courses in UA's four-
year and two-year postsecondary programs.
DR. THOMAS related that as part of the vetting process, the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) distributed
the draft standards on January 4, 2012. On February 17, 2012 all
department chairs and deans at UAF were asked to provide
feedback. He noted that the provosts at both UAS and UAA recall
sending similar solicitations, but they were unable to provide
documentation of having done so.
He addressed the question of whether the new Alaska Standards
address the need for developmental education and the K-12 to UA
gap. He recapped that roughly 52 percent of recent Alaska high
school graduates attending the UA system need some developmental
coursework, and that UA is working in close partnership with
DEED to reduce that number. He described this as a true
partnership because UA educates teachers, helps mentor teachers,
and helps place teachers through the Alaska Teacher Placement
Program. He expressed gratitude for the significant help the
legislature has provided through the implementation of Alaska
Performance Scholars (APS) and the Alaska Advantage Program. He
highlighted that only 20 percent of APS students entering UA in
fall 2013 needed developmental education. He suggested the
legislature might also consider incentivizing calculus in the
APS curriculum. He described this as a small change that might
help the national agenda.
2:34:12 PM
DR. THOMAS stated that UA expects to see significant improvement
in reducing the need for developmental coursework for Alaska
high school graduates, based on the new Alaska Standards and the
relatively new Alaska Performance Scholarship program.
2:35:30 PM
CHAIR STEVENS asked for more information on the developmental
courses, such as who teaches the classes and what it costs the
student.
DR. THOMAS replied that the student pays the same amount as any
entry level course and that the qualifications to teach a
developmental class require just a master's degree. He further
explained that they are four credit classes with regard to
qualifying for financial aid, and non-credit classes with regard
to meeting baccalaureate requirements.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if developmental classes would generally be
offered through a community college program in states that have
a community college system.
DR. THOMAS said yes, whereas the University of Alaska has a
combined community college and university mission so it carries
both responsibilities.
CHAIR STEVENS cited the significant difference in cost between
community college and university courses in the state of
California, and suggested that Alaska might find a less
expensive way to deliver developmental classes.
DR. THOMAS recounted that UA is working to better prepare new
teachers and high school graduates, and is partnering with DEED
through the Alaska Learning Network to ensure that the correct
level of classes are offered statewide.
2:37:33 PM
DR. THOMAS reiterated that because the new Alaska Standards
won't be fully implemented until 2015/16, it's too early to tell
what their impact will be. However, there is reason for optimism
and UA is actively engaging new teacher candidates to learn and
implement the new standards in the classroom.
DR. THOMAS concluded his comments with a summary of the five
changes he advocated for this past summer.
1) Examine an Alaska Performance Scholarship curriculum for
all students unless a parent opts the student out;
2) Improve math outcomes by improving requirements for new
teacher hires, changing teaching methods and standards, and
embedding it in other content areas;
3) Implement college-ready assessment no later than 11th
grade, and having the university engaged in the Smarter
Balanced Assessment group;
4) Further facilitate K-12 in the University of Alaska dual
enrollment; and
5) Improve teacher retention, particularly in rural Alaska,
by expanding or improving the teacher mentoring process.
2:39:56 PM
SENATOR GARDNER asked if he agrees with Dr. Milgram that new
math standards are not rigorous enough, and that students should
be more rigorously prepared for STEM fields and selective
universities.
DR. THOMAS replied the new standards are a significant and
positive step forward. He said that national research shows that
a student who takes a math class after algebra II is much more
likely to complete a baccalaureate degree than those who do not.
As a mathematician, he'd like to see a higher proportion of high
school graduates who have already taken calculus, but Alaska
isn't ready to demand that of all high school graduates. He
reiterated that building incentives in the Alaska Performance
Scholarship would be a good way to help achieve some of that
national agenda.
2:41:51 PM
CHAIR STEVENS asked how much it costs a UAF student to take a
remedial education class.
DR. THOMAS replied it's about $450 for a three credit class.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if he would be working with DEED to
develop K-12 assessments, possibly utilizing the UA
developmental curriculum.
DR. THOMAS answered that UA is very happy to partner with DEED
to ensure that students are appropriately prepared to take
collegiate-level courses. The Alaska Learning Network provides
that opportunity.
CHAIR STEVENS thanked Dr. Thomas and introduced Diane Hirshberg.
2:43:27 PM
DIANE HIRSHBERG, PhD., Director, UAA Center for Alaska Education
Policy Research (CAEPR), Anchorage, Alaska, provided a summary
of the 2012 Alaska Content Standards Validity Study.
DR. HIRSHBERG explained that when CAEPR was hired to work on the
validity study, they subcontracted part of it to the Educational
Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) from the University of Oregon.
That research organization is the national expert that did a
similar study when Texas decided not to adopt the Common Core
State Standards and needed to validate their standards.
She displayed a chart showing the 174 faculty respondents by
course content area. Comments were solicited from UA's two-year
and four-year programs and community campuses, as well as
faculty from Alaska Pacific University, Wayland Baptist
University, Ilisagvik College, AVTEC, the Northern Industrial
Training Program, Alaska Christian College, and the Amundsen
Educational Center. Input was solicited from this wide spectrum
of faculty in the belief that Alaska students need to be
prepared either for an academic career or to go on for further,
current, technical education. She noted that including such a
diversity of voices had not been done elsewhere in the country.
DR. HIRSHBERG explained that the first piece of the validity
study looks at whether the standards are applicable to the
course content areas. As might be expected, the math content
standards were relevant to the math instructors and the language
arts content standards were relevant to the English instructors,
but there was move variation in what seemed relevant to somebody
teaching other introductory courses. What was more relevant was
to ask whether the standards, as a whole, would sufficiently
prepare students for success in the respondent's course.
She highlighted that almost 50 percent of the respondents said
that the new standards for English/language arts represent all
of the knowledge and skills necessary for success in an entry-
level course, and over 80 percent said the standards represent
"most to all" the skills necessary for success. The response was
even stronger for the mathematics standards.
2:47:31 PM
DR. HIRSHBERG said the respondents were also asked whether the
English/language arts and mathematics standards reflect a
sufficient level of cognitive demand for students who meet the
standards to be prepared to succeed in the respondent's course.
The answers were encouraging; 80 percent said the
English/language arts standards are adequate in most of all of
the areas necessary for success in an entry-level course at the
university or in a technical training program. For mathematics,
85 percent of the respondents said the standards reflect most to
all of the cognitive demand sufficient for students who meet the
standards to be prepared to succeed in the respondent's course.
These strong results support the veracity of the new standards
raising students' skill levels to where they need to be, she
said.
2:50:07 PM
DR. HIRSHBERG addressed some of the comments that were made
during the process. A number of people talked about the need for
students to have technical and scientific reading skills and a
technical vocabulary, and the board added in those areas. The
request by a handful of people for more focus on reading and
mathematical skills was met with the technical reading piece. In
conclusion, she said that key question is whether the students
will actually achieve the standards that have been set for them.
CHAIR STEVENS thanked Dr. Hirshberg for the presentation.
2:52:07 PM
At ease
3:01:22 PM
CHAIR STEVENS reconvened the meeting and introduced
Superintendent Graff.
3:01:41 PM
ED GRAFF, Superintendent, Anchorage School District (ASD),
Anchorage, Alaska, thanked the committee for the opportunity to
provide information about how ASD is implementing the Common
Core State Standards (CCSS), and the continuing commitment to
student success.
He stated that one of the immediate benefits of adopting the
CCSS is the ability to collaborate with like-size districts. He
explained that the ASD belongs to an organization called The
Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS), which provides
resources that range from professional development to curriculum
alignment, as well as a think tank opportunity with other
districts.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if he was referring to the Alaska Academic
Standards.
SUPERINTENDENT GRAFF clarified that the Anchorage School
District adopted and has implemented the Common Core State
Standards. He added that those are not the standards that the
state will use to assess the district, but they are
substantially similar to the Alaska Academic Standards.
He continued to explain that by belonging to CGSC, the district
has been able to use some of the resources they developed. He
directed attention to a parent roadmap that describes areas of
focus for each grade level and provides examples of the
assessments as well as activities that are aligned to the
standards. The roadmap is available in a number of different
languages, which is helpful because ASD is a district of diverse
languages.
SUPERINTENDENT GRAFF reported that the Anchorage School Board
adopted the Common Core State Standards in the spring of 2011.
He reviewed some of the key shifts from the old Alaska standards
to CCSS. For language arts there is close reading of complex
literary and informational texts, evidence-based writing, and a
strong focus on vocabulary. In math there are fewer topics with
more depth, there is a balance of concept and computation, and
they include the standards of mathematical practice. He
highlighted that the curriculum is based on the standards, not
textbooks.
3:06:17 PM
SENATOR GARDNER asked what that means.
SUPERINTENDENT GRAFF replied that there has been a misconception
that CCSS comes with a set of texts that a district must use,
but there is actually a great deal of flexibility in selecting
textbooks. He noted that the district was going through a math
review when the CCSS were adopted, so the district was very
conscientious about the purchase of new math materials.
DARLA JONES, PhD., Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum
Instruction, Anchorage School District, said it was critical to
follow a thorough curriculum alignment process when the district
adopted the Common Core State Standards. Different approaches
were utilized in English/language arts and math.
The Anchorage School District turned to the Basal Alignment
Project for English/language arts, because that project
recognizes the reality of budget challenges. The project allowed
the district to use existing textbooks, collaborate with the
CGCS and other districts across the country, and essentially
rewrite existing test questions and identify vocabulary terms
that would be more appropriate for the Common Core State
Standards. She noted that the district decided to use Houghton
Mifflin for the reading program and rework the approach.
3:09:48 PM
DR. JONES explained that the Anchorage School District partnered
with the University of Texas Dana Center for professional
development and to create new math units of study for all grade
levels. Math is their primary area of expertise, and they
provided a framework for transitioning to the new standards.
During this process, 65 ASD educators engaged in an 18-month
study of the math standards and the research behind the
standards. This work guided an intense math review process for
new resources at grades K-8. Many of these same educators became
the site-based math specialists who help lead professional
development efforts throughout the district.
She reported that ASD also created comprehensive academic plans
that incorporate the Basal Alignment lessons and the math units
of study. The academic plans provide information about learning
outcomes for each quarter and identify essential concepts,
essential vocabulary, instructional resources, and assessments.
She said that ASD is committed to revising the academic plans
each year to better meet the needs of students at each grade
level, and hopes to include more resources for teachers
including more assessments and suggestions for differentiation
for struggling readers, as well as those in need of enrichment.
She noted that the academic plans are all available on the ASD
website.
3:11:49 PM
DR. JONES said that ASD is developing academic plans for all
subject areas as they incorporate the Common Core State
Standards across all disciplines. For example, the Social
Studies coordinator worked with ASD educators and key community
members to produce the book Picturing Anchorage that is based on
the Social Studies content standards, ASD's social/emotional
learning standards, Alaska Cultural Standards, as well as the
common core standards. She opined that this project illustrates
how the CCSS provides a foundation that educators can use to
create curricular resources that meet the needs of the
community. She noted that the CCSS doesn't include things like a
handwriting program, but ASD will continue their current
program, because brain research has shown that there are major
benefits to students in learning cursive.
3:13:30 PM
SUPERINTENDENT GRAFF highlighted that Picturing Anchorage
addresses Senator Gardner's question about curriculum versus
textbook. It supports the notion that the district is able to
adjust and create resources.
He said that the last critical piece of the discussion centers
on the assessments and what the updated assessment will look
like. The shifts in instructional practices and curriculum are
specifically based on increasing expectations of what students
need to be able to know and do. Ultimately, the new assessment
that the state adopts will be measuring that. It will be a new
baseline for how to determine student success. It's not
comparable to the past - it's a new baseline because of the new
standards.
SUPERINTENDENT GRAFF displayed two sample practice questions for
math that try to determine whether the student understands how
to add fractions and the concept of greater than and less than.
The first question is from the old Alaska assessment and the
second is from the CCSS assessment. These examples show that the
CCSS standards are more challenging.
Future considerations include the state assessment because that
is the standard that ASD will be assessed on even though they
adopted the CCSS. The district is cognizant of the differences,
he said. The new assessments will utilize technology so the
district has to be prepared for that. Finally, professional
development will be an ongoing consideration.
3:20:47 PM
SUPERINTENDENT GRAFF concluded his comments by displaying a
picture of an Anchorage kindergarten class and noted that they
will graduate in 2026 having been exposed to the Common Core
State Standards from kindergarten through 12th grade.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if there was a fiscal note or if the
district had the resources in their budget to implement the
assessment and teacher training.
SUPERINTENDENT GRAFF said the district does not have the
resources in the budget, and he believes that without support
for professional development, the state will fall short in
addressing any standards. He noted that the district is also
requesting an increase in bandwidth and double the amount during
assessment windows.
3:22:59 PM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if the district would approach the
governor and legislature once they know the cost of
implementation.
SUPERINTENDENT GRAFF answered yes.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY expressed interest in receiving specific
information on the total cost and a budget breakdown for
implementing the CCSS, the assessments, technology, and staff
development.
He also asked for follow up information about Dr. McCauley's
testimony that 49 percent of the Alaska Academic Standards for
math are different than the Common Core State Standards for
math.
3:27:37 PM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said he heard Superintendent Graff say that
ASD adopted local standards before the state adopted the Alaska
Academic Standards and they happened to be the Common Core State
Standards. Superintendent Graff also said the district
recognized, and was addressing, the differences between the
standards. Commissioner Hanley noted that he sent a letter to
superintendents advising that if a district adopts a different
set of standards they had a responsibility to address the Alaska
Academic Standards, as well as the ones that were locally
adopted.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if there's a disparity between ASD and
the state in light of the testimony from Stanford and
Massachusetts that the Common Core State Standards are minimal;
they're better than the old Alaska standards but not as rigorous
as the new Alaska Academic Standards.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY maintained that the standards are different,
but equally rigorous.
CHAIR STEVENS thanked the presenters and recognized Pete Lewis.
3:29:50 PM
PETE LEWIS, Superintendent, Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB)
School District, Fairbanks, Alaska, introduced himself.
MELANIE HADAWAY, Secondary Curriculum Coordinator, Fairbanks
North Star Borough (FNSB) School District, Fairbanks, Alaska,
introduced herself.
SUPERINTENDENT LEWIS stated that the Fairbanks School District
has been vigorously implementing the Alaska Academic Standards
for English/language arts, math and culture since they were
adopted in 2012. The ongoing initiatives include aligning the
curriculum, working on assessments, integrating technology, and
providing professional development. He discussed the process in
August 2012 to introduce the standards to all corners of the
school district to ensure that expectations were clear and that
the message from the administration was consistent.
MS. HADAWAY emphasized that this was a districtwide
implementation, not just for teachers. She said they tried to
focus on the shifts in English/language arts, especially in
nonfiction texts. That means that reading and writing isn't
solely the responsibility of the English teacher. The intention
is to have students reading and writing difficult, challenging
text in all curriculum areas.
3:33:58 PM
MS. HADAWAY reviewed some of the other districtwide initiatives.
With support from DEED, the district had a week-long math
institute for teachers looking at the new standards, especially
the mathematical practices. A literacy institute was attended by
more than just English/language arts teachers to support the
increased standards. The idea was for everyone to understand
that the standards all work together to create a climate of high
achievement. She summarized that the standards are the "what"
and the curriculum helps figure out the "how."
3:35:05 PM
SUPERINTENDENT LEWIS explained that in 2011 the school district
began to align its curriculum to Common Core State Standards,
and then switched to align with the Alaska Academic Standards in
2013. Throughout, the curriculum has been aligned to the Alaska
Cultural Standards. He said it's clear that some standards are
more important or powerful and the district is focusing on those
to provide a roadmap to aid in the mastery of other standards.
3:37:22 PM
SUPERINTENDENT LEWIS discussed the importance of providing
teachers real-time support on curriculum. The district created
K-12 content leadership teams that include teachers, parents,
and the university. The curriculum department provides support,
and principals facilitate and provide direction, in each content
area. This process allows for changes to be made much more
quickly than waiting six years for the next curriculum review.
3:38:31 PM
MS. HADAWAY directed attention to the supporting documents that
show that when K-12 teachers reviewed the curriculum, including
the recent revisions for career technical education and social
studies, they found that the Alaska Academic Standards for
literacy and math are at the core of the entire curriculum. They
went through line-by-line comparing the new Alaska Academic
Standards to see where the "what" was different. They wanted to
see if anything was missing from the district's curriculum or if
things they asked for weren't included. As Senator Dunleavy
pointed out, there are different ways to interpret the different
standards and they wanted to ensure that the teachers understood
and were on the same page, not just in English/language arts and
math, but in every area of the curriculum.
3:39:45 PM
SUPERINTENDENT LEWIS said that the district tried to identify
power standards for ongoing benchmark assessments. The idea is
to have multiple measures to determine whether a student has met
the standards. Eventually those will be tied to the evaluation
process. Sample assessments are available to teachers through
the district-created Edmodo site. Technology is an important
aspect of the districtwide assessments.
MS. HADAWAY explained that students will still take the State
Benchmark Assessment (SBA) this spring, but now they will be
able to take the practice test online using Google forms.
Students are able to practice and develop their skills, and it's
also beneficial for teachers, as this is a new system for
everyone. She explained that Google Lux uses a script called
Flubaroo making it possible for the assessment results to be
delivered to principals and teachers soon after the students
complete the practice test.
SUPERINTENDENT LEWIS explained that a districtwide committee was
formed to help transition to the new evaluation system. They've
adopted the Charlotte Danielson model and are in the process of
creating a system for gathering data on student performance that
is fair and accurate across grade levels and content areas. The
idea is to provide appropriate information to improve
instruction that is aligned to the Alaska Academic Standards for
English/language arts, math, and culture. The standards provide
a clear target for that.
3:46:44 PM
SUPERINTENDENT LEWIS discussed the resources for success:
funding, time, and professional development. He said funding is
an issue and it's important to stay the course during this
multiple year process. He noted that Massachusetts gave school
districts the time to implement their standards correctly, and
that's led to success. There's also a professional development
component to ensure that everyone is adequately trained in order
to be successful. The district wants to make sure it has the
appropriate structure and support systems in place to ensure
that both students and staff are successful. That being said,
there has to be a balance between the assessment processes and
different initiatives and a system that allows teachers the time
to teach. He also spoke about the balance between local and
state control and the balance between professional autonomy and
ensuring that teachers are aiming at the targets. The district
is committed to preparing their students so that they will have
the opportunity to compete in a global society. He concluded the
presentation by showing pictures of students in the district and
reiterated the commitment to prepare them for success.
3:50:06 PM
SENATOR GARDNER asked how the district paid to send teachers to
summer institutes for literacy, cultural responsibility and
curriculum alignment.
MS. HADAWAY explained that the district partnered with DEED for
the institutes; for the curriculum alignment they used
curriculum professional development money to encourage teachers
to come in over the summer for developing education credits with
a district focus in mind.
3:51:18 PM
CHAIR STEVENS thanked Superintendent Lewis and Ms. Hadaway and
welcomed Peggy Cowan and Lisa Skiles Parady.
3:51:45 PM
PEGGY COWAN, Superintendent, North Slope Borough School
District, Barrow, Alaska, stated that the district is guided by
the board-adopted strategic plan which is student-centered. She
spoke to the following mission statement of the strategic plan:
Learning in our schools is rooted in the values,
history and language of the Iñupiat. Students develop
the academic and cultural skills and knowledge to be:
Critical and creative thinkers able to adapt in a
changing environment and world;
Active, responsible, contributing members of their
communities; and
Confident, healthy young adults, able to envision,
plan and take control of their destiny.
SUPERINTENDENT COWAN said the district is mission driven and it
has a mission-driven curriculum development process. The board
wants students to have the outcomes that boards, parents, and
legislators want for their children regardless of where they
live. The mission articulates that, but also grounds the work in
the place the students are from and their Iñupiat heritage.
She said the presentation today is about standards and how they
inform curriculum development in one rural school district in
Alaska. As she listened to the national conversation, a common
misconception that is often associated with standards is that
standards lead to standardization. She maintained that standards
do not inherently lead to standardization of instructional
delivery. We can expect students in Kaktovik and Boston that
have the same understanding and skills to be successful in
careers or college in the 21st century, but standards do not
have to be delivered in the same way. In actuality, standards
provide targets that allow the instruction to be more flexible
than before teachers had targets.
It used to be that the only way you could guarantee content
coverage was to demand use of specific materials. Now with
standards, districts and schools have flexibility in instruction
to reach the targets established by their standards. The
district's presentation illustrates that.
The district is using the new Alaska Academic Standards in the
district's own way. These standards are more rigorous than in
the past, which is good because the students are competing in a
national and global market and need to be as well prepared as
other states and regions. A huge change in benefit is that the
new standards finally provide depth. They are no longer a mile
wide and an inch deep; a common and accurate description of
standards and curriculum in the past. This is especially
sympathetic with our district's use of curriculum development
guided by understanding by design. For example, the anchor
standards in language arts give focus and emphasis.
She deferred to Dr. Parady to provide an explanation of the
district's use of the state standards.
3:51:58 PM
LISA SKILES PARADY, PhD. Assistant Superintendent, North Slope
Borough School District, Barrow, Alaska, delivered the
presentation "Implementation Efforts & Considerations at the
District Level."
DR. PARADY described the challenges that rural school districts
face as extraordinary. The North Slope Borough School District
has about 2,000 students. It is roadless and larger than 38
states the size of Minnesota. The smallest school in the
district is Kaktovik with 60 students and the largest is in
Barrow with 700 students. Technology logistics are particularly
complex. Delivering services is daunting. In-service take an
incredible amount of detail and all logistics can be very
difficult ranging from heat, food service, busing, and travel.
The first goal is instructional focus. All students will reach
their intellectual potential and achieve academic success
through integrating the Iñupiat knowledge system into the core
content areas. That is referring to the state standard, the
learning target the state has put forth for districts.
Bob Marzano, in What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into
Action, said, "A guaranteed and viable curriculum is the number
1 school-level factor impacting student achievement." The
opportunity to learn addresses the extent to which the
curriculum in a school is guaranteed. That means that states and
districts give clear guidance to teachers regarding the content
to be addressed in specific courses at specific grade levels.
Standards really ensure the opportunity for students to learn
the "must knows" versus the "nice to knows." If students don't
have that opportunity to learn the content expected of them,
there is little chance that they will. Viable in this context
means ensuring that the articulated curriculum content or the
standards for a given course or given grade level can be
adequately addressed in the time available. Thus, time and
priority really must be given to teach students the "must
knows."
3:58:31 PM
DR. PARADY said that curriculum needs to be coherent, inviting,
thoughtful, and culturally relevant. Curriculum provides a plan
to achieve designated goals; it is not a list of topics and
related activities. She discussed the difference between
curriculum and standards and explained that the North Slope
Borough School District is using the new Alaska Academic
Standards to inform the curriculum. The standard is what is
taught, the curriculum is how it's taught, and the assessment
shows whether the student learned what is taught.
4:01:11 PM
DR. PARADY discussed the three stages of backward design: 1)
identify the desired results; 2) determine acceptable evidence;
and 3) plan learning experiences and instruction. She drew an
analogy between the blueprint for a house design and a model
curriculum blueprint. She said you start with a floor plan and
work to the finished product, which is what the North Slope
School District has done. She displayed the district's five-year
curriculum, alignment, integration and mapping structure (CAIM)
plan and reiterated the statement by Superintendent Lewis that
it doesn't happen in one year, because it's complex, resource
intensive work. She explained that the school board approved the
structural framework in 2009 and at that time the district
created K-12 core content area teams to guide the process and
ensure alignment with both the Alaska Academic Standards and the
Iñupiat Learning Framework. She reiterated that it was an
expensive process that involved all certified staff.
DR. PARADY said that some NSBSD teachers worked on the
development of the Alaska Academic Standards and she believes
that the process was sound and transparent. The standards are
closely aligned to the Common Core State Standards, but they
were developed locally. She disputed the suggestion of federal
overreach, and highlighted that the NSBSD curriculum continues
to align to the Alaska Cultural Standards. She described the
balance between Alaska Academic Standards and the Iñupiat
Learning Framework as a marriage by design.
She displayed a chart that teachers use as a blueprint, starting
with the particular program area. In the next level the balanced
content standard and Iñupiat Learning Framework are used to
develop overarching understandings and essential questions. The
next level has the districtwide cornerstone assessment tasks,
after which units are developed for either courses or grade
levels. She described it as a complex process that involves
integration of the standards throughout.
DR. PARADY quoted a teacher who observed that teachers are able
to look at the new standards and break down the knowledge and
skills necessary to show mastery of that standard. This wasn't
possible under the old standards due to their lack of clarity.
DR. PARADY reviewed an interdisciplinary unit on surviving in
the Arctic. It addresses literacy, science, and technology
standards and is relevant knowledge. She directed attention to
the Iñupiat Learning Framework and performance expectations for
the unit and noted that they are equivalent to the performance
expectations found in the Alaska Academic Standards for the
Iñupiat language, history, and culture. She said the idea is for
students to transfer this knowledge to other areas of learning.
This empowers them as lifelong learners.
4:10:56 PM
DR. PARADY displayed a visual that illustrates the challenges
that districts currently face with the recent changes in laws
and regulations. She described the new standards as the building
blocks for the changes and commended DEED for adopting them. She
concluded her comments with a quote from a middle school teacher
who said the new Alaska Academic Standards may not be perfect,
but they're a step in the right direction.
CHAIR STEVENS thanked Dr. Parady and Superintendent Cowan.
SENATOR GARDNER asked if the NSBSD saw the new Alaska Academic
Standards on the horizon when the district adopted their five-
year plan in 2009.
DR. PARADY explained that she initiated the process when she was
recruited to the North Slope because the district didn't have a
curriculum. She worked closely with DEED to understand their
expectations and she learned there was movement on the rise to
develop and adopt new standards. She said the North Slope
Borough School District is ahead of other districts and it's
been tremendously hard work.
4:15:30 PM
SENATOR GARDNER asked if the cornerstone assessment tasks she
described are routine classroom assessments and if they're
different from Bright Beginnings Assessment.
DR. PARADY agreed they are different. She explained that the
district has performance tests for in the classroom and they're
in the process of creating districtwide tests.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY requested a copy of the district's budget to
implement the standards, including staff development, curriculum
changes, and technology.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS requested a copy for the House committee
as well.
CHAIR STEVENS said his office would distribute it to the
members.
4:17:37 PM
CHAIR STEVENS announced the committee would stand at-ease.
4:24:24 PM
CHAIR STEVENS reconvened the meeting and recognized Sunni Hilts
and Norm Wooten.
SUNNI HILTS, President, Board of Directors, Association of
Alaska School Boards, Seldovia, Alaska, introduced herself.
NORM WOOTEN, Director of School Improvement and Governmental
Relations, Board of Directors, Association of Alaska School
Boards, Kodiak, Alaska, introduced himself.
4:25:12 PM
MS. HILTS said she didn't mind being last in the roster of
presenters as long as the children of Alaska and their education
is first. She then read the following into the record:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the new Alaska standards for
English language arts and mathematics.
Our statewide organization and our member school
districts have been involved in developing and
implementing education standards for better than two
decades. As an educator yourself, you are undoubtedly
aware of the history of academic standards in Alaska -
from the first standards developed in the 1990s under
Governor Hickel, to those that followed in the wake of
NCLB. Today, we have standards by which administrators,
teachers, school boards and students are measured. And in
each of those cases, we have usually set the bar higher
each time the standards have been overhauled or amended.
AASB believes the Department of Education & Early
Development did a good job in establishing the Alaska
Education Standards in 2012. What our member districts
are requesting are the resources and time to implement
them efficiently and effectively, with common sense and
continued emphasis on local participation - from parents,
teachers and students. Alaska's K-12 students must be
prepared for careers or college, and the new Alaska
Education Standards can help in that preparation. But,
only if they are wisely implemented.
If they are wisely implemented, Alaska can continue to
strive for educational excellence. In the last decade,
public schools as a whole have increased the high school
graduation rate from about 60 percent to more than 71
percent statewide, with the five-year cohort approaching
75 percent in 2013. We have lowered the dropout rate to
less than 5 percent. If we are to improve the standing of
U.S. students in relation to their counterparts in other
developed countries, and if we are to lower the
remediation rate at our own Alaska colleges, then higher
education standards are one answer.
Of course, standards are merely one part of the equation:
School Districts must also develop a curriculum to teach
the standards, provide teachers the professional
development and instructional strategies so the
curriculum can reach the classroom, and provide the
assessments necessary to gauge whether teachers are
effective and students are learning. School districts are
doing these important tasks all the time, but with the
new standards, the urgency of the work and the workload
itself has increased immensely.
Let's take one school district to illustrate the
process of implementing the Alaska Education
Standards: this school district is of moderate size
for Alaska, is off the road system but connected by
plane and ferry service, has a good graduation rate
and a fairly stable workforce of administrators and
teachers, even in the face of layoffs and budget
reductions.
Like most districts, this one normally budgets money
to conduct a curriculum review over a six-year period.
If there are 200 different course offerings in the
district, that means 35 of them, on average, are
reviewed each year to assess the content being taught,
the instructional materials being used and the
training and development needed by staff. This
schedule leaves the remaining staff to focus on
teaching and increasing student performance.
That six-year cycle is now being crammed into two or
three years because in addition to the new Alaska
Education Standards, the State Board of Education &
Early Development also changed the way staff is
evaluated and student performance is measured. This
new accountability system is to be implemented in
2015-16 when 20 percent of an educator's evaluation
will be based on student growth. By 2018-19, student
performance will compose 50 percent of an educator's
evaluation. And districts must also gather input for
each educator's evaluation from parents, students,
community members and fellow educators.
At our recent Annual Conference, the member districts of
AASB approved two resolutions that express their concerns
regarding assessments in general and the High School
Graduation Qualifying Exam in particular. I submit those
resolutions separately for your information. In short,
our members - your local school districts - are asking
for help from EED to implement the standards and enable
students to do the new online assessments. School boards
are also asking the state to repeal the High School
Graduation Qualifying Exam because it is out of date,
expensive and time-consuming. The resources - and the six
school days devoted to the test each year - can be better
used elsewhere, such as implementing the new Alaska
standards.
Finally, I ask you to help us and the Department of
Education provide the public with information to
understand the new standards as they unfold in your
communities. There will be many adjustments and - yes -
some bumps in the road as teachers learn new lessons,
districts acquire new curriculum and as students reach
toward a higher level of learning.
But we know that our students get only one chance at a K-
12 education. They will do what we expect them to do. If
the adults in their life step up, so will they. At AASB,
our mission is to advocate for children and youth by
assisting school boards in providing quality public
education, focused on student achievement, through
effective local governance. Today, AASB would like to
thank the State of Alaska for adopting higher education
standards and for the Alaska Legislature for assisting
school districts in implementing them. Thank you.
4:32:30 PM
CHAIR STEVENS asked if she would say that the districts that the
Alaska Association of School Boards represents are consistent in
their support for a common core program.
MS. HILTS clarified that they're in support of the Alaska
Academic Standards.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY noted that the question was about support for
the "common core program" and the response was specific to
supporting the standards.
MR. WOOTEN confirmed support for more rigorous academic
standards and the board is standing behind the standards the
state has implemented.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if there is a cost to implementation that
is being borne by school districts.
MR. WOOTEN replied the AASB supports the standards, but it
recognizes that implementation has a fairly significant cost.
What the committee heard from Anchorage, Fairbanks, and North
Slope is representative of the other school districts in the
state.
4:34:29 PM
MS. HILTS added that as a school board member in a tiny Alaska
community, she has spent hours trying to explain the standards,
why they're used, and how they'll help Alaska students. She
confirmed that implementing the new standards will take a lot of
commitment and time and money.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY noted the testimony about the need to upgrade
technology and asked if the assumption is that the assessments
would be computerized.
MR. WOOTEN replied it's not only the assessment, but also the
implementation of the curriculum that's based on technology.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY requested any fiscal information AASB has.
MR. WOOTEN agreed to pass the request along to the member
districts. He added that the funding is coming out of the
operational budget so it affects the classroom.
CHAIR STEVENS asked what the dropout rate was at the high point.
MR. WOOTEN offered to follow up with the exact number.
CHAIR STEVENS thanked Ms. Hilts and Mr. Wooten.
4:38:15 PM
CHAIR STEVENS [adjourned] the meeting of the Senate Education
Standing Committee at 4:38 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 000_CommonCore_Agenda_FINAL_010514.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & the Common Core |
| 001_BIOGRAPHIES_AK_Standards_Hearing_Participants_Final.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & the Common Core |
| 01_Minnich_Alaska Testimony Jan 7 2014 FINAL.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 02_PamGoins_CSG_Alaska presentation 1.7.14.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & the Common Core |
| 03_KathleenPorterMagee_AK Testimony--01062014.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & the Common Core |
| 03_Fordham - The State of State Standards 2010_Reference Only.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 04_05_CommonCore_Criticism.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 04a_Stotsky_WSJ_Common Core Doesn'tAddUp.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & the Common Core |
| 04b_Stotsky_PreparedComments_Alaska Hearing.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & the Common Core |
| 05_Milgram_Alaska-presentation.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & the Common Core |
| 06_DEED_Senate_Educ_Cmte_ Presentation.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 06a_AKstandards_ELAandMath_byGradeLevel.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 07_SBEED_SenateEducCmte_Presentation.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 08_DanaThomas_UnivAlaska_K-12 Standards Presentation to Senate January 2014.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & the Common Core |
| 08a_Hirshberg_CAEPR_Standards_Validity_Study.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 09_AnchSchoolDist_Superintendent_Presentation.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 09a_ASD_Supplemental_Standardsinfo.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & the Common Core |
| 10a_FNSBSD_Senate Education Comm 1-7-14.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 10b_FNSBSD_Timeline for AKSS Implementation.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 10c_FNSBSD_English Curriculum vs. AKSS Overview for High School.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 10d_FNSBSD_K-2 Language Detailed Comparison pt 1.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 10e_FNSBSD_K-2 Language Detailed Comparison pt 2.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 10f_FNSBSD_K-2 Reading Detailed Comparison pt1.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 10g_FNSBSD_K-2 Reading Detailed Comparison pt2.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 10h_FNSBSD_K-2 Speaking-Listening Detailed Comparison.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 10i_FNSBSD_K-2 Writing Detailed Comparison.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 10j_FNSBSD_K-2 Writing Detailed Comparison pt 2.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 10k_FNSBSD_Grades 3-5 Standards Detailed Comparison pt1.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 10L_FNSBSD_Grades 3-5 Standards Detailed Comparison pt2.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & The Common Core |
| 10m_FNSBSD Lang Arts Curriculum with AKSS_REVISED.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & the Common Core |
| 11_NSBSD 2014 Senate EducationCmte.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & the Common Core |
| 12a_Remarks by AASB President Sunni Hilts.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & the Common Core |
| 12c_AASB Resolutions 5 15 and 5 17.pdf |
SEDC 1/7/2014 8:30:00 AM |
AK Academic Standards & the Common Core |