Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
02/10/2015 03:30 PM 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 | |
| Presentation: School Rating System - Alaska School Performance Index (aspi); Elementary and Secondary Act (esea) | |
| 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
February 10, 2015
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Mike Dunleavy, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: SCHOOL RATING SYSTEM - ALASKA SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
INDEX (ASPI); ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY ACT (ESEA)
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information on the School Rating
System - the Alaska School Performance Index (ASPI), and the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
SUSAN MCCAULEY, Director
Teacher and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information on the School Rating
System - the Alaska School Performance Index (ASPI), and the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:05 PM
CHAIR MIKE DUNLEAVY called the Senate Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Huggins, Giessel, Gardner, Stevens, and
Chair Dunleavy.
^Presentation: School Rating System - Alaska School Performance
Index (ASPI); Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA)
Presentation: School Rating System - Alaska School Performance
Index (ASPI); Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
3:30:42 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY announced a presentation by the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) regarding the Alaska
School Performance Index (ASPI), and the Elementary and
Secondary Act (ESEA).
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), introduced himself.
SUSAN MCCAULEY, Director, Teacher and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), introduced
herself.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY noted the Senate Education Committee
requested information on two federal programs. He said two weeks
ago the department extensively covered the Title I grant
programs originally under the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY began by dispelling the misconception that
DEED is a federal entity or is driven by federal programs. He
related that he was going to begin the presentation by
explaining the drivers of the department's work. He stated that
the Alaska Constitution drives the department's work. It states
that the department must establish and maintain a system of
public education and ensure that students are successful in
school and work. The department does that through four key
functions: to fund schools (the legislative branch and the
department), provide oversight and support, set standards, and
assess the standards towards proficiency. Currently, the
legislature provides $1.5 billion in funding in order to provide
those services to schools.
He described the state's partnership with the federal government
to provide additional services and supplement the work of the
department in order to expand opportunities for students. Some
of the federal programs provide help for students with
disabilities, students who live in poverty, are homeless, or
English language learners. Some programs have an academic focus
and some focus on needs of the children so that the state can
meet their academic needs. He said, overall, the state receives
about $232 million in federal funds, compared to the $1.5
billion the state contributes. All of the federal programs
combined require a 1.4 percent state match for federal dollars.
He termed it a pretty good investment when considering how many
needs of children are being met. He noted the department is
authorized to keep 2 percent to 3 percentage of federal funds
for administrative purposes. He noted that a part of the
position of personnel shown in the presentation are federally
funded. He emphasized that DEED does not benefit from federal
funding, the students do.
3:35:16 PM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY showed a diagram that depicts the federal
government's contribution to the department's budget at 15
percent. He stated that federal funding does not drive the
department's work, how the department is organized, nor its
infrastructure. He concluded, "It simply supplements the work
that we do to allow us to better meet the needs of our kids."
CHAIR DUNLEAVY interjected that many do not agree that the
federal government is not "the tail that wags the dog." He said
if that was the case, federal money could be considered a block
grant and the state could use it as it wished to. He noted other
states are trying to get out of Common Core, such as Illinois
and Texas. He opined that the federal government is taking a
very active role in state education right down to the local
level. He maintained that there are differing opinions, rather
than misconceptions, and many opinions are rooted in fact. He
said that many believe the federal government has too much of a
hand in education. He argued that it is a perception, not a
misperception and he remained unconvinced.
3:38:20 PM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that his comments spoke to the
department's role and what drives its effort. He suggested
having a discussion on the work the department does with general
funds to support and empower school districts that are not
driven by federal money.
3:39:24 PM
DR. MCCAULEY briefly reviewed the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), which was passed in 1965 to provide
supplementary funding for elementary and secondary education,
with an emphasis of fair and equal opportunities for students.
The most recent reauthorization of ESEA was in 2001 as the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). She noted the list of Title
programs for groups of students who may not have equal access to
education.
3:40:54 PM
DR. MCCAULEY began an overview of the differences between NCLB
and the No Child Left Behind Waiver (Waiver). First of all,
under NCLB accountability was measured by Annual Yearly Progress
(AYP), whereas the Waiver uses the Alaska School Performance
Index (ASPI). The objective when AYP was initiated was that 100
percent of students would be proficient by 2014. The standards
for reading, writing, and math were standardized for every
school and had no consideration for growth. Under Alaska's
Waiver program, ASPI was designed and is in its second school
year.
She related that NCLB used the Annual Measurable Objective
(AMO), which are standardized yearly proficiency targets set
nationwide. Under the Waiver, the state set the AMO's school-by-
school based on the expectation that over a six-year period of
time schools would reduce by half the percent of non-proficient
students.
3:44:13 PM
She said that under NCLB there was increasingly little
differentiation in the school accountability system since no
school would make AYP. If a school did not make it in one area,
they did make AYP. The vast majority of schools were not making
AYP. There is much greater differentiation with the star rating
system in the Waiver.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY said, "So what," and "Who cares?"
DR. MCCAULEY listed those who care when their school fails and
targets are unachievable: parents, teachers, schools, and
districts.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY said the "federal aspect" kicks in.
DR. MCCAULEY replied that it also does under the Waiver, which
provides flexibility from some of the elements under NCLB. The
greater differentiation with the star rating is painting a much
different picture of how schools are doing. The most recent
ratings consist of 75 five-star schools, 198 four-star schools,
149 three-star schools, 52 two-star schools, and 27 one-star
schools - a very different picture than 98-100 percent of
schools did not meet AYP. The Waiver allows the department to be
more deliberate, focused, and informed about how schools are
doing.
SENATOR GARDNER noted that parents could not determine the
reason for failure of their school under the old system. She
gave two examples of failed schools.
DR. MCCAULEY said that was correct.
3:48:26 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked which year the 27 one-star schools were
rated.
DR. MCCAULEY said the 2013-2014 school year.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked for descriptors of those schools.
DR. MCCAULEY explained that the ASPI matrix would clarify that
question. She briefly describe that a typical one-star school
has a low number of proficient students, with low growth.
SENATOR HUGGINS restated his question to ask about the
commonality of school traits.
DR. MCCAULEY said there are both commonalities and differences.
In some schools there is large turnover of staff and leadership.
Some schools are rural and some are urban.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if there is size differential.
DR. MCCAULEY said yes.
SENATOR GARDNER asked if they tend to be in low income
neighborhoods.
DR. MCCAULEY did not want to generalize without having the data.
3:51:16 PM
She related that under NCLB, school performance was based solely
on proficiency, a pass/fail model, with a target score of 300.
There was no recognition for student growth. Under the Waiver,
school performance is based on proficiency and growth. Growth is
40 percent of the metric, as compared to zero previously, and is
measured in seven levels. Teachers say it makes much more sense
to have expectations regarding growth and proficiency.
3:53:29 PM
She said under NCLB, there was no recognition for schools
showing excellent growth. Under the Waiver, schools are rewarded
for high rates of proficiency and growth.
The AYP process required DEED to identify schools for school
improvement, corrective action, and restructuring and it no
longer has to do this. The old system also required school
improvement plans for all schools. The new system has a
differentiated school improvement plan structure. One-star and
two-star schools have different requirements for their plans
than three-star schools have, for example. Four-star and five-
star schools only have to create a plan if they are not meeting
an AMO.
DR. MCCAULEY said there was an increased federal directing of
Title I funds under NCLB, but no additional requirements for use
of Title I funds under the Waiver. Finally, the funding
structure under NCLB was not based on school performance. Under
the Waiver, funding is provided to focus on lowest performing
Title I schools. They are called "1003A Funds" and are used by
one-star and two-star Title I schools for school improvement.
3:58:02 PM
SENATOR GARDNER inquired if Title I schools are one-star and
two-star schools.
DR. MCCAULEY said no. A Title I school has a certain percentage
of students living in poverty. The connection between Title I
status and star rating is that when a Title I school is a one-
star or two-star school, federal funds can be allocated through
DEED to those schools for school improvement.
SENATOR GARDNER requested information on how many one-star and
two-star schools are not also Title I schools.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked what Mt. Edgecumbe's star rating is.
DR. MCCAULEY said it's a four-star school.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if it was a Title I school.
DR. MCCAULEY said she did not know. [It was determined that it
is.]
SENATOR HUGGINS noted that low income is a factor than can be
overcome. He expressed pride for Mt. Edgecumbe.
4:00:44 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY asked how much time the department spent on NCLB
issues.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY asked if he wanted to know the number of
staff.
DR. MCCAULEY explained why she does not have those numbers. She
explained that she and her staff to not think in terms of that
perspective - time spent within a specific federal or state
program. She said her message to her staff of 70 is that they
are there to support districts and schools.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY asked what percentage of staff is federally
funded and what percent is funded by general funds.
DR. MCCAULEY referred to a document in members' packets entitled
"Personal Services Position Funding Detail" which shows staff
positions and their funding. She said on the third page it shows
that 53.4 percent of those staff are funded through federal
receipts.
4:03:49 PM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY pointed out that some positions are not
connected to NCLB, but rather to Title programs, Child Nutrition
Services programs, and others.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY assumed that half of their work is related to
federal dollars.
DR. MCCAULEY clarified by example of a staff who does 17 percent
federal work, 83 percent non-federal.
4:05:29 PM
DR. MCCAULEY turned to the ASPI Elementary/Middle School
Indicator weighting for students in grades K-8. Attendance rates
makes up 25 percent, academic achievement or proficiency makes
up 35 percent, and school progress makes up 40 percent of the
metric.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY asked about home-schooled correspondence
programs.
DR. MCCAULEY said the metric for them is the same. She did not
know how parents took attendance.
She continued to explain that academic achievement is based on
the average of the percent of students proficient or above in
reading, writing, and math. School progress is the progress from
the previous year's standards-based assessments. Attendance rate
is the average attendance of all students.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY said it was attendance, not enrollment.
DR. MCCAULEY said correct.
She explained the star ratings points. For example, 94-100 ASPI
points equals a five-star rating.
4:08:19 PM
SENATOR GARDNER asked about the provision in HB 278 where
teachers were exempt from jury duty. She asked what types of
schools that applied to.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said one-star and two-star schools.
DR. MCCAULEY showed the ASPI metric for high school students.
The requirement for attendance drops to 10 percent, graduation
rate is added at 20 percent, as is college and career ready at
10 percent.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY inquired if graduation rate is based on a four-
year progression.
DR. MCCAULEY replied that it is based on a four-year or five-
year cohort, whichever is higher.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY asked if six-year schools have been considered.
DR. MCCAULEY explained that there is a new metric for
alternative schools which would reduce the amount of ASPI metric
that is attributed to graduation rate. The metric has the same
components but different percentages of emphasis. Growth is
greater; proficiency, and graduation rate are less.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY stated that state law allows for two extra
grades. He asked if there would be problems if a school wanted
to add extra grades.
DR. MCCAULEY responded that for purposes of APSI a six-year rate
would not be recognized.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY spoke of the department's work with
alternative schools on the change, which better reflects the
progress of their schools.
4:13:12 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY said there was no percentage that accounts for
student or parent satisfaction.
DR. MCCAULEY said correct.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY said parents and kids could love a one-star
school.
DR. MCCAULEY said yes.
She reviewed the 9-12 ASPI components and star ratings for high
school.
4:15:02 PM
At ease
4:16:08 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL said that the star rating has been in place for
a couple years. She asked if it was successful and how it is
measured.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY spoke from his experience as a school
administrator and teacher in the past who saw no way to change
AYP scores. He said the difference today is the level of
engagement and empowerment schools feel under the new system. He
said he sees engagement as an improvement.
SENATOR GIESSEL requested evidence of the difference it made to
students and parents.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY reported that students are excited and proud
of their schools.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if the College- and Career-Ready Indicator
is based on the three scores - WorkKeys, SAT, and ACT. He
inquired if dual classes enter into the picture.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said before HB 278, WorkKeys scores were
used, but now SAT and ACT are included, as well. It is based
only on those scores.
SENATOR GARDNER commented that there is value in having a third
party ranking Alaska students.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY emphasized that the goal is to ensure that
students are successful in work and school. He clarified that
WorkKeys provides career readiness information and the ACT and
SAT provide college readiness information.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked if the department would be doing ASPI
work regardless of federal funds.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said if the department was incentivized to
create its own system it would look like the Waiver. However,
the department was incentivized to get out from under some of
the NCLB components to create its own system. The Waiver is the
result of flexibility given to the state from NCLB.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY reiterated that conversations with people
indicate that the federal government is in charge of state
education. He questioned whether it is the federal government
that controls the larger proportion of funding and local control
or not. He pointed out that grants require certain actions. He
wondered why there is confusion over this issue.
4:23:21 PM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the department has mandates and
accountability measures related to state funding. He maintained
that even if there were no NCLB or Waiver, the department would
still measure and support schools. There is a constitutional
mandate to do so as part of maintaining public education. He
said the state's education system probably is as it is due to
the Waiver. He said when he was a teacher he was certain his
source of ills came from the administration in the Anchorage
School District. Then, as an administrator, he said he was
confident that all troubles came from the state. He believes
now, as the commissioner, that it must be the federal
government.
He stressed that he is doing things because he is mandated to do
them by statute, such as providing assessments. Some mandates
are from the federal government, but they don't drive the core
work the department does. He concluded that he does not wake up
every day thinking about accountability assessments.
4:26:15 PM
There being nothing further to come before the committee, Chair
Dunleavy adjourned the Senate Education Standing Committee at
4:26 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Star Rating Prog and ESEA.pdf |
SEDC 2/10/2015 3:30:00 PM |
|
| TLS Programs Fund Sources.pdf |
SEDC 2/10/2015 3:30:00 PM |
|
| Personnel with Fed Dollars.pdf |
SEDC 2/10/2015 3:30:00 PM |