Legislature(2023 - 2024)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/17/2024 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: Education Assessment Results | |
| 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
April 17, 2024
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Löki Tobin, Chair
Senator Jesse Bjorkman
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: EDUCATION ASSESSMENT RESULTS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DEENA BISHOP, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered the presentation Education
Assessment Results.
KATHY MOFFITT, Director
Innovation and Education Excellence
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on Education Assessment
Results.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:31:18 PM
CHAIR LÖKI TOBIN called the Senate Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Gray-Jackson, Kiehl, Bjorkman, and Chair Tobin.
^PRESENTATION: EDUCATION ASSESSMENT RESULTS
PRESENTATION: EDUCATION ASSESSMENT RESULTS
3:32:21 PM
CHAIR TOBIN announced the consideration of the presentation
Education Assessment Results by the Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED).
3:33:35 PM
DEENA BISHOP, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), Juneau, Alaska, introduced herself and staff
and explained that the presentation would outline the goals and
mission of the Department of Education, provide background on
statewide assessments, and detail the Alaska System of Academic
Readiness (AK STAR), a federally regulated summative assessment.
She stated that the presentation would also cover the Fiscal
Year (FY) 2023 results, which were publicly released at noon
today.
3:35:04 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 2 and focused on the vision
of the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED):
[Original punctuation provided.]
Mission, Vision, and Purpose
Mission - An excellent education for every student
every day.
Vision - All students will succeed in their education
and work, shape worthwhile and satisfying lives for
themselves, exemplify the best values of society, and
be effective in improving the character and quality of
the world about them. - Alaska Statute 14.03.015
Purpose - DEED exists to provide information,
resources, and leadership to support an excellent
education for every student every day.
3:35:43 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 3 and emphasized priorities
one and three of Alaska's Education Challenge. She said data
helps the department understand how students are doing and where
instruction is needed:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Strategic Priorities: Alaska's Education Challenge
Five Shared Priorities:
1. Support all students to read at grade level by the
end of third grade.
2. Increase career, technical, and culturally relevant
education to meet student and workforce needs.
3. Close the achievement gap by ensuring equitable
educational rigor and resources.
4. Prepare, attract, and retain effective education
professionals.
5. Improve the safety and well-being of students
through school partnerships with families,
communities, and tribes.
3:36:11 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slides 4 - 5 and provided an
overview of statewide assessments, beginning with the Alaska
System of Academic Readiness (AK STAR), now in its third year
and currently in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 testing period. She
explained that AK STAR assesses English Language Arts (ELA) and
mathematics for grades three through nine and is tied to federal
funding requirements, evaluating grade-level expectations. The
Alaska Science Assessment, newly designed to Alaska's science
standards, is administered in grades five, eight, and ten. She
described the Dynamic Learning Maps (DLPM) as an alternative
assessment designed for students with significant cognitive
disabilities in grades three through nine, covering ELA, math,
and science. These assessments accommodate low-incidence special
education students capable of testing.
3:37:33 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked when AKSTAR was first implemented.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP noted that Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 marked the
first administration of the AK STAR assessment, with some
differences from its current format. She added that prior to AK
STAR, the statewide assessment was known as Alaska PEAKS.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that World-Class Instructional Design
and Assessment (WIDA) accesses comprehension and communication
in English state to state. It is for ELL learners in grades K -
12.
3:38:31 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 6 and explained that the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is
administered every other year to a sample of fourth, eighth, and
sometimes twelfth grade classrooms within Alaska's schools.
Alaska employees do not deploy the assessment, it is done by
outside agencies. NAEP is given to students nationwide for state
comparison. She then described the Alaska Developmental Profile
(ADP), which includes 13 goals, indicators, and five early
learning domains, assessing all kindergarten students and first
graders who did not attend kindergarten.
CHAIR TOBIN said in years past there was a document that
provided more detail on how young students are preforming. She
asked if DEED could send the document to the committee to help
identify learning gaps for the Reads Act.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP agreed to send the document.
3:40:05 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 7 and concluded by discussing
the M-Class assessment with Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (DIBELS). The assessment was implemented after
the Reads Act was enacted in statute. She explained that the
assessment, administered in grades K-3, evaluates phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary. She
noted that terms like "Amplify" and "M-Class" refer to the
test's developers.
3:40:53 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 8 highlighted the uniqueness
of the Alaska System of Academic Readiness (AK STAR),
emphasizing Alaska's distinction as the first state to combine a
summative assessment with a formative assessment. She credited
Kelly Manning and Dr. Greninger for their instrumental roles in
AK STAR's development and acknowledged past advocacy by
superintendents, teachers, and parents for assessments that are
meaningful and classroom relevant. She explained that the
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment, initially
grassroots-driven by districts, dynamically evaluates students
at their performance level, tracking growth over time regardless
of grade-level expectations. She detailed how MAP identifies a
student's starting point, whether below, at, or above grade
level, and measures year-to-year progress. She noted that
incorporating MAP with the spring summative assessment reduced
testing days by three, providing both federally required grade-
level results and growth data valued by educators and parents.
She celebrated this innovation, sharing that Alaska's work in
this area is recognized nationwide.
3:43:15 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 9 outlined the development
process of AK STAR, noting that in spring 2022, the first
administration included two separate tests: the STAR summative
assessment and MAP Growth formative assessment. She reminded
Senator Bjorkman that results from these separate tests informed
alignment and standard setting, leading to their integration
into a single assessment in spring 2023. This combined format,
reflected in the FY 2023 data released today, allowed students
to take one electronic test that assessed both grade-level
standards and individual performance levels, providing both a
growth score and grade-level achievement data.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP explained that a policy review conducted in
summer 2023 analyzed alignment issues in the data, identifying
and addressing outliers. The State Board of Education approved
refined cut scores in winter 2023, paving the way for the
release of the FY 2023 scores. She addressed concerns about the
integrity of the process, emphasizing the involvement of a
diverse stakeholder group, including university representatives,
superintendents, teachers, and the Municipal League, to ensure
transparency and credibility.
3:45:33 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 10 presented findings from
the linking study that connected MAP Growth data to AK STAR,
using third grade reading as an example. She clarified the
difference between percent and percentile, explaining that
percent reflects the number of correct answers, while percentile
indicates performance relative to other students in a
distribution. For example, the 71st percentile means
outperforming 71 percent of peers. She noted that the third-
grade reading cut score was set at the 71st percentile, which is
higher than benchmarks often used for honors or gifted
education, typically around the 75th percentile. This
exceptionally high standard risked setting up students,
teachers, and parents for failure. She emphasized that the 50th
percentile, representing the national average, is a more typical
benchmark. She explained that the team identified and adjusted
such outliers to ensure fairness and alignment. She said the
next several slides would illustrate the implications of this
adjustment with a real-world example of its importance for
students.
3:47:13 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slides 11 - 14 and used the example
of a student named Andy to explain why the AK STAR cut scores
were adjusted. Andy consistently performed in the median range
on assessments, with reports indicating he was progressing and
achieving at an average level. However, despite performing well
on MAP Growth, Andy was deemed not proficient on the state
assessment. This inconsistency raised concerns about the
alignment of the standards. She explained that Andy scored a
Rasch unit of 190 on MAP Growth, which falls within the
normative distribution of average third-grade performance.
However, the original proficiency cut score for the state
assessment was set at 206, significantly above his score. To
meet that standard, Andy would need to grow 1.6 academic years
in just four months between the winter and spring testing
windows, an unrealistic expectation for a typical third grader.
She highlighted the data that informed this decision, showing
that scores below 185 indicated a need for intensive
intervention, while Andy's score of 190 placed him slightly
below the middle range but still within the average bell curve.
She emphasized that the original cut score of 205 was
unreasonably high and justified the adjustments to create more
equitable and realistic expectations for student growth and
proficiency.
3:49:45 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked for clarification of how moving in points
equates to years of growth.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that question is answered in the next
slide.
3:49:58 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slides 15 - 16 and explained how
normative growth for third graders is calculated, noting that
typical growth from winter to spring on the Rasch scale is about
3.5 to 4 points over four months, averaging approximately one
point per month. While annual growth is higher, the winter-to-
spring range provides a benchmark for assessing short-term
progress. She added that even at the high end of average growth
around 8 pointsa student would be in the 85th percentile
nationally, outperforming 85 percent of third graders in the
United States. She illustrated that even if Andy achieved growth
at the 85th percentile, he still would not have met the original
spring proficiency cut score of 206. Andy's score fell within
the normative range, though below the 50th percentile, but to
reach the initial proficiency threshold, he would have had to
surpass 85 percent of third graders nationwide. She emphasized
that this unreasonably high bar for proficiency necessitated the
reevaluation and adjustment of the cut scores to create a more
realistic and equitable standard.
3:52:06 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 17 and offered an alternative
perspective using trend lines, focusing again on Andy's
progress. She explained that if Andy started with a score of 193
and grew by three points, placing him at 196, he remained within
the typical growth range for third graders, which spans 189 to
198 from winter to spring. Despite this normative growth, the
original proficiency cut score of 206 was unattainable for him,
as the trajectory required to meet it was unreasonably steep.
She emphasized that the linking study prompted a reevaluation of
the alignment between MAP Growth and AK STAR, as MAP is a
trusted assessment nationwide. The cut score was adjusted from
206 to 201, bringing it closer to the normative range while
maintaining rigor. However, she noted that even with Andy's
typical growth, he still would not meet the adjusted proficiency
score, reflecting that the standard remains challenging yet more
achievable than before.
3:53:37 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked for confirmation of her understanding that
students take the MAP assessment in both winter and spring to
generate the growth data that allows educators to individualize
instruction for their learning needs.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP clarified that students take the MAP
assessment in the fall and winter, allowing educators to track
progress and predict outcomes. For example, if Andy scored 185
in the fall and 190 in the winter, educators can determine what
is required for Andy to reach 201 by spring. The MAP Growth
assessment provides teachers with individualized insights,
identifying the specific standards a student like Andy needs
support with and highlighting those he has already mastered.
This allows teachers to focus efforts on areas critical to
student success.
3:54:40 PM
SENATOR KIEHL expressed appreciation for the detailed, student-
specific information provided to teachers. He recalled a
previous discussion with the Department in February about
testing and cut scores and the Department's confidence in last
year's process. He asked for a qualitative explanation of where
misalignments occurred that required correction and sought
assurance about the accuracy and reliability of the current
adjustments.
3:55:30 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 9 explained that the
adjustments stemmed from the innovative nature of combining a
static summative assessment with a dynamic growth-based
assessment, a first-of-its-kind approach. Initially, in 2022,
the assessments were conducted separately, but in 2023 they were
merged. Upon analyzing the 2023 data, a disconnection in MAP-
aligned cut scores became evident, necessitating adjustments to
standard settings.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP noted that most grade levels aligned well,
but some required recalibration. For example, third-grade
reading was adjusted to fall within a normative range. Eighth-
grade math had an unreasonably high proficiency cut score at the
81st percentile, despite the 75th percentile being sufficient to
place students in advanced math courses like algebra.
Conversely, fifth-grade standards were too low, at the 52nd or
53rd percentile. Adjustments aimed to smooth discrepancies
across grade levels to avoid large proficiency jumps or dips
year-to-year.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP emphasized the importance of fairness for
students, parents, and educators, explaining that it would be
demoralizing for students to receive positive progress reports
from MAP but fail the state test due to misaligned cut scores.
The Department worked closely with psychometricians to ensure
statistical reliability and fairness. She expressed strong
confidence in the revised system, highlighting that these
refinements were part of the process of innovating and reducing
testing time while maintaining assessment quality.
3:58:20 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 18 and discussed the
achievement levels within the AK STAR assessment:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Achievement Level Description
Proficient
Advanced (A) Student meets the standards
and demonstrates mastery of
the knowledge and skills on a
range of complex grade level
content.
Proficient (P) Student meets the standards
and demonstrates mastery of
the knowledge and skills of
most grade level content.
Non-Proficient
Approaching
Proficient (AP) Student partially meets the
standards and may have gaps
in knowledge and skills but
is approaching mastery of
some grade level content.
Needs Support (NS) Student may partially meet
the standards but needs
support to master the
knowledge and skills of
current grade level content.
3:58:58 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 19, a pie graph of AK STAR
English Language Arts statewide achievement level percentages of
all grades, 3 - 9 and shared the aggregate percentages:
Advanced - 9.9 percent
Proficient - 21.9 percent
Approaching Proficient - 28.8
Needs Support 39.6
3:59:31 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 20, a bar graph of AK STAR
English Language Arts achievement level percentages for grades 3
- 9 by individual grade. She stated that this information is
available online and can be broken down by grade levels, school,
and district. She stated that through support from the Reads Act
the state is looking to continued improvement, noting that the
state has also seen improvements in the NAEP and DIBELS
assessment scores.
4:00:36 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referenced a chart from last year, noting that the
recent standard adjustments significantly reduced volatility
across the four proficiency categories. He observed that the
progression from grade level to grade level appeared much
smoother and more consistent compared to the prior year. He
asked for an explanation of how this steady progression was
achieved.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP explained that the observed volatility in
proficiency levels from last year's data was the primary reason
for conducting the study. Initially, it appeared that fifth
grade had unusually high proficiency rates, but further analysis
revealed the fluctuations were due to inconsistencies in cut
scores. For example, some were set at the 71st percentile, while
others were as low as the 53rd percentile, creating imbalance.
The study led to adjustments, aligning cut scores more
consistently around the 60th percentile. She emphasized that
while Alaska's standards remain rigorous compared to the
national average, these changes ensure more stable and realistic
benchmarks. She reiterated that the volatility was not
reflective of student learning or teacher effectiveness but was
instead caused by the original cut score settings. The
adjustments now provide a clearer and steadier picture of
student progress and achievement.
4:02:50 PM
SENATOR KIEHL sought clarification, asking if the adjustments
were limited to the three areas mentionedthird-grade reading,
eighth-grade math, and fifth-grade readingor if those were
simply the ones requiring major adjustment.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP clarified that third-grade reading, eighth-
grade math, and fifth-grade reading were the most significant
outliers requiring major adjustments. While there may have been
slight changes in other areas, these three stood out due to
notable discrepancies. She explained that the linking study,
which compared the data to trusted national benchmarks,
identified these outliers, and highlighted the need for
adjustments. She emphasized that not all subjects required
changes, only those with evident misalignments.
4:03:41 PM
CHAIR TOBIN referred to slide 20 and to last year's data and
noted a shift in the cohort needing the greatest support in
English Language Arts (ELA). She observed that last year, 55.3
percent of seventh graders required significant support, while
this year, 44.1 percent of eighth graders demonstrated the
greatest need for support, indicating the same cohort moving
forward. She said this trend appeared consistent across
subcategories in the summary. She asked what DEED is doing or
how it is collaborating with districts to focus on addressing
the needs of this cohort.
4:04:44 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP explained that addressing these gaps begins
early with initiatives like the Reads Act, which focuses on
catching students at younger stages of development. She noted
that teachers have voiced frustration about wanting to do more
for their students, prompting the Department to implement
additional support strategies. She highlighted the ongoing
Reading Symposium, including a session featuring national expert
Anita Archer, who specializes in supporting struggling readers.
Of the 1,400 attendees, approximately 550 are participating in a
dedicated session on teaching strategies for upper elementary
students. This focus aims to address gaps and improve teaching
effectiveness in upper grades. She acknowledged that middle
school presents unique challenges, as intentional teaching to
remediate gaps often requires additional development. She noted
that work is ongoing to enhance support for middle school
educators and students. She deferred to Kathy Moffitt, who has
classroom programming expertise and middle school teaching
experience, to provide further insights on strategies being
implemented for upper elementary and middle school levels.
4:06:24 PM
KATHY MOFFITT, Director, Innovation and Education Excellence,
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), Anchorage,
Alaska, shared her enthusiasm for the upcoming training session
specifically designed for teachers of students in third grade
and above. She highlighted that 550 teachers would be trained in
phonics for reading. Participants will receive new manuals as
part of the training, and the six-and-a-half-hour course will be
converted into an asynchronous format, enabling educators to
access modules as needed. Additionally, coaching support will be
available for implementation. She emphasized that this
initiative directly responds to educator feedback and aims to
create a common language and focus for addressing reading gaps
4:07:38 PM
CHAIR TOBIN expressed concern for the cohort requiring
additional interventions, especially given the anticipated
increase in class sizes, and stressed the importance of ensuring
these students receive the support they need.
4:08:02 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 21 and transitioned to
discussing math performance, noting that the aggregate
achievement across all grade levels (three through nine) was
slightly higher in math compared to reading, as shown in the
accompanying graph.
4:08:19 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 22 and explained that the bar
graph illustrates the distribution of math achievement,
highlighting a significant proportion of students needing
support, either in approaching proficiency or not proficient.
While there is progress in math and a slight edge over reading
performance, the data underscores the ongoing need for support.
She noted that the bar graph aligns with the pie chart
previously presented, which reflects the overall distribution of
scores across grade levels.
4:09:13 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 23 and explained that the pie
graph represents the Alaska Science Assessment results across
grades five, eight, and ten. She expressed pride in the state's
performance in science. She credited crediting Deputy Director
Manning and Dr. Greninger for their leadership in developing the
assessment. Following the adoption of new standards, the
assessment was designed to be inquiry-based rather than focused
on rote memorization. She emphasized excitement about the
progress and a commitment to continued growth in this area.
4:09:55 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 24 and highlighted the 2023
Alaska Science Assessment results, breaking them down by grade
levels: fifth grade (elementary), eighth grade (middle school or
junior high), and tenth grade (high school).
4:10:13 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 25 and said the delayed
release of the 2023 assessment results was due to a deliberate
effort to ensure accuracy and fairness, preventing setting up
students or educators for failure. The Department, led by the
assessment, instructional, and school improvement teams, is
focused on providing interpretive resources to help stakeholders
understand the data and use it effectively. She emphasized the
importance of aligning standards, encouraging data-driven
decisions, and utilizing assessment results to illuminate areas
of need rather than to penalize. This approach aligns with the
Reads Act's emphasis on understanding what students know and
where gaps exist. She stressed the goal of building trust in the
summative assessment system by responding to educators' requests
for meaningful and actionable data, reducing unnecessary
testing, and supporting classroom learning.
4:11:42 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP moved to slide 26 and noted that additional
resources are available, including information on the
Kindergarten Profile, which she looks forward to sharing. She
mentioned positive developments in M-Class results and committed
to providing statewide data on those as well. She clarified that
the discussion focused on the state summative assessment, which
informs significant policy decisions.
4:12:13 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN expressed confusion about the process of
setting cut scores and asked for clarification in simpler terms.
He compared cut scores to standardized tests like the ACT or
SAT, where scores have clear, objective meanings. He observed
that in today's presentation, cut scores appeared to be set
based on student percentiles and performance relative to others,
making the process seem subjective. He asked if this
understanding was correct.
4:13:02 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP clarified that cut scores are initially set
by groups of Alaskan educators who focus on grade-level
standards in isolation, determining what students should know to
be proficient. These groups work independently for each grade
level without outside influence. She noted that while this
process is based on teacher expertise, it sometimes
overestimates what the average student can achieve. To validate
the initial cut scores, the Department conducted a linking study
to compare them with trusted external assessments like MAP
Growth, SAT, and ACT. Members of the policy team took the score
of the AK STAR and related to with SAT and showed that the 71st
percentile was near a score of 1200 on the SAT, which is a great
score. In other words, a proficiency or passing score on AK STAR
was equivalent to a SAT score of 1200, revealing that original
cut scores were overly ambitious. Similarly, the eighth-grade
math cut score, set at the 81st percentile, corresponded to an
even higher SAT score.
4:17:40 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN acknowledged the explanation as illuminating
and sought confirmation that the target percentile for the
adjusted cut scores was set in the low 60s.
4:17:51 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP confirmed that most of the adjusted cut
scores are in the low 60th percentiles, though some are as high
as the 68th percentile. She noted that these details are
available in the linking study and offered to provide them.
4:18:06 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN stated it is his takeaway from the discussion
that the DEED set proficiency standards so that approximately
two-thirds of students would score below proficient. He stated
the approach is frustrating and dishonest because the
prescriptive assessment that DEED oversees, and that informs the
public of how Alaska's students are doing, deems students,
teachers, and schools as failures by policy choice.
4:19:40 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP explained that the need for a policy review
arose from her discomfort with the original cut score decisions.
She emphasized that setting cut scores involves a federally
mandated process that includes input from educators and
adherence to rigorous standards. Alaska teachers played a
central role in setting the initial cut scores through a
deliberate and federally validated process. She acknowledged the
challenge of reconciling various assessments. For example, the
M-Class assessment considers students "on track" at the 40th
percentile, while MAP Growth sets its benchmark for grade-level
performance near the 60th percentile. Both align with Alaska's
high standards, which rank among the most rigorous nationwide.
4:23:02 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP shared concerns that the original AK STAR
cut scores resulted in only about one-third of students being
deemed proficient, a figure she found troubling. She noted the
tension between maintaining high standards and ensuring students
and teachers feel supported. She recalled past systems where low
standards led to inflated results, leaving students unprepared
for national benchmarks like the SAT. She emphasized the
importance of finding a balance that reflects both high
expectations and achievable goals, with ongoing professional
development and investment in education to support these
efforts. She expressed confidence in the progress made,
describing the current cut scores as still challenging but more
reasonable. She reaffirmed her belief in setting high standards
to prepare Alaska's students to compete nationally while
continuing to refine the process to support educators and
students effectively. She concluded by stating that it is not
her policy to limit proficiency to one-third of students but
rather to establish fair and aspirational benchmarks.
4:25:15 PM
CHAIR TOBIN requested clarification on where the standards are
established in statute. She acknowledged the Reads Act directed
the Department and the State Board to establish standards via
regulation but expressed uncertainty about which aspects are
statutory. She asked for information to better understand these
statutory provisions, enabling the committee to engage in the
dialogue and ensure that students are supported and do not feel
defeated. She also emphasized the importance of supporting the
Department and educators in achieving these goals.
4:25:49 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP said she may have misspoken. She explained
that the standards are regulatory but are mandated within the
framework of the law.
4:25:59 PM
CHAIR TOBIN replied that is helpful.
4:26:01 PM
SENATOR KIEHL sought clarity on how the decisions about cut
scores were reached. He noted that the process appeared to
involve increasing the standards, asking teachers to determine
what students need to meet those standards, and then adjusting
the cut scores when they proved too high. He observed that this
led to norm-referencing the cut scores instead of strictly
basing them on the standards. He asked how the Department
decided which norms to use.
4:27:06 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied in detail how the standards were
determined. She explained that cut scores were initially set
through a rigorous, educator-led standard-setting process.
Teachers identified the skills students should demonstrate to be
proficient based on Alaska's high standards. However, these
scores were later reviewed using a linking study, which compared
them to MAP Growth, a trusted and widely used assessment aligned
with standards. The study revealed discrepancies: some cut
scores were set too high, exceeding what is typical for
proficiency and others too low. The process involved detailed
psychometric analyses to align scores with realistic proficiency
expectations while maintaining rigor. Federal guidelines
governed every step to ensure validity, and adjustments were
made to balance the standards with student achievement data,
creating a fair and sound framework.
4:32:00 PM
SENATOR KIEHL suggested it would be helpful to identify which
standards Alaska educators may have "missed" in setting
expectations and how this determination was made, contrasting it
with the possibility that nationwide education systems might be
falling short on those standards. He noted skepticism about the
role of psychometricians, pointing out they are compensated
regardless of how students are labeled, referencing his
experience with setting cut scores for the high school
graduation qualifying exam. He requested that someone from the
Department or an expert in the field provide insight into how it
was decided which standards were misaligned.
4:32:48 PM
CHAIR TOBIN agreed.
4:32:50 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP explained that a third-party assessment was
conducted to evaluate the process and the educators'
understanding of the standards. She offered to share those
findings.
4:33:23 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked that she present the finding to the committee
in writing.
4:33:39 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP thanked the committee for their questions
and acknowledged the importance of ongoing iteration to achieve
the goal of improving student learning and achievement.
4:34:19 PM
CHAIR TOBIN expressed appreciation for detailed presentation of
the assessment data. She noted the relatively recent
establishment of language arts standards through the Alaska
Reads Act and associated regulations, highlighting that this is
a new area for many stakeholders. She stated she looked forward
to further dialogue on the topic to enhance understanding and
collaboration.
4:35:07 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Tobin adjourned the Senate Education Standing Committee
meeting at 4:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DEED Assessment Results Presentation 04.17.2024.pdf |
SEDC 4/17/2024 3:30:00 PM |
Education |
| DEED Assessment Results Summary 2022-2023 04.17.2023.pdf |
SEDC 4/17/2024 3:30:00 PM |
Education |
| DEED AK Star 2022-2023 Statewide Results 04.17.2023.pdf |
SEDC 4/17/2024 3:30:00 PM |
Education |
| DEED AK Star Math and ELA Assessment Results 2022-2023 04.17.2024.pdf |
SEDC 4/17/2024 3:30:00 PM |
Education |
| DEED Education Assessment Results Follow-Up 04.17.2024.pdf |
SEDC 4/17/2024 3:30:00 PM |
Education |
| DEED Follow-up 2023 ADP Results 04.17.2024.pdf |
SEDC 4/17/2024 3:30:00 PM |
Education |
| DEED Follow-up SBOE January 2024 Packet AK STAR Cut Scores 04.17.2024.pdf |
SEDC 4/17/2024 3:30:00 PM |
Education |