Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/17/2006 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB304 | |
| SB235 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 235 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 304 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 17, 2006
9:02 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Lyda Green convened the meeting at approximately
9:02:57 AM.
PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Co-Chair
Senator Gary Wilken, Co-Chair
Senator Con Bunde, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Donny Olson
Also Attending: ROGER SAMPSON, Commissioner, Department of
Education and Early Development; MARY FRANCIS, Executive
Director, Alaska Association of School Administrators; CARL
ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards
Attending via Teleconference: From Anchorage: JOHN ALCANTRA,
Government Relations Director, National Education Association -
Alaska
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 304-AIRPORT PARKING SHUTTLES/AIRPORT CHARGES
The bill reported from Committee.
SB 235-SCHOOL PERFORMANCE BONUSES
The Committee heard from the Department of Education and Early
Development and the education industry. The bill reported from
Committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 304
"An Act relating to the privileges of airport parking
shuttles and to fees or charges imposed on a person who is
not a lessee or holder of a privilege to use the property
or a facility of an airport."
9:04:49 AM
This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection, SB 304 was REPORTED from Committee
with previous zero fiscal note #1 from the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
9:05:01 AM
SENATE BILL NO. 235
"An Act relating to a public school performance incentive
program; and providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
9:05:25 AM
ROGER SAMPSON, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development informed the Committee that his testimony would
complement the information reflected in the handout and
accompanying power-point presentation titled "Alaska School
Performance Incentive Program Measuring Individual Student
Achievement" [copy on file].
Page 2
What is the Program?
School Performance Incentive Program
· Performance incentive pay for improved student
achievement beyond a year's growth
· Entire staff in a school receive incentive (all or
none) includes administrators, teachers, classified
· Target based on individual student growth
· Compares the same student from previous year to
current year
· All schools qualify if they meet growth target
· Measurement tool is the Standards Based Assessments
(SBA) given annually in April
Commissioner Sampson explained that the School Performance
Incentive Program (Program) "is designed to increase student
achievement" from year to year. All grade levels at every public
school in the State would be eligible for the Program. Allowing
a school's entire staff to be eligible for the compensation
would "encourage" them "to work as a team in order to move a
school forward to reach the incentive program".
Commissioner Sampson stated rather than basing the Program on a
"preconceived target" like the federal "No Child Left Behind"
program or "something that the Department or the Legislature
would identify ahead of time", this Program is based on growing
each child "to a higher performance level".
Commissioner Sampson noted that Standards Based Assessments
(SBA), which are conducted each spring, would be the tool
utilized to determine whether "a school meets the performance
level". The SBA was selected because it is an established test
that is "aligned with the Alaska state performance standards and
the grade level expectations". This test would "accurately
reflect" whether students "were learning the Alaska standards".
Commissioner Sampson noted that considerable discussion occurred
in regards to how student achievement going forward would be
measured. "Best practices tells us that we should have multiple
measures." The goal would be to have multiple indicators of
whether the "growth was real and accurate." Efforts must be
taken to insure "that those measures really do get the students
to what we are valuing and willing to compensate for". SBA is
"the only instrument that we have that does that consistently at
this time."
Commissioner Sampson likened the Program to a television
retailer who implemented an incentive program to encourage his
sales team to sell more product. The owner of the store would be
willing to pay for such things as sales classes or practice
demonstrations that would assist the staff in increasing sales.
In a similar manner, professional development classes, and other
measures could benefit the School Performance Incentive Program.
"The bottom line is that we want kids to achieve and that's what
we're willing to compensate for." While attendance, graduation,
and parental involvement are important, they do not ensure that
a child would "achieve well".
Page 3
Benefits
School Performance Incentive Program
· Target not reached = no state financial liability
· Create a strong workforce for Alaska
· Enhance teacher recruitment efforts
· Accountability: directly linked to high levels of
achievement
· Promote collaboration, effective instruction and
spread responsibility across grade levels and content
areas
· Requires focused instruction aligned to Alaska
standards
Commissioner Sampson communicated that the Program would benefit
both the State and its children. Continuing, he noted that the
State would only be required to provide monetary incentives were
targets reached. The Program "would assist in moving students
through our system and being closer to being work force ready or
work force ready with essential skills."
9:10:08 AM
Commissioner Sampson stated that the Program would assist
recruitment efforts, as people would be aware that Alaska has a
monetary incentive program based on student achievement. Another
benefit of the Program would be that it "is designed to spread
the responsibility for reading, writing, and mathematics across
a very board base of the school workforce."
Commissioner Sampson declared that incentive programs are
successfully utilized in the private sector and this "strategy"
could also be successful in the public sector. He characterized
the "Value Table" depicted on page four as being "the core of
the program". The Value Table depicts six "performance
categories" in which students who have taken the SBA would be
placed. Those categories are: "Far Below Proficient Minus"; "Far
Below Proficient Plus"; "Below Proficient Minus"; "Below
Proficient Plus"; "Proficient"; and "Advanced". "The concept"
would be to move a student from whichever category they
qualified for "to achieve at the next highest level, or, if they
are at the "Advanced" level, to keep them" at that level.
Commissioner Sampson explained that the base line is 100 points.
Thus a score below 100 points would indicate that, "a student
did not gain a year's worth of achievement in that year". A
score above 100 would indicate that the "student gained more
than one year's worth of growth."
Commissioner Sampson informed the Committee "there could be some
movement and development on this Value Table that would put more
emphasis above 'Proficient'." Currently "the emphasis is on
below 'Proficient'." In other words, the effort would be to get
"students to proficiency". Currently four of the six categories
reflected on page 4 concentrate on getting kids to proficiency.
Only two categories address getting students above proficiency.
That emphasis "could be adjusted".
Commissioner Sampson stated that "very valid comments" have been
raised as to whether the Department has been "willing to accept
a standard that's not high enough; not rigorous enough by
looking at the proficiency." His response is that "this model in
fact goes beyond Proficient, trying to move our kids to
Advanced." The federal No Child Left Behind program does not do
that. While the Department "could increase those categories to
put more emphasis on moving kids beyond Proficient", the fact is
that currently there are few schools in the State that have
"large percentages of students that are performing at the
Advanced level."
Commissioner Sampson stated that the "Computing Index" charts
depicted on pages 5, 6, and 7 basically "walk" through the
model. The chart on page 5 reflects a small school with ten
students who took the SBA. Those students tested at a variety of
proficiency levels, as reflected in the "Last Year" column. The
information on page 6 reflects those students' "Last Year"
proficiency levels and how they performed the subsequent year,
as reflected in the "Current Year" column. This information
would be applied to the page 4 "Value Table" chart in order to
determine the "Points" that would be assigned to an individual
student. This is reflected in the chart on page 7.
Commissioner Sampson continued that the points assigned to each
student would be added together and divided by the total number
of students. This would provide the School Index Score, also
depicted on page 7.
Commissioner Sampson communicated that the Value Index was
carefully crafted "so that you could not focus on a single"
category of students; those in the "Proficient" category for
instance. The purpose of this would be to prevent a school from
concentrating its efforts on advancing a particular group of
students. "You need to address all the kids in that school in
order to hit the compensation levels."
Page 8
Performance Levels
School Performance Incentive Program
Growth Index Level Index Point Value
Strong 102 - 104.99
High 105 - 107.99
Excellent 108 - 109.99
Outstanding 110 and Greater
Commissioner Sampson stated that, based on Department research
indicating "you need more than one plateau to hit", the
performance and compensation levels were separated into four
categories. "Otherwise, people will see it as too far to reach,
too difficult."
9:16:07 AM
Commissioner Sampson identified the four categories as "Strong,
High, Excellent, and Outstanding."
Page 9
Performance Level Incentive
Level Certified Non-Certified
Strong $2,500 $1,000
High $3,500 $1,500
Excellent $4,500 $2,000
Outstanding $5,500 $2,500
Multiple levels provide greater incentive and achievable
graduations, but recognize real growth in achievement.
Commissioner Sampson stated that the various compensation levels
for certificated and non-certificated staff are depicted on page
9. The objective would be to provide compensation incentive
levels "high enough" to encourage educators and staff "to go to
work everyday and consider a different way to work, not a harder
way to work." People tend to acquire "patterns of work" and
"changes are hard".
9:17:42 AM
Page 10
Expected Outcomes
· All staff have ownership of instruction and share
responsibility for results
· Incentive to work differently, embrace innovation and
create partnerships to improve student achievement
· Accountability and incentives to cause all students to
reach proficiency and higher levels of advanced
achievement
· Expand responsibility for the three Rs to all staff
· Instruction designed and delivered to meet student
needs
Commissioner Sampson reviewed the expected outcomes. Rather than
the goal to be to make staff work harder, the goal would be to
encourage staff to work "differently and smarter". This program
could provide the "environment" through which high schools and
middle schools might "look different", as administrators,
teachers, and classified staff could work together to deliver
instruction.
Commissioner Sampson identified the expected outcome,
"instruction designed and delivered to meet student needs," as
being the most important. This program could create the
environment in which even high school teachers who have 140
students could find ways to accomplish the outcome. The Program
would provide "the framework" through which "the shift must be
made from teaching concepts to teaching students."
Page 11
Why Other Models Fail
· Not based on student growth
· Unrealistic targets
· Conflict among staff: Some must lose for others to win
· Exclude building administrators
· Instrument used to measure is not reliable and
consistent
· Compensation not large enough to provide incentive for
change
· Weak commitment to the program
Commissioner Sampson stated that the Department developed the
Program after reviewing 20 years of research. The question of
why incentive programs have worked well in the private sector
"but have had mixed reviews at best" in the public sector was
asked. The reasons depicted on page 11 were identified as
contributing factors to the failure of other models.
Commissioner Sampson declared that failed school models had "a
predetermined target that was not based on student growth".
Thus, "a school that had high performing" students had "an
advantage from the very beginning". The fact that this program
is based on growth "levels the field".
9:20:56 AM.
Commissioner Sampson communicated that programs established with
"targets that were too high" defeated teachers; programs with
low expectations were criticized as being "unrealistic" or not
getting the desired results by the public or those who funded
the programs. Models that rewarded individuals rather than a
group with merited compensation created "conflict among staff".
While that type of a compensation model has been the most
common, it raised the most concern within the education
community, as a teacher with a demonstrated "successful
strategy" whose students tested well in math and other subjects
might be unwilling to share their strategy with other educators
due to the fact that the program might limit rewards to top
performers. Such a model would "not promote collaboration".
Commissioner Sampson noted that a model would create problems
were it not "fair, consistent, and reliable". To that point, he
stated that the Department has developed a "strong instrument".
The "weakness" is that "we don't have multiple instruments".
Commissioner Sampson would not support advancing a program whose
compensation levels were inadequate to promote changes in
behavior. Inadequate compensation could result in a failed
program. Another consideration is that there must be commitment
to the program.
Page 12
School Performance Incentive Program Recap
· Based on growth in student achievement
· Empowers expertise of educators and school personnel
· Includes all staff: all make it or no one makes it
· SBA used to measure growth
Commissioner Sampson stated that the information on page 12
recaps the program. Because the program is based on growth, "the
playing field is level". A school with "the lowest group of
performing students" would not be disadvantaged or advantaged.
The program is based on where students were last year and where
they are this year. This Program would both "inspire and provide
the environment to really utilize the expertise that we have."
The "outstanding educators", "incredible secretaries,
custodians, instructional aides, and administrators" should be
"encouraged to work together and figure out how to move our kids
forward". The belief is that this school-based Program would
provide the environment through which to accomplish that goal.
It would involve every staff member and every employee of the
school. The established SBA would be the tool utilized to test
the program.
Commissioner Sampson noted that the Program would focus on
reading, writing, and mathematics. Concern has been raised in
regards to the fact that students "need more than" those basics.
Nonetheless, the overall consensus is that "success in other
content areas could be greatly limited if in fact our kids" are
lacking in those three core areas.
Commissioner Sampson concluded his remarks.
9:24:15 AM
Senator Bunde communicated his "enthusiastic" support of the
Department's "incentive ideas". However, he shared "a caution"
he had received from a [unidentified] teacher who stated that
"teachers are bright; they'll figure out a way to gain the
system". Some may "basically cheat and get the bonus without
getting the student achievement".
Commissioner Sampson acknowledged that the Department is
apprised of this concern. Similar concern was raised in regards
to other programs such as the High School Graduation Qualifying
Examination (HSGQE). Many thought that cheating might occur in
regards to the HSGQE, as it is "a very high stakes situation".
That has not been the experience. "Very very strong security
procedures" were implemented. In addition, a professional "who
is being less than honest with us" could jeopardize their
license. He allowed however, that such behavior could occur.
Commissioner Sampson continued that as the Program develops over
the years, a teacher or group of teachers who were cheating
"would become evident very quickly" … to their peers.
"Falsifying" a student's record this year would become
"blatantly" obvious in subsequent testing. "The consequences are
very grave." He was confident that "our professionals would
remain professionals".
9:26:50 AM
Co-Chair Wilken voiced appreciation for the Commissioner's
efforts in developing this program. Drawing upon his private
business experience, he avowed that employee incentive programs
do work. People figure out how to work smarter rather than
harder, and the effort "propagates" itself throughout the work
force with the result being that "the rising tide lifted all
boats". That would be the goal of this Program. In order to
ensure that this Program not fail, he suggested that it begin as
a pilot program. This would allow it to be tested and perfected
before implementing the Program Statewide. This approach would
assist in developing a Program that educators would desire to
participate in rather than one they might fear. "Confidence" in
the Program must be developed.
Co-Chair Wilken informed the Committee that he had requested the
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District to conduct a
"critical analysis" of the Program. Four areas of concern were
identified: the first was "narrowing the curriculum down to the
Value Table"; the second was cheating; the third was in regards
to "the fairness of the Value Table" across all ranges; and the
fourth concern was about "rewarding mediocrity". Other school
districts might have these or other concerns. Therefore, he
reiterated that a pilot program involving perhaps nine schools
rather than 450 schools would provide an opportunity to further
finesse the Program. In conclusion, he professed being "suitably
comfortable and uncomfortable with" the Program. He voiced
confidence with the concept, and hoped that with additional
input from others, the Program would be implemented and viewed
as a success.
9:30:42 AM
Senator Stedman asked whether employees at the school district's
central office would be monetarily rewarded were only one school
of many in their district to qualify for the incentive bonus.
9:31:09 AM
Commissioner Sampson stated that, as proposed, all schools in
each district would be eligible for the Program.
Senator Stedman clarified that his question specifically
pertained to language in Sec. 2(b) page two, line 19 of the
bill.
(b) The department shall establish a procedure by
regulation for a school performance incentive payment by
the department to personnel employed at the central office
of a school district in which at least one school has met
the requirements for distribution of a school performance
incentive payment to employees of the school. The amount
paid under this subsection may not exceed five percent of
the total paid to all employees at all schools eligible
under this section for the school performance incentive
payment in the district. A payment under this section …
Commissioner Sampson replied that "the rationale" behind this
provision was to reward people, such as reading specialists who,
while being based at the central office, serviced various
schools. "In a dialogue with the Department and the
Superintendent of that district, if in fact there were people
who were housed in the central office that played a significant
role in any of the schools within that district in meeting that
performance incentive that they ought to share in that
compensation." The compensation would be limited to those
employees who played "a significant role in any school's
meeting" the performance incentive levels.
9:32:42 AM
Senator Olson remarked that certain programs such as incentive
programs are "more accepted" in one environment than another. To
that point, he shared that "there is a fair amount of
resistance" to this program from the school districts in the
Senate District he represents. Therefore, he inquired as to how
he might convince these entities that this program would work.
Commissioner Sampson affirmed that some schools and school
personnel have not been receptive to this program. For the most
part, school district "superintendents have been very supportive
of the concept". Continuing, he noted that due to the fact that
the fiscal note reflects a three million to fifteen million
dollar range "depending on the number of schools that might meet
that performance, there is a perception that that money is
available, and it is available for schools or for educators".
Therefore, were such money available, the question would be
whether to provide it through the performance program, through
direct grants to the school," or through the Base Student
Foundation Formula allocation. He has attempted to explain that
while the funds might be available, they are tied to the
"condition that performance in student achievement is attached
to it".
Commissioner Sampson stated that the National Education
Association (NEA) leadership has taken a position opposing this
Program. Even though NEA provided "an opportunity" for him to
present the Program to them, their position is that additional
money allocated for education should be utilized for such things
as increased teacher salaries. Continuing, he noted that many
"rank and file teachers" in schools are "very supportive of" the
program. One response to those who oppose the Program would be
to clarify that "there is no penalty if you don't make it". The
argument that a school that did not make it would be compared to
other schools is moot, as a variety of school comparisons
currently exist. The desire is that schools would recognize the
benefits of the Program. In addition to providing benefits to
students, educators would receive compensation "for something
they love to do, which is assist our kids in growth".
Senator Bunde pointed out that "the NEA leadership is also
against the HSGQE", and "any sort of accountability".
9:36:33 AM
Senator Bunde asked whether this was a voluntary program that a
school could opt into.
Commissioner Sampson stated, "all schools would be eligible". A
school would not be required to declare their participation.
Senator Bunde suggested that since "money is a finite and
limited commodity", the amount available should be reduced and
schools should be required "to actively opt in" by submitting a
competitive application of merit. As a result, a reduced fiscal
note would address some of the concerns about the Program. In
addition, schools could choose not to participate.
9:37:45 AM
Senator Olson inquired when the determination about whether the
Program was a success would be made.
Commissioner Sampson anticipated that the Program should operate
for a minimum of three years. That would provide time in which
schools could develop and share "successive strategies". In
addition, a three-year period would also prevent "false
indicators" from being presented.
Co-Chair Green observed that other than specifying a maximum
compensation level that could be paid to certified and non-
certified employees, no specific detail was included in the
bill. She asked whether this was intentional.
Commissioner Sampson noted that it was intentional. Were this
legislation adopted, "the specific implementation detail would
be developed through regulation".
Co-Chair Green asked whether it could be anticipated that the
implementation would follow the model depicted in the
presentation.
Commissioner Sampson affirmed that it could.
Co-Chair Green communicated that allowing the details to be
specified in regulation could be "troublesome" in the sense that
a subsequent commissioner "might take it another direction". The
concern however would not be too great, as any changes "would
still be subject somewhat to legislative review."
Co-Chair Wilken "appreciated Senator Bunde's question" as to how
schools might qualify for the Program, for he had understood
that the Program would be implemented Statewide immediately upon
adoption. Continuing with Senator Bunde's suggestion, he
understood that one year after being adopted, only fifty to 100
schools might be participating in the Program.
Commissioner Sampson clarified that the scenario exampled by Co-
Chair Wilken would occur were the application process proposed
by Senator Bunde adopted. However, it would not occur in the
Program as currently proposed.
In response to a comment from Co-Chair Wilken, Commissioner
Sampson stated that the program, as currently proposed, is not
an opt-in program. "All 488 schools would be eligible".
Co-Chair Wilken, while acknowledging that all schools would be
eligible, asked whether they would "be active participants".
Commissioner Sampson "hoped that they would be active
participants". He asked for further clarification of the
question.
Co-Chair Wilken asked how the Department would respond to a high
school that might say, "I don't want to play".
Commissioner Sampson explained that, were this Program
implemented as currently presented, any school that "meets a
performance level … would be eligible" for compensation. The
school could refuse to accept the compensation.
Co-Chair Wilken understood therefore that every school would be
eligible for the program and that any school meeting the
performance levels specified in the program would be eligible
for the compensation.
Commissioner Sampson affirmed.
Co-Chair Wilken concluded that each school's performance would
be measured regardless of whether they actively desired to
participate or not.
Co-Chair Green acknowledged that a group of students from the
New Directions Resource Center were in attendance at the
Anchorage Legislative Information Office.
9:42:42 AM
JOHN ALCANTRA, Government Relations Director, National Education
Association - Alaska (NEA-Alaska) testified via teleconference
from Anchorage and stated that the organization, which has
13,000 members, "believes that it is essential that the State of
Alaska focus its education resources on student achievement.
That focus should emphasize programs that are proven avenues to
increase student achievement, such as a qualified teacher in
every classroom, supported by qualified administrators and
classified personnel. Research tells us that this is the number
one factor in student achievement. Next is small class sizes,
which provide the opportunity for one on one attention."
Mr. Alcantra stated that the list would also include
"professional development for all staff which includes teaching
strategies to motivate students with varying learning styles;
planning time which allows for collaboration by staff to plan
implementation of innovative strategies; early childhood reading
readiness programs which provide the foundation skills for years
of student achievement; intervention programs which provide
remediation opportunities that lead to student success and
provide encouragement; mentoring programs for new hires, which
provides the employees access to a skilled colleague who can
demonstrate winning strategies. To focus on proven programs,
school districts need to be adequately funded. NEA-Alaska
believes that before the State considers new program, that they
should adequately fund our schools."
9:44:27 AM
Mr. Alcantra commended Commissioner Sampson "for his efforts in
avoiding the pitfalls of past failed performance incentive
programs. He realizes that school climate is one of the affected
factors in a school. The Commissioner's inclusion of the entire
school staff in the incentive program is acknowledgment that
everyone in the school helps set the learning climate. High
student expectations is another of the factors of affected
schools. The proposed program focuses on student growth and the
expectation that students can exceed the expected annual growth.
However, the reality is that trying to fashion an objective
performance incentive program in the public schools is like
being a tomb robber. There are too many traps to avoid. The
greatest obstacle is the changing environment of the student.
The school cannot control the home life of the child, the school
cannot control the happenings outside the school that impact the
student, and the school cannot control the emotional changes in
the student. Yet the growth of the student would be measured by
a single test given on a certain day. Senator Lisa Murkowski
acknowledged the shortcomings of such a measurement in
determining adequate yearly progress. We must avoid such a
measurement in rewarding our school employees."
Mr. Alcantra noted that when Commissioner Sampson presented this
program to the 350 delegates representing the entirety of the
State's school districts at NEA-Alaska assembly in February
2006, "he received a lot of critical feedback". The delegates
stated that the number one factor in student achievement is that
educators "must be confident in the tools they are providing.
They are skeptical of the success of this tool's actual impact
on student achievement. The bottom line was the resources should
be used in proven programs that can get to every school not just
certain schools. The concerns voiced by the delegates included
this program competes for scare resources, the program provides
an incentive for good teachers to transfer to schools that
receive the incentive, veteran teachers who have a proven record
presently transfer out of Title I schools. It is natural for an
employee to want to be part of a championship team. The program
implies that teachers are not presently trying to teach the best
student achievement. Teachers are doing their best. They need
more time to teach and more time to collaborate. The program is
not an effective recruitment tool when compared to competitive
compensation and a pension plan that provides a retirement with
dignity. In closing, I would urge Senate Finance Committee to
consider the returns on investments and proven programs such as
the teacher mentoring program, tracking and retaining quality
educators, reading readiness program, and early childhood
programs. Invest in these proven programs for all schools before
you invest in this program which mirrors failed programs in
other places." He thanked the Committee for their "time and
consideration".
9:47:14 AM
Senator Olson agreed "to a certain degree" that established
programs should be supported, however, he noted that society has
progressed beyond concentrating on "the three Rs". Continuing,
he voiced concern about the number of dropouts in Rural Alaska.
Existing programs are not addressing that situation.
Mr. Alcantra shared Senator Olson concerns; the dropout rate is
one of many problems "that plaque our schools". However, he was
uncertain as to whether the program proposed in this bill would
address the dropout problem. Senator Olson's position that new
programs should be entertained, as they might be successful, was
understandable.
9:49:18 AM
MARY FRANCIS, Executive Director, Alaska Association of School
Administrators, (Superintendents Organization) stated that,
while there is a variety of opinions in regard to this program,
most superintendents "recognize and support" the proposed
program "for its positive outcome in an entire school staff".
People who have worked in a school liken it to being a family
consisting of "teachers, principals, paraprofessionals, food
service workers" and others who contribute to the positive
environment of the school. The growth model of the program is
important. Noting that she had once worked in the Lower
Kuskokwim School District (LKSD), she shared that "schools in
areas in which student achievement perhaps is not as high as in
other areas of the State actually would be the ones to benefit
from this program". Performance data she had presented to the
LKSD school board "was not particularly admirable, but,
following a year, I presented this incredible growth data and
that had such a positive impact on not only kids, but the
professionals who worked with them. The concept of rewarding and
acknowledging the whole school's role in the growth of the
student that exceeds one year is very important." The majority
of the members of the Superintendents Organization "support the
concept of what this program is trying to achieve. We do however
think that its funding ought to be outside" of the need for a
substantial increase in the Base Student Foundation Funding
allocation.
9:51:57 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards spoke in support of the bill. He shared the results of
research about positive learning environments. A researcher with
Education Trust presented two factors that contribute to student
achievement: one is "the impact that a quality teacher can have
on the development of a child". Having such a teacher for three
consecutive years "puts a child on a path of success that is
quite remarkable. Conversely, three years of instruction with a
poor teacher puts them on a course that may be irreparable in
terms of kids ever catching up". "Instruction is critically
important."
Mr. Rose stated that the other factor "is the environment". The
aforementioned research indicates that, while "the focus on
instruction is critically important", schools that are "in
economically depressed areas, areas of ethnicity, inner city
schools, that perform at the highest rates in states around the
nation," also benefit from "the attitude that people bring to a
school". That attitude "says that we're not going to pay
attention to the socioeconomics, we're not going to pay
attention to race, and we're not going to pay attention the
difficulty that we face in our schools, we're going to focus on
what kids need".
Mr. Rose continued that while "alignment is critically important
in regards to curriculum, instruction and assessments"; people's
attitude is also important. This bill "is an attempt to try to
change the behavior, the attitude of people, not so much to say
that we have to pay you to behave like this…". People in the
private sector who are paid on commission provide "a different
kind of service" than those who are not. He was "not suggesting
that we have to pay our professionals to do a better job, but I
think the word that we use at the Association when we work in
communities, is you should do things intentionally, with
forethought". While most people attempt to raise their children
as best as possible, were parents' actions "intentional", their
actions "would be more deliberate. We'd ensure that things
happen." That is the concept being furthered by this proposal.
"We're asking people" who are "part of a school community to be
intentional in their actions, to focus in on what kids need, to
identify when they are struggling, to get them the help when
they need it, right now." "The whole concept" of this bill "has
merit". While it could be "a struggle" to implement the program
on a statewide basis, "the intent is to try to create a positive
learning environment. The research suggests that quality
instruction and a positive learning environment makes all the
difference in the world for young people who have no control
over the education that they are going to receive."
Mr. Rose stated that "reams of research" that would relate to
the "diverse settings" of this State are available at
educationtrust.org.
9:56:45 AM
Senator Olson asked whether the Program proposed in this
legislation has been implemented in other places, and if so,
what the results have been, as this is "a fairly expensive
endeavor."
Mr. Rose replied that he could not provide information about
where similar programs have been implemented. He could, however,
testify that numerous schools and communities have celebrated
student growth. This program would implement a compensation
program in an effort to "deliberately get people to work
together. When you talk about a growth model, it's important
that everyone make progress in a school it's an entire school.
Its not just one group of teachers, it's the entire school." In
response to the concern that teachers would desire to work with
"a championship team", he noted that, "schools that are
performing Below Proficiency are the places that these
initiatives are going to be critically important, because those
are the areas of growth." It is "difficult to move high
performing schools much further up the line in large increments;
those low performing schools have tremendous room for growth,
and I think that's what we're after."
Senator Bunde shared that, several years prior, he had visited
an inner city school in New York City, which was located in "a
drug invested" area with criminal activities. While "the school
was surrounded by a cyclone fence", the kids in the school were
high achievers who were polite and eager to "demonstrate their
knowledge" to teachers and visitors. It was something different
that what we could easily call the "typical New York school". He
recounted the saying "if you keep on doing the same old thing,
you're going to get the same old results….we have an opportunity
here to not do the same old thing."
Co-Chair Green concurred.
AT EASE 10:00:35 AM / 10:00:40 AM
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SB 235 was REPORTED from Committee
with previous $15,000,000 fiscal note #1 from the Department of
Education and Early Development.
Co-Chair Green reviewed the Committee schedule for the following
week and noted that SB 305-OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION TAX was
scheduled, pending referral.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Lyda Green adjourned the meeting at 10:02:13 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|