Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/12/2001 01:35 PM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
February 12, 2001
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chair
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Discussion of SB 36 from the 20th Legislative Session, benchmark
assessments and the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam.
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Shirley Holloway, Commissioner
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
Mr. Eddy Jeans, Manager
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
Mr. Bruce Johnson, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
Mr. Phillip Reeves, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Department of Education &
Early Development
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-10, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR LYDA GREEN called the Senate Health & Social Services
Committee meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Present were Senator
Leman, Senator Wilken, Senator Davis and CHAIR Green. Senator Ward
arrived at 1:36 p.m.
MS. SHIRLEY HOLLOWAY, Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development (DOEED), said Mr. Eddie Jeans would cover SB 36,
from the 20th Legislative Session, and then begin the first of five
work sessions on the benchmark assessment exam and the High School
Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE).
MR. EDDIE JEANS, School Finance Manager, DOEED, said his
presentation would be based on the executive summary of the report
to the state legislature. The report was a result of reporting
requirements under SB 36. SB 36 required DOEED to prepare three
reports on the following topics: 1) district cost factors, 2)
comparison of old and new funding formula, and 3) education
adequacy report.
MR. JEANS said DOEED tried to use the methodology that CTB McGraw
Hill and the McDowell Group used to determine district cost factors
that were adopted by SB 36. After running an analysis, it was
apparent that the McDowell Group methodology was no longer
appropriate or amenable to update. DOEED then entered into a
contract with the McDowell Group to have them look into the
analysis to see if they came to the same conclusion. The McDowell
Group did find that the methodology used in 1998 to develop the
cost factors that are currently in statute could not be used. They
recommended that DOEED seek funding for a new cost study based on
the actual cost of providing the services around the region as
opposed to what districts are spending. DOEED recommends that an
appropriation be made for a contract to develop a new methodology
that can be updated on an ongoing basis.
Number 307
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the money the districts are spending would
not confirm the existing distribution because they are probably
spending close to what is appropriated. He asked if there should
be some type of common standard to compare against.
MR. JEANS agreed. In the last few studies, the McDowell Group has
based the cost factor on what districts are currently spending, not
what it costs them to provide the service.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that districts should be compared on a
reasonable standard.
CHAIR GREEN asked if the chart of accounts reconciliation addresses
this problem.
MR. JEANS said the state board had just adopted a revised chart of
accounts that would go into effect July 1, 2001, which would
provide more detail on what districts are spending. The revised
chart also gives districts additional guidance on how to classify
expenditures. DOEED does not believe the audited financial
statements are the appropriate tools for developing a cost
differential.
MR. JEANS said the next report comparison of the old funding
formula to the new formula. DOEED had two findings for this
section of the report. One is for the erosion of the supplemental
funding floor. The other is a provision under one of the old
funding formulas that was an oversight in the rewrite of SB 36,
which provided a hold-harmless type of funding for districts that
experience a rapid decrease in enrollment. This provided a stair-
step approach so the reduction did not have to be absorbed all in
one year. The erosion of the funding floor takes money away from
districts whose funding is based on cost differentials that may not
be appropriate. Until DOEED has developed a new methodology to
determine what the differentials are, it is recommending the repeal
of the erosion of the supplemental funding floor. The Governor's
funding task force has also recommended the suspension of the
erosion of the supplemental floor until new cost factors are
developed and adopted by the legislature.
MR. JEANS said the third section of the report is on education
adequacy. The report recommends that all of the DOEED findings be
given to the Governor's education funding task force.
Number 651
MR. BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner, DOEED, said content
standards started in the early 1990s. They were voluntary and
designed to give school districts targeted help in the development
and alignment of their curricula. Hundreds of Alaskans were
involved in the construction of the content standards in 10 areas,
which has now evolved to 12 areas, and also in public hearings.
The passage of the competency exam requirement in 1997 is what
moved this effort forward.
CHAIR GREEN asked for the definition of content standards.
MR. JOHNSON said content standards identify contents that Alaskans
felt were important in 10 areas. Performance standards are a
subset of content standards and they have to be measurable. Alaska
moved from content standards to performance standards in reading,
writing, and mathematics, which hold young people accountable
through benchmark assessments and the HSGQE. Some content
standards do not lend themselves well to performance standards
because of things like appreciation - "How do you measure
appreciation with a paper and pencil exam?"
MR. JOHNSON said the process was done by Alaskans and guided by
McGraw Hill publishing. When the competency law was passed, Alaska
did not have the expertise to develop its own exams. McGraw Hill
guarantees legal defensibility such as, this test question measures
this standard, and they also go to court to help with this aspect.
At the same time, they allow Alaska to direct the process. Alaska
determines the standards, chooses the test questions from McGraw
Hill's item pool, and Alaska revises some of the test questions in
order to fit urban and rural life equally well. The first exam was
field tested in 1998, both the benchmark exam and the HSGQE. After
the field test, groups of Alaskans came together again to look at
how well the questions worked on the field test. The questions
they asked were: Did an urban student answer a question as well as
a rural student or was there something wrong with the question; Did
the question favor one group over another, such as girl versus boy,
or one race over another? When a question was found that did not
work well statewide, that question was thrown out. About 40
percent of the field questions were eliminated.
Number 1022
CHAIR GREEN asked if the test changes each year.
MR. JOHNSON replied that the test does change from year to year.
From edition to edition, some of the same questions are used but
there are always new questions. There can never be a new question
unless it has been field tested first. McGraw Hill guarantees,
from version to version, that there is equivalency and the
difficulty level is the same.
CHAIR GREEN asked if a field test could be given to students in
other states.
MR. JOHNSON said not in a standard assessment because Alaska's
standards are not the same as other states' standards.
MR. JOHNSON said field testing led to the development of the first
three versions of Alaska's HSGQE, which were administered in the
spring of 1999. The benchmark assessment was also developed at
this time for grades 3, 6 and 8. For four or five years, a single
test would be used for the benchmark assessments and then the test
would be revised.
MR. JOHNSON said that after the exams were administered in the
spring of 1999, groups of Alaskans convened to establish the
passing score for the HSGQE. The passing score was determined and
the HSGQE is a pass, no pass exam. There are five opportunities to
take the exam during normal high school years and six additional
times following the normal date of graduation.
Number 1225
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the pass, no pass scores are different for
each of the three sections.
MR. JOHNSON answered yes. There were committees of 18 to 20
people, including parents, business people and teachers, in each of
the three disciplines, all working independently of each other.
There was no connection between the passing score from reading to
math or from reading to writing.
SENATOR LEMAN asked what the passing scores are for each of the
sections.
MR. JOHNSON said scores ranged from a low in reading of 305 to a
high in mathematics of 383, writing fell in between at 340.
Number 1333
SENATOR LEMAN said some of his constituents do not understand how
the tests were developed.
MR. JOHNSON said four levels were established for the benchmark
test score levels - advanced, proficient, below proficient, and not
proficient. Federal requirements require information be reported
to the federal government on the scores - it cannot be pass, no
pass. One of the objectives of the benchmark test is to provide
families, teachers, and schools with feedback on how well the
students are doing.
CHAIR GREEN asked if the federal government would accept results
from any test.
MR. JOHNSON said it is up to each state to determine how it will
assess, although most states are moving toward standard based
testing.
MR. JOHNSON said results of the benchmark assessments were
distributed in October of 1999. DOEED then distributed the results
to school districts and the school districts are required to
distribute the results to families, students and teachers in a way
they determine appropriate.
MR. JOHNSON said teachers need to know what students are being held
accountable for - DOEED does this in two ways; first with the
establishment of practice exams. A contract last spring with the
Anchorage school district developed practice exams in reading,
writing, and mathematics for the high school level. The practice
exam did not go through all the iterations of the actual test but
it gave a good indication of the types of questions. Second, DOEED
published a HSGQE content guide. The guide went to all high school
teachers who had responsibilities related to teaching students in
these areas. The guide is an attempt to break down the standards
so they were more understandable, as well as provide guidance on
how the standards might be tested on the exam. Right now, a guide
is being developed for the benchmark exam.
CHAIR GREEN asked when the HSGQE guide was released.
MR. JOHNSON replied last year. He said the guide was an effort to
take away the mystique of a highly confidential test.
CHAIR GREEN noted that a teacher could use the guide to develop
skills to work from. She asked if there would be a time when more
than one practice test would be developed for use by teachers.
MR. JOHNSON said that would be ideal but it would cost a lot of
money. One way to keep the cost down is to not own the test.
Presently, tests are a joint effort between McGraw Hill and Alaska.
McGraw Hill maintains the copyright on the test because some of the
questions are being used elsewhere. Versions of a test could be
released in the future but only because they are no longer being
used anywhere else. For the first time, a practice exam is now on
line for the HSGQE.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the other test is still on line.
MR. JOHNSON replied yes, but it will probably be discontinued.
CHAIR GREEN said a teacher could take the model questions and
insert different numbers and still be able to use the test for
practice, particularly for math.
MR. JOHNSON said it is hoped that teachers will become more skilled
at using similar types of assessment tools in their regular
classroom instruction.
CHAIR GREEN said as long as this falls within performance and
content standards, a teacher would not be teaching to the test, a
teacher would be teaching information that would be tested.
MR. JOHNSON said DOEED learned that some of the test questions and
how they were asked was perplexing to students.
MR. JOHNSON brought the continuous renewal chart to the committee's
attention. He said the content team met in Anchorage for two days
and liked the standards used for reading, writing, and mathematics.
They then looked at the test itself in regard to specific
questions. One question that was quickly determined to be
necessary was: Is this skill really something necessary for
success in later life? In other words, the operational definition
became: If the student does not get the question right, should he
or she be denied a diploma? This definition is different from
anything that has been used up to this point.
MR. JOHNSON passed out material that showed a circle indicating
performance standards - the targeted and taught skills and content.
Mr. Jeans said the committee is leaning toward the notion that not
all performance standards are key for later success in life.
CHAIR GREEN asked if certain questions could be targeted.
MR. JOHNSON said it could be done, it would be much like the
benchmark assessments with four scores determining four levels.
Number 1953
CHAIR GREEN asked if there would be a problem with a lack of base
from which to build in the lower grades. She asked if there were
things students would not have to perform perfectly in order to
pass to another grade
MR. JOHNSON responded yes, some are foundational. If a
foundational performance standard is missing, then it will be
difficult for a child to be successful at the next level - this is
where the energy should be targeted.
SENATOR WILKEN said his calculations show a student would have 15
chances to take the tests instead of 11.
MR. JOHNSON said tests could be taken starting in the spring of a
sophomore year, fall and spring of the junior year, and fall and
spring of the senior year. This would total five attempts. Then, a
student could take it again during the fall and spring for three
years after the normal date of graduation.
SENATOR WILKEN agreed with the first five assessments but said a
student could be enrolled in high school until 20 years of age, for
two more years or four more opportunities. There is also a trip
date of 23; a student could take the test up to their 24th
birthday, which gives them six more opportunities.
MR. JOHNSON said children with disabilities could stay in K-12 up
to the age of 23.
SENATOR WILKEN noted the traditional student could take the test 10
times. He asked for the confidence interval the test is designed
to be valid within
MR. JOHNSON responded 95.
SENATOR WILKEN explained the confidence interval is 95 - on any
given day, out of 100 students, 5 students that should have passed
did not, or five students that should not have passed did.
SENATOR WILEN asked if 99 was the original competency level goal.
MR. JOHNSON said there was not a target for establishing that error
of measurement. Phasing the cut scores was considered at one time
so there would be one passing score and after that there would be a
higher level passing score. But it was found that very few
students benefited from the phased approach.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if the 95 percent competency interval was
accepted across the United States or whether it is something Alaska
determines and then builds around. He also asked if other states
have tests designed for higher than 95 percent
MR. JOHNSON said other states do have higher percents but DOEED's
approach was to look at where the scores should be set and where
the standard error of measurement should be. DOEED wanted a
broader standard and to accomplish this, the standard had to be set
at the lower end of the range. For Alaska's first test, the 95
percent confidence interval was desirable so that a diploma would
not be denied to a student who knew the information.
Number 2295
SENATOR WILKEN asked what the committee did in August and how that
differs from what will be done at the next meeting.
MR. JOHNSON said the same thing was done but a broader question was
necessary. "Is this standard essential for later life for all
kids?" was determined to not be a narrow enough definition. To set
a new passing score, with a different emphasis, another question
had to be asked: If a student does not know the standard will they
be denied a diploma? The standard may sound like a necessary
standard for a foundational education but when looking at the range
of difficulty within that standard, the standard can only be
accomplished with individual test questions.
CHAIR GREEN asked for an example.
MR. JOHNSON said in a writing example a student may be asked to
explain an answer in two or three sentences. There will be both
highly complex responses as well as basic responses. The committee
recognized that both could be right, depending on what the target
is for a foundational education.
TAPE 01-10, SIDE B
SENATOR WILKEN asked if the same committee would be asked a
different question or whether a different question would be asked
of a different committee.
MR. JOHNSON replied a different committee that contains some of the
original members to allow for representation from prior efforts
would look to see if the test emphasis is correct. After this is
completed, the item pool of questions would be looked at to see if
there are sufficient questions within the pool that have been field
tested in Alaska and which are appropriate for constructing a new
version of the test. Once the new version of the test has been
given, a new passing score would be set.
SENATOR WARD asked how group representatives were found.
MR. JOHNSON said volunteers were solicited from around the state
and people were also nominated. A pool was then created and a
representation was selected. McGraw Hill set a minimum of 15
content experts to be within the discipline, which left six slots
open.
SENATOR DAVIS asked how the February test would differ from the
last test.
MR. JOHNSON said there would be no difference. It will be an
identical test but questions will be imbedded for field test
purposes.
SENATOR DAVIS asked what the time line is for the new version.
MR. JOHNSON replied that it hinges upon whether there are enough
items in the current pool to construct a new exam around the
emphasis the group wants. If another field test is needed, the
next opportunity is in the spring of 2002. A new exam would then
be constructed with new questions and it would be administered in
the spring of 2003 and then the passing scores would be set. The
new passing scores would be for the graduating class of 2004. On
the other hand, if there are enough items within the pool, the time
could be shortened, but not before 2003.
CHAIR GREEN noted that the school designator committee would begin
a series of meetings in February of 2001 and recommend school
designators. She asked, under this time line, how many years would
this require for the establishment of a record?
MR. JOHNSON said this is a question being considered by the
committee and it will be brought before the board in March.
MR. PHILLIP REEVES, Assistant Attorney General, DOEED, said there
is not much direct information available on the defensibility of
the Alaska exam because there is no case law looking directly at
the exam. There are two federal decisions that provide criteria
that a court would apply in reviewing the validity of an exam.
These cases are from Florida and Texas and, in both cases, a
challenge was brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act based
on a claim of disproportionate failure rates by minority students.
Title VI would be a likely avenue for a challenge in Alaska because
if a claim were made under the Civil Rights Act and the plaintiff
showed a significant percentage difference in the passing rates of
a minority group versus a majority, the burden would shift to the
state to defend its program.
CHAIR GREEN asked for the broad definition of a minority.
MR. REEVES said the Civil Rights Act refers to racial minorities
and possibly religious minorities.
MR. REEVES said in the Texas case, the baseline question of the
state's burden was that the state had to show it had an educational
necessity for its examination requirement. However, the court
explained that while this sounds like a high burden, the state
would be charged with showing that the challenged practice serves
as a legitimate educational goal to the institution. The courts
are unlikely to modify a state's policy decision on what the
standards should be. Courts would instead focus on whether the
state has reasonably implemented that standard through an
educational program that gives opportunities to the students to
learn what is necessary to pass the test. The two main areas a
court would focus on are content validity and instructional
validity. Content validity could be phrased in the question: Does
the test accurately measure the test taker's knowledge in the
content area being tested? Alaska has contracted with a
corporation, a testing expert, to develop test questions and assist
DOEED in utilizing resources from across the state. The test is
based on the state board adopted performance standards. There was
a focus on ridding the test of questions that had a cultural bias
and there is a continuous renewal process to evaluate and improve
the exam.
MR. REEVES said instructional validity, curricular validity or
opportunities to learn, as a legal issue, are all the same concept.
A way to phrase this issue is: Does the curriculum and the total
educational program offer each student a reasonable opportunity to
gain the knowledge and skills that are tested? This question looks
at the educational program in determining if schools are teaching
to this standard. In order to hold a student accountable, courts
want to determine whether the student has been given the
opportunity to learn. The Texas and Florida cases provide a useful
outline of criteria that courts apply. In each case there was a
multi-year test implementation program. The court imposed the
multi-year program in Florida, which was first utilized in 1978,
and in 1979 the test had to be passed to gain a diploma. The court
imposed a four year injunction and enjoined the state from
withholding diplomas for four years after the requirement was put
in. In Texas, the challenge came eight years after the test was
made a requirement for graduation. The court looked at the eight-
year track record and found that the state-mandated remedial
programs were a success. In each case there was a time span, which
showed the test was having the effect of improving the passage
rates of the group that was contesting the test.
CHAIR GREEN asked if the Texas decision was handed down January 7,
2000.
MR. REEVES said to his recollection the initial exam was put in
place in the late 1980s and was then changed in 1990. The 1990
exam was the contested exam.
CHAIR GREEN asked how long the exam had been under review.
MR. REEVES noted the challenge was held in 1999. The test became
mandatory in 1990 and Mr. Reeves was not aware of when the case was
originally filed, but the court heard evidence on the defensibility
of the test in 1999. Mr. Reeves said that much of the case
argument was over issues, such as whether the court should look at
improvement over the years or disparity in the failing rates
between the plaintiffs and the majority group.
CHAIR GREEN asked if failure of the Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills (TAAS) would keep a student from graduating.
MR. REEVES answered yes. TAAS is the current exam and passage of
it is required to receive a diploma.
CHAIR GREEN asked if Texas offers other graduation certificates.
MR. REEVES said TAAS is a mandatory requirement, but there were
other opportunities. The court only looked at the requirement that
the test be passed in order to receive a diploma.
CHAIR GREEN said she has seen information indicating that the TAAS
failure rate was about 2 percent. Truancy is also very low in
Texas because the police are "rounding them up" because schools are
being held accountable and teacher reviews depend on student test
results.
CHAIR GREEN asked for the final verdict in the Texas decision.
MR. REEVES said the court upheld the validity of the diploma
requirement.
CHAIR GREEN asked about the Florida cases.
MR. REEVES said there are three cases in Florida. In the first
case, the district court issued a four-year injunction. The second
case was upheld and the court upheld the examination in the third
case.
CHAIR GREEN asked if the test in Florida was mandatory.
MR. REEVES said yes.
CHAIR GREEN said she does not think standards should ever be
lowered but she wondered if modest requirements for graduation
could be put in statute. She wondered if the Texas and Florida
cases asked the question: Could a student be tested for something
more challenging than what the state or district required as
subject content?
Number 1517
MR. REEVES said it is clear under Title I and the federal law on
special education requirements that there needs to be a system of
assessments - there cannot be one factor that denies a student a
diploma. However, the courts have upheld the idea that a multiple
assessment system can be one in which a student has to pass the
exam, complete course work and meet attendance requirements.
CHAIR GREEN asked if a student could be tested on something greater
than what he or she is required to learn?
MR. REEVES said the state would fail under instructional validity
if it could be shown there was not an educational program to
provide training for passage of the test.
SENATOR WARD asked Mr. Reeves if he had looked at the Alaska test
to see if it was legally defensible.
MR. REEVES said he has not done an analysis on the Alaska testing
program under the instructional validity program. He has not
looked at the content validity, which is what he was referring to
when he said Alaska was relying upon the expertise of the
contractor and its process for putting the test together.
SENATOR WARD said he wants to know if the scoring criteria is
legally defensible. He talked with some of the people on the
committee who indicated they did not participate in the final
product. Alaskan teachers who were on the committee have also said
this is not their test. He would like to know if the test is
testing subject matter that has not been taught to all students
and, if so, who did this and when. Senator Ward asked Mr. Reeves
to look into his questions to see if there is a problem so that it
can be fixed.
Number 1209
MR. REEVES went through other components of instructional validity
because this is where the greatest potential exposure is in
applying these concepts to Alaska's program. The main way Alaska
has addressed the instructional validity criteria is through the
implementation of a comprehensive testing program including
benchmark examinations at third, sixth, and eighth grade. The
benchmark exams are designed to identify students who are falling
behind the curve at a certain point. The tests allow for focused
instruction and remediation throughout a student's educational
career. The tests allow districts to identify and correct problems
with curriculum starting at earlier grades and they provide data to
DOEED that help the department assist districts in curriculum
development. The assessment programs depend on the benchmark exam
process to identify and respond to those instructional problems on
the individual and curriculum levels. The tests would also defend
a challenge to the instructional validity of the graduation exam by
pointing to the interventions the benchmark exams provide showing a
legitimate educational program. This leads to the potential
problem based on timing. The benchmark exams were first given in
the spring of 2000, which means the first sixth grade class that
participated in the exam graduates in 2006. The class of 2002 was
not involved in the benchmark exam process so those students can
legitimately claim they did not have specific notice of what the
requirements were until the exam was given. Timing is the biggest
challenge in defense of the program.
MR. REEVES referred to a resource guide published in December of
2000 by the Office of Civil Rights of the United States Department
of Education. The article provides an expansive discussion of high
stakes testing across the country and problems that have arisen.
There is a common problem in states that attempt to use a single
exam for the dual purposes of driving curriculum development and
holding students accountable. If the dual purposes are pursued,
inevitably, by design, a gap is created between what the test
measures and what the student has been taught. It is only with the
result of the first test that the curriculum can be developed to
ensure the right educational program is given. To accomplish both
things from the exam, a lag is needed between the first exam and
when students are held accountable so that it can be said the state
provided students with an educational program that allowed them to
pass the exam.
MR. REEVES said that as far as special education is concerned,
there are two federal laws that protect students with disabilities.
The first is the Rehabilitation Act, which requires that any state
program that accepts or expends federal funds not discriminate on
the basis of a person's disability. The second is the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA-97), which has more specific
protections. Some of the protections that directly impact the
testing are that children with disabilities must, to the maximum
extent practical, be included in general state assessment programs
with appropriate accommodations. These cases have uniformly held
that the fact a standard is set beyond the capacity of certain
children with disabilities does, in itself, violate federal laws on
disabilities. Essentially, legislatures have the discretion to
decide whether to set an alternative standard. This does not mean
that special education children do not have viable grounds for a
challenge. Their challenge would challenge either the test
validity or instructional validity, applied only to their specific
educational program. The state would be required to show that the
Individual Education Program (IEP) teams have the information and
are working to provide the best educational program to assist these
children in passing the test. The accommodation requirement is that
as long as the accommodation does not affect the validity of the
test, for example, as long as it is not being said that someone can
use a calculator to calculate simply to show calculation ability,
the accommodation should be allowed. This issue has to be dealt
with on a student-by-student basis.
CHAIR GREEN suggested the law that was passed was too brief and did
not allow enough direction nor did the interpreters take the
liberty of broadening the accommodation. CHAIR Green asked if Mr.
Reeves could defend the test.
MR. REEVES said he would be ready to defend the test today. The
test is not indefensible, but the timing element needs to be
identified as the most difficult defensible piece.
SENATOR WILKEN said regulations were circulated having to do with
special education and asked if they have something to do with the
exit exam and, if so, what is the status of the regulations.
MR. REEVES was not sure which regulations Senator Wilken was
referring to. There are extensive regulations on special education
out for public comment at this time. Over the last 12 or 18 months
regulations have been advanced regarding accommodations. The board
through reference to DOEED's participation guideline booklet has
adopted these. The biggest change in the participation guidelines
for this coming spring testing is that there are audiotapes for
students who do not read. These students can take the mathematics
and writing test using an audiotape.
SENATOR WILKEN asked what state has done the best with the high
stakes test.
MR. REEVES said he is not the best person to ask from the
educational perspective on who has the best testing system. It
does appear from case law that the court was impressed by Texas,
particularly with the success of its remediation system and the
fact that state mandated remediation showed a gain.
There being no further questions, CHAIR GREEN adjourned the meeting
at 3:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|