Legislature(2001 - 2002)
01/30/2002 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, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
January 30, 2002
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chair
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chair
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 250
"An Act extending the dates for assignment of performance
designations of public schools and the dates for reports and
monitoring based on those designations; and providing for an
effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 250 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Dr. Ed McLain
Deputy Commissioner of Education
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 250 for the Administration.
Dr. Mark Leal
Assessment Director
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 250 for the Administration.
Nick Stayrook
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
PO Box 71267
Fairbanks, AK 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports a delay.
Jim Holt
Superintendent of Schools
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
PO Box 71267
Fairbanks, AK 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports a delay.
Dr. Bruce Johnson
Association of Alaska School Boards
th
316 W 11 St.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports a delay.
Mr. Byron Rice
Glennallen-Copper River School District
No address available
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports a delay.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-4, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRWOMAN LYDA GREEN called the Senate Health, Education &
Social Services Committee meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Present
were Senators Leman, Wilken, Davis and Green. Chairwoman Green
announced the committee would discuss SB 250 and asked
representatives from the Department of Education and Early
Development (DOEED) to present the bill.
SB 250-SCHOOL PERFORMANCE REPORTS
DR. ED MCLAIN, Deputy Commissioner of DOEED, introduced Mr. Mark
Leal, Director of Assessment at DOEED. He explained that SB 250
extends the implementation date for the assignment of performance
designators and ties monitoring based on those designations into
the reports. It also provides for a new effective date.
DR. MCLAIN explained that enactment of SB 250 will enable DOEED
to:
· incorporate data from the fall of 2004 test into the report
by requiring the first designation to occur in September of
2004;
· align the state program with the new requirements of the
federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which
recently passed and DOEED is in the process of reviewing;
· collect data that will enable DOEED to designate schools
based on current performance and the progress they make from
year to year;
· build capacity in Alaska for tighter data collection, which
requires skills, understanding, protocols and procedures;
and
· clarify that a focus of the designation will be student
achievement of essential skills.
SENATOR WILKEN asked why, on page 2, line 12, the review
timeframe was changed from the school year to the calendar year.
DR. LEAL explained the date change will align monitoring
requirements with the current school report card date, which is
January 15.
SENATOR WILKEN asked how Alaska's school designator program
corresponds with the federal legislation that recently passed.
DR. LEAL said he believes there are a lot of parallels. Alaska
is moving in the direction of being able to calculate growth by
testing students from grades 3 through 10. DOEED wants to make
sure that the types of growth goals that it addresses are aligned
with the federal requirements. It does not want to find a school
is deficient for Title 1 purposes yet proficient in Alaska's
model. DOEED is waiting to see if the tests it is using are
acceptable to the federal government. He clarified that if
Alaska's program differs, it wants to do so purposely. DOEED
does not want to accept the federal model wholesale but it does
want to be as closely aligned as possible.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if the federal law does not derail what
Alaska has started and that DOEED will be able to comply with it.
DR. MCLAIN said that's essentially correct but some key pieces
have DOEED concerned and raise specific questions, i.e., Alaska's
system is dependent on both criteria and norm referenced testing
and DOEED has done some linkage studies. It is not clear whether
that will be fully accepted by the federal government.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the language in paragraph 3 (page 2)
implies that DOEED will use the last year's data only rather than
data accumulated over the years.
DR. MCLAIN explained that the most recent designation will be
based on both status and growth, which contains data from current
and past records.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN commented that theoretically a school could
receive a good designation but have declined from the past. She
then asked for a definition of "multiple student measures" on
page 2, line 8.
1:45 p.m.
DR. LEAL indicated the basis of the designator system will be the
student assessments: both the norm-referenced and the benchmark
and high school qualifying exams. DOEED is looking at the status
score and the growth score as being multiple measures. It is
also looking at the dropout rate for high schools, percent of
students graduating, and local assessments.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if those definitions were expanded and
provided in regulation by the state board of education.
DR. MCLAIN said he would have to check on the definitions but
noted the definition of "multiple student measure" has been the
subject of a lot of discussion within the profession. The
designator committee has had a healthy, ongoing discussion about
what to include because there is some argument for including
other inputs as measures, i.e. parental involvement, class
offerings, etc. However, the bottom line would continually come
back to whether students are learning.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said she wants to make sure that the language in
the bill is adequate for the designators to do their job.
SENATOR LEMAN referred to the language on page 2, line 8, and
asked if it has the same meaning as the language in the
Governor's transmittal letter that reads, "... school performance
designations are based on student achievement, including the
results of the competency exam." He maintained that both
phrases, taken together, mean that the results of the competency
exam will be used to define student achievement of essential
skills.
DR. MCLAIN said that is correct and that DOEED will be looking at
status as well as growth.
SENATOR LEMAN said if the legislature does not pass SB 250, DOEED
will have to produce a report by August of this year. He asked
whether DOEED has enough information now to produce a draft
proposal for what the designations might be for various schools
and questioned whether DOEED has identified some that are
outstanding and others that are in peril.
DR. LEAL replied that the committee has not yet designated
schools but it has narrowed down the type of information it would
use. The committee is preparing a model and regulations to
present to the state board of education in March. That model
shows what DOEED would be able to implement by August, if
necessary. DOEED would use the current status scores from the
assessments taken by students this spring.
SENATOR LEMAN read from a letter from the Anchorage School
District, "In some of our schools, we have almost a 100 percent
turnover of students." He said he assumes that means in one year
and he finds that hard to believe. He asked if DOEED has ever
seen a turnover rate that high.
DR. MCLAIN replied:
Through the Chair, Senator Leman, high turnover rate is
one piece that we are cognizant of as we look, and the
committee's been looking at that as we incorporate the
model - as we looked at how various states have handled
the high turnover - and there are districts and there
are schools that report very high turnover. I'm not
prepared to tell you where those are but we do
routinely hear of those and our state has generally a
fairly high turnover - and how those kids get accounted
is to the committee's thinking a critical consideration
for us. There are states that will only include in the
accountability kids who have been in the school who
take the test the last year and have been with us a
full year. There [are] other models that look at 90
days, etcetera. So we're aware of the impact of high
turnover. There are schools that have high turnover.
I can't speak to 100 percent or whatever but I would
not be automatically surprised at that.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked whether course grades will be considered
in the student measure.
DR. LEAL said they will not. He explained that one problem the
committee ran into when trying to find other indicators of
student achievement was finding indicators that are not
comparable across the state because there is no accountability in
course grades among schools or districts.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked for confirmation that DOEED is comfortable
with the language in SB 250 and that it contains the necessary
tools to put in place a system from which to begin reporting in
September of 2004.
DR. MCLAIN clarified that the first report will be published in
January of 2005 and he believes DOEED can comply.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked what the legislature can expect to see in
the annual report in the meantime.
DR. MCLAIN said DOEED would be very pleased to keep the committee
and public informed about the process as it is developed. DOEED
has some data to build on because it is required to report on
Title 1 schools to the federal government.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the bill needs additional language to
make sure that interim reports are forthcoming.
DR. LEAL said that DOEED can report on the schools identified as
school improvement sites for the Title 1 program - schools that
are not meeting the adequate yearly progress measures. DOEED
will be refining that data as it deals with the new federal act.
The 1994 federal act required DOEED to identify and report
schools that are not making adequate yearly progress to the
federal government. Those schools will move into the sanctions
under the new act. DOEED also publishes a yearly school report
card on the web. Up until last year, DOEED published school
district report cards; last year DOEED began publishing the
information by school including the attendance rate, graduation
rate, dropout rate, enrollment change, grade 10 and 11 high
school graduation qualifying exam results, grade 4 and 7 CAT 5
test results and the benchmark exam results at grades 3, 6 and 8.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the school improvement sites are pre-
designated based on a population or funding source.
DR. LEAL clarified those are only the schools that receive
additional funding through Title 1.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked whether all school districts receive that
funding.
DR. MCLAIN said to the best of his knowledge, every school
district receives some Title 1 monies but not all schools receive
those funds. He explained that one of the criteria for Title 1
funds is both economic and educational disadvantage. To the
degree that Title 1 schools are generally representative of
schools with economic and educational disadvantage, they identify
a pool that will warrant more attention.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the yearly school report card draws the
same conclusions.
DR. MCLAIN said as it becomes known that DOEED has moved from
district-based to site-based reporting, people will begin to look
back at dropout rates and other key indicators. A lot of the
pieces that go into the determination will be available as public
information, which may help some schools get a handle on what to
work on.
2:05 p.m.
SENATOR WILKEN noted the Fairbanks North Star Borough School
District passed a resolution in support of SB 250 at a meeting on
January 20 and that he will place a copy in the record.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN referred to a letter from the Anchorage School
District and read, "However, designating a school as deficient or
in-crisis on the basis of test scores alone ignores certain
factors." She asked if the current law is based on test scores
alone.
DR. MCLAIN indicated the designation was intended to focus on
achievement and test scores are a prime way to measure that. He
pointed out that a number of models group schools, for example,
schools of a comparable socio-economic base, to see how students
are doing within that group. That approach brings good news, but
also difficulties. DOEED believes the intent of the law is to
measure achievement. DOEED can recognize different factors and
show schools ways to modify their instruction without lowering
expectations.
DR. LEAL stated that he believes that is the critical reason to
count growth rather than just status. By making growth two-
thirds of the measure, DOEED will be saying that even though a
school has a transient population, they must be included. DOEED
wants to refine its ability to collect the growth data so that it
can make statements about schools based on growth in test scores.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN pointed out the growth in test scores is not
mentioned anywhere in statute. She repeated that she wants to be
sure the instructions are clear, broad and specific enough that
in the future these measures are done in the same way. She asked
if that requirement is covered in regulation.
DR. MCLAIN explained the charge of the designator committee is to
develop those. The committee has received a lot of national help
and has local and instate expertise. DOEED can share the records
of that development.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN took public testimony.
DR. NICK STAYROOK, Fairbanks North Star Borough School District,
said the Fairbanks School Board supports the delay of school
designators. Regarding multiple student measures, a committee he
was a member of looked at including post-graduation success rate
in addition to achievement scores. His group did not consider,
because of the wording of the bill, parent satisfaction with the
school. Dr. Stayrook said one goal of the bill is to assign and
look at the quality of schools throughout Alaska. Educational
research shows that schools will pay attention to the things they
are held accountable for so if Alaska's designator system
strictly looks at student performance in essential skills in
reading, writing and math, schools will concentrate on those
skills. He believes it is very important to provide more time to
consider ways to look at other kinds of student achievement.
DR. STAYROOK pointed out that Alaska has many types of
specialized schools, i.e., a school for incarcerated youth in
Fairbanks, alternative high school programs, and schools
primarily for special education students. Many of those schools
will be in crisis because that is where students who are low
performing and at risk are placed. It is important to consider
how to fairly and validly rate the quality of those schools in a
way that goes beyond looking at scores on the benchmark, high
school, and norm referenced exams. In addition, Alaska has many
schools that are extremely small. Designators can change
significantly in schools when only two or three students take the
exams. A statistical analysis of test scores of two or three
students is generally not valid as an indicator of how well a
school is doing.
2:10 p.m.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Dr. Stayrook if, as a member of the
designator committee, he feels the language in the bill is
adequate.
DR. STAYROOK said the language is fairly good. One of the things
the committee has struggled with over the last couple of years is
multiple student measures; it felt restricted to only look at
student measures. He suggested revising the language to read,
"multiple student and parent measures."
MR. JIM HOLT, Superintendent of Schools, Fairbanks North Star
Borough School District, said he shares the concern that delaying
the date alone will not satisfy the Fairbanks School Board. A
majority of states now have a quality schools initiative similar
to Alaska's. Many of those states exempt certain schools. Alaska
has created schools for specific populations; those schools are
in crisis. The Fairbanks district is trying to deal with the
achievement gap: closing that gap would be a good indicator of
success.
DR. BRUCE JOHNSON, Association of Alaska School Boards, stated
support for delaying the implementation of the school designator
system. Two members from the Association serve on the designator
committee. They are very pleased with the work to date. That
committee is working with a highly qualified consulting firm that
has experience in other states. From the beginning of the
discussion on school designators, the most important piece of the
puzzle was how to get the growth piece into the equation. It is
important to not design a system that encourages students who are
not achieving to drop out. School districts are responsible for
their students. They cannot take responsibility for the home
environment but their accountability should begin when students
arrive at school. Figuring out how to do that is a highly
complex issue in a state as diverse as Alaska. He pointed out in
California, schools with a population of fewer than 200 students
do not participate in the designator program. That would amount
to 75 percent of Alaska's schools so that approach would not get
at the intent of the legislation. Alaska's challenge is greater
but the people working on it are paying a lot of attention to the
nuances in those issues and are trying to be true to the law.
MR. BYRON RICE, representing the Glennallen-Copper River School
District, said to his understanding, school designator labels
will be based solely on the results of assessments conducted in
the spring of 2002. That is a far cry from the original
intention of the designator committee, which called for a
weighted review of test scores. The committee called for test
scores to be weighted at one-third, with the remaining two-thirds
weighted on transient rates, attendance, numbers of special
education students, size of school and analysis of historic
assessment scores. He has asked participants in this process
whether basing a school label on one assessment score is
appropriate. Some people believe that would be unethical.
MR. RICE noted that although alternate assessments are available
for special education students, that option will only impact a
very small number of the special education population. He said
he questions the belief that providing special education students
with more time to take assessments will invalidate those
assessments. He also noted that an unfair system could have a
devastating effect on schools that are labeled unsatisfactory in
terms of recruitment and retention.
MR. RICE'S final comment was in regard to how cutoff scores will
be determined. If a delay is not granted, the August 2002 score
will be determined through a computation based on cutoff scores
formulated from metropolitan areas of the state. He said he has
no problem being held accountable for students' progress when
they are present at the school but when he has exhausted every
means available to get that child to school and still comes up
short, he has concerns about being held accountable for their
lack of progress. He said that he concurs with the conclusions
of the designator committee that without more time and data to
professionally deal with the aforementioned questions, the state
will walk into a disaster.
TAPE 02-4, SIDE B
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Dr. McLain to respond to Mr. Rice's
concerns.
DR. MCLAIN reiterated some of his earlier points by saying that
the intent is to look at both status as well as growth as the
designator committee feels very strongly that growth is an
integral part of any sort of plan. By looking at growth, some of
Mr. Rice's concerns will be addressed. He agrees this is a
complex issue and it is one that is being looked at in every
state and territory. The Administration has asked for a delay
because DOEED wants to do a good job. The current law requires a
report in August 2002. If that law is not changed, DOEED will
comply but the report will not provide as satisfactory of a
designation.
DR. LEAL added that, in regard to the special education students,
an essential piece of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
is the inclusion of all students in accountability systems and
assessment. Some accommodations could go too far and invalidate
a test but extra time is not one of them. The designator
committee is focused on coming up with a fair and equitable way
to score schools, which is why it has requested a delay.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN announced that she will bring the bill back
before the committee in about one and one-half weeks. There
being no further business to come before the committee, she
adjourned the meeting at 2:23 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|