Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/22/2002 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
March 22, 2002
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chair
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chair
Senator Jerry Ward
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Department of Education and Early Development Overview: ESEA
Implementation
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Dr. Ed McLain
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
Dr. P.J. Ford Slack
Director, Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development
th
801 W 10 St., Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
Mr. Mark Leal
Assessment, Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development
th
801 W 10 St., Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-23, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRWOMAN LYDA GREEN called the Senate Health, Education &
Social Services Committee meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Senators
Wilken, Davis and Chairwoman Green were present. Chairwoman Green
informed members they would hear from representatives from the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) on the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). She asked DEED
representatives to alert the committee to anything it needs to be
aware of as DEED gets ready to implement the ESEA.
Dr. Ed McLain, Deputy Commissioner of DEED, told members that Dr.
P.J. Ford Slack and Mr. Mark Leal prepared a 45-minute
presentation for committee members.
DR. P.J. FORD SLACK, Director of Teaching and Learning Support,
DEED, informed members that the ESEA is also know as Public Law
110, HR 1, and the "No Child Left Behind Act." She made the
following comments.
The law was reauthorized in December to ensure that states,
regardless of individual state policy and philosophy, provide
children with a fair, equal and significant opportunity to obtain
a high quality public education. In Alaska, this law touches all
public schools, charter schools, correspondence schools, head
start programs and universities.
The law itself is one of the most significant reaches into the
states' rights to design public education in about 200 years.
While the law suggests great flexibility, added dollars and, in
truth, the criteria to qualify for these title schools is quite
tight and the State of Alaska also receives the second lowest
percentage increase in funds of all of the states that received
increases. The average increase was 13.2 percent. Alaska received
an 8.9 percent increase.
She does not believe anyone can find fault with the spirit of the
ESEA, however it has presented challenges for all states, both
large and small. There are ten title programs. This presentation
will focus largely on Title 1, Part A, with some specific pieces
from Title 9, which is about dangerousness, and Title 3, about
the requirements for limited English proficient students and
Alaska Native heritage students, and Title 2, which now holds
most of the information about creating high quality educators.
She and Mr. Leal have focused on the things they understand will
be most challenging to Alaska at this point. The ESEA is a 1200
page document. Guidance [from the U.S. Department of Education]
will not be given until sometime between August and September on
only the standards, accountability, and academic yearly progress
therefore, DEED is still "swimming" through some sections of the
ESEA.
DR. FORD SLACK explained that her presentation will focus on
three areas and Mr. Leal will focus on the areas that present the
most challenges for Alaska so far: accountability; data
collection; and the assessment piece. She began her presentation.
The number one area that we are working on currently,
and most of my staff is working on, is on the
researched-based programs and practices. This was a
call for all programs and instruction, specifically
reading, to be scientifically researched based
programs. These programs and practices were to improve
instruction, realign reading programs so that all
students would be reading by age three, and focus
resources and the ability to inform parents and
community.
The main focus in this area has been the early reading
first program, the reading first program, and
proceeding that was called the Reading Excellence Act.
When they talk about these programs - which they're all
really wonderful ideas - they talk about them, I
believe, in terms that we think that we can get them
into all our schools. Unfortunately, the funding is
really quite tight and limited to very specific
criteria and while I believe, as the State of
Washington and the State of Oregon have also learned
because they're ahead of us in implementing their
Reading Excellence Act, that all schools would benefit
from this currently as we begin the REA part - the
Reading Excellence Act - and later into the Reading
First. We will be limited to those schools that can
indeed apply for the grant, agree to using very
prescriptive, scientifically based reading programs,
and it will be on a case-by-case basis and their
specific criteria and we can get you that application
for the Reading Excellence Act districts.
The funding for Reading First is only $2.2 million. I
bring that up because at a recent reading leadership
conference in Washington, I was seated with the
assistant superintendent of curriculum from Anchorage
and we were sitting there calculating what we could do
if she did just what she did in Mountain View with all
the rest of her elementary schools and we figured out
it would cost $9.2 million for the Anchorage School
District alone. So you can see that it's a great idea.
It has a lot of possibilities but in order to train
your staff, to train your principals, as Senator Davis
pointed out in an earlier piece she's working on, to
get your aides trained, to get the right curriculum in,
and to do ongoing comprehensive data collection does,
indeed, take a lot of time preparation and some dollars
behind it.
Other challenges Alaska has [have] to do with the
diversity of our population's languages. As a state, we
have the most diverse world languages, although our
population size with those world languages is not large
and we also have one of the most diverse groups of
heritage languages. The challenge for us will be making
sure that we honor the heritage languages and the
heritage immersion programs that are currently going on
and being successful, as well as providing support at
those early years for English language acquisition and
there is a challenge there. I've worked in New Zealand.
It was a challenge there to do that because that is the
time that a child learns how to read and write in
English and most heritage languages are not the same
sort of base as an English language system. There is an
expert here in the State of Alaska that has been
involved with a longitudinal study, Dr. Todd Risley
[ph]. We're hoping to get some good advice from him on
early language acquisition. He and Dr. Betty Hart have
done a wonderful job and the federal government has
encouraged us to look at our local experts for advice
in that area.
Many of our districts would like the funding for the
reading support, however our funds, as I mentioned, are
small and restricted by the terms of the Reading First
and the Reading Excellence Act. However, because Title
1 in the assessment section has encouraged states
strongly to develop a seamless system between their
designations, it appears that Alaska would do well to
consider all of the pieces that we have for the Title 1
schools and look at those as being part of a
comprehensive program for all of our schools to ensure
that by the year 2014, as the law requires, that we
will have 100 percent success by grade 3, or at the
proficient level.
I think that there are many issues with the reading
piece that we are all struggling with. I believe that
we have excellent staff in this state. We have
excellent advice. We are a state, as you know, that is
challenged because of our distance and our uniqueness
and we are funded now not in the way we have been
funded in some of our title programs before but
strictly by population and that will indeed become
something that we need to wrestle with at the
department, and hopefully with the legislature's
support and advice.
Number 2. Assuring quality teaching. And I am going to
add this not only because I know that it is near and
dear to Senator Davis's heart, but it is also near and
dear to mine - that includes also principals and all of
our administrators.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the handout about implications of HR 1
contains a reference to quality teachers.
DR. FORD SLACK said that is in Title 2.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if Eisenhower professional development is
part of that.
DR. FORD SLACK said it is in that section.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN informed members it is on page 15 of the
handout. She then asked Dr. Ford Slack to continue.
DR. FORD SLACK:
Title 2, and I'll mention it for the committee, is
where you may hear most of your districts talking
because that is also where they have moved the class
size reduction allocation. I know that many of your
districts are very concerned about this appearing to be
zeroed out and I'm going to try, as clearly as I can,
to clearly state what I heard in D.C., what I have
heard the federal government say to us about this issue
of class size reduction. And it was moved in to
ensuring high quality education personnel because there
was some belief in the House and Senate that reducing
class sizes did not have a research base to prove
effectiveness and was, indeed, not supporting children
moving toward the proficient level in reading, writing
and math.
So, what this particular section says, it is really
about enhancing your teacher and your principal
quality. It is certainly, as Dr. Sclafani said, also
recognizing the need that we need highly trained
professionals in math and science. Again, and it's
almost like a repeat, I think, of the 1960s and some of
us in this room may be old enough to remember after
Sputnik, but it appears that we are being asked to do
the same thing. However, they're not mandating. They're
saying that they expect to see this. They're saying
that if they have Title 1 schools that do not have
highly qualified teachers, then they will look to how
these funds are being expended or they will expect the
state to look at how these funds are expended.
If a school or a district decides to use the funds to
reduce class size, then that school - that district,
that school - had best be able to show that they have
well trained math and science teachers, that they have
highly qualified principals that are implementing the
curriculum, collecting data, making sure all students
can learn, that their teachers are being trained and
then there would never be any question. If, however,
you end up in a school improvement site and they've
used all of their funds to reduce class sizes and they
still say, well we don't teachers that are teaching in
science and math because we couldn't get them or we
don't have principals that have stayed with us, then we
as a state are supposed to ask the question why did you
not use your Title 2 funds to develop your staff, your
personnel, to ensure that all students could learn.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Dr. Ford Slack if teachers and principals
are on an equal par throughout Title 2 or if that is her
emphasis.
DR. FORD SLACK said Title 2 specifically mentions principal
training. She noted that teachers and para-educators are the
number one and two groups that are mentioned the most but
principals are mentioned. She said that she did some research on
the Texas education system and learned it has an extensive
principal development program within school districts. She said
she believes the references to principals in Title 2 came from
the reform efforts in Texas. She repeated that Title 2 emphasizes
highly qualified teachers and para-educators. She noted Alaska is
facing one of the largest teacher shortages in 40 years. The fact
that Alaska recruits from 48 other states puts it at a
disadvantage and will require Alaska to be more creative in
recruitment and retention efforts. She said the same applies to
para-educators but she believes DEED made the case with Dr.
Sclafani that the para-educators in some areas Alaska are some of
its most mature and stable educational force so to go in and
unilaterally upturn that particular group of educators would not
be good. She said Alaska is very fortunate that DEED's special
education section was successful in receiving a grant from the
federal government two years ago so Mr. Maloney has been working
diligently on para-educator training modules and a more
interactive and fun way to strengthen a para-educator in a remote
site. DEED believes that system can easily be adapted for Title 1
and other para-educators who need support. DEED believes that
reading strategies can be easily added. It will also allow the
state to use its own qualification criteria. She said that DEED
recognizes and values its unique para-educator work force.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Dr. Ford Slack if a typical para-educator
would be someone who has not finished a Bachelor degree and was a
non-education major.
DR. FORD SLACK said that is correct and that many times para-
educators do not have specific training except for training
provided at the school site. She noted that is not the case with
special education para-educators because state regulations
require six hours of training.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if DEED is in the process of providing
certification for para-educators.
DR. FORD SLACK said the districts make the decisions but that
Cindy Curran, the head of DEED's teacher certification program,
in cooperation with DEED's special education and title folks, are
looking at different ways to encourage and recognize para-
educators to see if any might be an option for Alaska.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if Alaska passed a law two or three years
ago that allowed para-educators to be in the classroom in their
home districts or whether it applied to another group.
DR. FORD SLACK said she was not familiar with that law.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if the issue of para-educators is foreign to
Alaska in comparison to other states.
DR. FORD SLACK said what is foreign to the federal government is
the fact that Alaska has sites as remote and rural as it does,
even in comparison to Montana and Wyoming, and that perhaps the
para-educator population in those areas may not be as stable as
Alaska's.
DR. MCLAIN thought the law Senator Wilken may have been referring
to grants special certification for some of Alaska's language
specialists or content specialists that may be local residents
with a special skill. He said when DEED asked Dr. Sclafani how
those people should be treated under the ESEA, Dr. Sclafani
emphatically stated that those people were not considered as
certificated under federal law. However, as her three-day visit
went on, he believes Dr. Sclafani became open to the idea that
she did not have all of the information for that type of program.
SENATOR WILKEN commented that the state would want to protect
those people in the rural areas and not allow the federal
government to make it hard to hire those types of employees.
DR. FORD SLACK explained that "para-educator" is one term that is
used. Other categories of employees include special education
aides, instructional aides, and language aides. She said she
appreciated Senator Wilken's question because the issue of
whether a heritage language aide who works one-on-one with a
cognitively disabled student would be required to be certified
will have to be worked out with the legislature and the State
Board of Education.
2:00 p.m.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if some of the issues could be semantic
rather than substantive in nature.
DR. FORD SLACK said that DEED must submit its first consolidated
state plan to Washington, D.C. by May 28 to receive funds by July
1 and that plan will begin to address specific pieces. All DEED
staff is working together on this plan, rather than taking a
compartmentalized approach, so that it can mesh all state
programs, as well as federal programs.
DR. FORD SLACK continued her presentation:
The third piece that I would like to bring our
attention to, and then we're going to let Mr. Leal go
into a more in-depth focus of where we are with our
state accountability, assessment, data collection, and
reporting, is actually the piece that we do need your
help with and that we will be struggling with. We're
not alone that way. Dr. Sclafani was very clear that
when the US DOE went looking at states, and
particularly the small population states, they learned
that departments of education were no longer the size
of some departments of education in the states that
have already undertaken probably 15 years of reform,
such as Kentucky or Louisiana or Texas and therefore,
the data requirements in this particular act are large.
And I'm not here just to say the data requirements are
large for the Department of Education. My concern, and
I know that Mr. Leal's concern is that we have data
requirements, reporting requirements, not only that
will drive instruction and are important for driving
instruction and looking at improvement, but we have
schools that don't have the capacity at all to do the
type of data collection, reporting, analysis and just
sending a simple [indisc.] to the department right now.
We're slowly gearing up. We've been gearing up since we
put in our testing requirements here in the State of
Alaska. I believe we've been gearing up since 1994 in a
good, consistent, slow, purposeful way. This law has
put us on a fast course because there are reporting
requirements that we're going to need to adjust our
state reporting requirements for. There are reporting
requirements by school and district, which Mr. Leal
will go into, and I think it was very telling when Dr.
Sclafani said that they found only six states currently
prepared to be able to do the data reporting,
collection and analysis that this law clearly requires.
So, we're into an annual testing plan from grades 3 to
8, plus once in grades 10 to 12 and, again, Mr. Leal
will go into this in some detail. We have a goal of 100
percent proficiency in 12 years. We now have a biennial
NAEP testing requirement in reading and math in grades
4 and 8 and that will require the state to hire a NAEP
coordinator. That is not with our funds. There is
federal funding for that position but we still have to
get a qualified person. We will have testing in science
and we'll have testing yearly for limited English
proficient students and that means we need to select
the test that all of our districts can use so that the
data that comes into the state, and that we report to
you as well as, of course, to the parents and the
general public, is good and consistent and that we know
what it is.
We hope to, with all of these data requirements and
reporting requirements, the US DOE and, of course, the
spirit of No Child Left Behind, is hoping to close the
achievement gap by using these particular pieces and
any pieces that the state might add, such as monitoring
attendance, participation rates and testing, graduation
rates, etcetera. Data is the key and the state is
charged to ensure that all districts and schools
provide the data required in an accurate manner.
They believe, and I believe that most of us believe it,
as soon as we really get our hands really around this,
that this data will not only provide our parents with a
better understanding of how their schools are doing and
therefore, of course, how their children in those
schools are doing, it should provide our elected
officials a better understanding of what is happening
in their areas and across the state. It would also
provide, we hope, for some analysis that will give
feedback to principals and others on what is needed to
develop their teachers, their aides, their principals,
their own central office folks.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if any of the reporting requirements will
replicate the school designator requirements.
DR. FORD SLACK said it will and that Mr. Leal will discuss that.
She concluded by telling legislators that DEED and the
legislature will have to work as partners. She would like to see
a stronger tie between DEED and the professional organizations so
that DEED can support school districts in a much more
comprehensive way. She said she also believes that the challenges
that are presented in the ESEA may provide the state with better
instructional strategies in the long run. The ESEA will require
everyone to be more alert and accountable.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if the ESEA also applies to universities.
DR. FORD SLACK said it does. Pieces of Title 2 specifically refer
to partnerships between DEED, school districts, and the
university. The university will not get a lot of money, but it is
clear that with the reauthorization of this bill, the US DOE
expects universities to work in partnership with state
departments of education and the districts. She pointed out that
Dr. Sclafani learned that Alaska has some unique features and
that it does not produce the amount of teachers and
administrators that many of the other states do. Therefore,
Alaska's ability to impact some of the many people that it brings
into the state may require DEED to "put our heads around a
different interim delivery system" to make sure that people
brought into the state clearly know what the State of Alaska
requires.
SENATOR WILKEN asked how much money the 8 percent increase
represents.
DR. FORD SLACK clarified that Alaska received an increase of 8.9
percent for all programs, including special and vocational
education. DEED believes it will amount to about $20 million. She
noted Alaska is the test case right now just to see what its
district allotments will be under Title 1. It contains features
that DEED cannot calculate so the US DOE is running the figures,
which should be available next week.
MR. MARK LEAL, Director of Assessment, DEED, distributed a
handout to members that followed the slide presentation he would
give. He affirmed that Dr. Ford Slack's response to Chairwoman
Green's question about the school designator requirements is part
of the reason DEED requested an alternative time line. DEED is
not sure how to two will fit. Right now, DEED is putting the
finishing touches on the model. DEED is proceeding with status
and growth and there have been some indications that the model
will not fit very well with the ESEA. He added that a number of
other states are in a similar position. DEED and the other states
are providing input and waiting for the federal government to
give direction.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the ESEA makes it more important to
have legislation in place, rather than less important.
MR. LEAL replied, "It makes it more important that it be two
years." He then said he would focus his presentation on
assessment, accountability, and reporting requirements. He said
that Dr. Sclafani gave committee members a good overview of the
ESEA. Now, DEED is trying to figure out the details of what the
changes in the ESEA mean for districts and individual schools. He
said the phrase, "The devil's in the details" is applicable
because the ESEA contains many details that have implications for
the state.
MR. LEAL began his slide presentation. He said the annual tests
in reading and math given to students in grades 3 through 8 need
to be aligned with the state standards. The test results are the
primary piece of the accountability system. That system for the
state, districts and schools needs to be based on performance on
the state assessments for all students and for students in
subgroups (race and ethnic groups, students with disabilities,
students in poverty, and limited English speaking students).
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if different assessments will be given to
the subgroups.
MR. LEAL explained the same assessments will be used but DEED
will report aggregate data. He then continued with his
presentation and said the requirements for assessments mandate
that at least 95 percent of all children in the state be
assessed, as well as at least 95 percent of each subgroup. That
will have quite an effect on Alaska because many schools will
need 100 percent participation. In order to not test one student,
a school must be able to test at least 20 students, which some
schools do not have.
MR. LEAL discussed the state testing requirements:
· 2002-2005 - Reading and Math: Must test annually in one
grade, 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. He noted that Alaska already
meets this requirement with the benchmark tests.
· Beginning in 2002-2003 - must annually assess LEP students
on English language skills. DEED needs to select a test to
be used for that assessment.
· Beginning in 2003 - NAEP - Biannual tests in Reading and
Mathematics. Test random sample of state students grades 4
and 8. Scores used to confirm state progress. Mr. Leal
stated that test will be used to compare how Alaskan
students do based on Alaska standards to how they do based
on the federal standards of NAEP. Grade 8 students will be
given both the NAEP and the benchmark test which will
provide a clear indication of how Alaska has established its
cut points for advanced and proficient in relation to the
federal government's cut points.
· Beginning in 2005 - Reading and Math: Must test annually,
every grad 3-8, plus one grad 10-12.
· Beginning in 2007 - Science: Must test annually in one grad,
3-5, 6-9, 10-12.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked how the exit exam will fit into the ESEA.
MR. LEAL told members the exit exam raises an interesting
question for DEED because there is no federal requirement for a
high stakes exit exam. He added that DEED has just done a major
overhaul of the high school exit exam to refocus on the minimum
competencies of essential skills. The federal requirement for
that grade 10-12 test is that DEED be able to identify at least
two areas of high performance so DEED will need to administer a
test in which proficient and advanced students can be recognized.
That puts DEED in a box because the previous test could have been
used to identify advanced students but, if it is used, DEED is
faced with using a high stakes exam for students. He said one way
around the dilemma is to administer the previous test at grade 11
or 12.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if DEED could use the previous test for
the ESEA requirement rather than for the high school exit exam.
MR. LEAL said DEED would need to be able to go back and set the
additional cut scores because the new scores only measure
proficient or not proficient. He said the only problem he sees
with using that exam is that it is extremely expensive to score.
He said once DEED settles on one form, some of the costs
associated with the high school exit exam would go down a bit.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if it is a random sample test or a test of
the entire population.
MR. LEAL said it is for the entire population. He then continued
and said there are several requirements associated with reporting
results from assessments. They must:
· Produce individual student interpretive, descriptive and
diagnostic reports.
· Disaggregate achievement levels by different groupings.
· Enable itemized score analysis to be produced and reported
to districts and schools. He noted DEED will have to work
with its test contractor on this requirement.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked for an explanation.
MR. LEAL explained the test would be scored and the school would
receive a report that determined what percentage of students gave
the correct answer to each question. Right now, DEED can provide
proficiency levels and scores on each performance standard. This
requirement delineates one more level to provide scores on each
question.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN responded, "It would appear to me that this is
the only reason you would give this kind of test - so you could
go back and say over in Building X, or whatever, those teachers
aren't teaching fractions worth a darn...." She asked if the lack
of a specific skill or concept in a particular classroom could be
determined.
MR. LEAL said it could but cautioned that would take specific
interpretation at the school site because one of the dangers of
reporting at the itemized level is that if the test doesn't
change, teachers get good at teaching to specific questions.
MR. LEAL continued his presentation and said regarding the
testing of students in English, students who have attended
schools in the U.S. for three consecutive years in English must
be tested. He noted that was intended for states with large
immigrant populations. It does not address the immersion programs
in Alaska. Dr. Sclafani indicated that it was the federal
government's view that students should be able to read in English
by the third grade. States with immersion programs need to split
those programs so that students learn English in the early grades
also.
TAPE 02-23, SIDE B
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked how Alaska's immersion programs works.
DR. FORD SLACK told members the immersion programs that are
normally used with indigenous language groups are most often
based on the Kohenga-reo movement from New Zealand, which is
known as the "language learning nest." The concept behind that
program is that to hold on to a language that is culturally based
and different from a European-based language, speakers must speak
to children consistently in that language only. The belief of the
Maori, and later the Hawaiians, was that the students were
hearing plenty of English elsewhere so Native languages should be
used exclusively in the school setting. In New Zealand the Native
language is used all of the way through high school with
curriculum development in Maori but New Zealand is bilingual with
English and Maori holding equal stead. She noted she has had some
experience with the use of that concept with the Navajo and
Ojibwa peoples. Students cannot be more than two generations
removed from the speaking of the language. In Alaska, current
generations speak their Native language. She believes school
districts are trying to replicate that system using the Native
language exclusively from pre-school through fourth grade. She
noted that scientifically based reading programs are clear that
English language happen during those same years, which requires a
fair amount of English to be spoken so DEED is faced with a
challenge in working with districts that have brought in language
immersion programs or are in the process of developing programs
with their Title 7 and Title 3 funds. She said DEED and the BIA
have some particular issues to work out and that the US DOE is
not flexible on its requirement that students be able to read
English proficiently by grade 3.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if a student in an immersion program
through the fourth grade would not be subject to testing until
the seventh grade.
MR. LEAL said the implications are that those students would have
to be tested every year. The three-year window would apply to a
student who went to school outside of the country. He noted
students in the language immersion program in a public school
would not fall in that category and would have to be tested in
English.
SENATOR DAVIS asked if students in immersion programs now have to
be tested.
MR. LEAL said they do.
SENATOR DAVIS asked if the difference under the ESEA is that
those students must read proficiently in English by grade 3.
MR. LEAL said that is correct.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN commented that will be quite a challenge.
MR. LEAL informed members the ESEA requires three reports: a
state report card; a state report to the Secretary of Education;
and district report cards. The first state report card needs to
be produced no later than the school year, beginning next year
and must contain student achievement at each proficiency level on
the aggregate and disaggregated, comparisons between achievement
of subgroups, and the most recent two year trend. DEED
disaggregated scores this last year but those scores were not
included on the report card. It has not compiled comparisons of
achievement of subgroups. It currently reports aggregate
proficiency levels and the recent two-year trend. He noted DEED
currently reports graduation rates but not in the way the federal
government wants them so that method will have to be changed in
regulation. Additional reporting requirements will be the
achievement levels for sub groups as compared to annual goals,
the percentage of students not tested disaggregated by category
and subject, and an explanation of the state's accountability
system.
MR. LEAL told members the state report card will also require
reporting of:
· the professional qualifications of teachers;
· the percentage of districts making adequate yearly progress;
and
· the number and names and schools in improvement.
DEED will need to add those categories to its current state
report card as those figures are not currently identified and
reported.
MR. LEAL said the requirements of the report to the Secretary of
Education mirror the requirements of the state report card except
the report to the Secretary also requires DEED to report the
results from the English language proficiency testing of limited
English speaking students and drop out data for all districts and
schools disaggregated by race and ethnicity.
MR. LEAL reviewed the district reporting requirements as follows.
Districts will have to report virtually the same items for the
district and each school that receives any federal funds [slides
14, 15 and 16] as the items required in the school report card.
He said he can't stress enough that amassing the information will
be a huge task. He noted that even the large districts that have
data capabilities will have to significantly change and add to
their capacity. A number of districts do not have the capacity to
collect and report the information so DEED will need to work with
them and figure out a way to verify the information.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the reports must be done by next
Spring.
MR. LEAL said the first year of reporting begins in September of
2002.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if the federal government gave the state
money to implement those changes.
MR. LEAL said Alaska received $3.5 million to develop
assessments. The federal government has indicated that if the
state has already developed assessments, the state can use some
of that money for data enhancement. DEED does not have all of its
assessments developed yet.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked how many extra personnel will be required
in a small, medium and large district to compile the information.
MR. LEAL said he could not answer that question. He noted that
DEED should be able to set up and provide templates to school
districts to gather the information. He surmised that the larger
school districts will probably want to develop their own
templates to fit their data capabilities while others will be
asking DEED for the answer.
MR. LEAL referred to page 9 of the handout and said the key to
accountability for the ESEA is the concept of adequate yearly
progress. States are charged with defining adequate yearly
progress and once they set baselines, they must establish goals
so that all students will be proficient in 12 years. The starting
point is the number proficient in the lowest achieving schools or
the lowest achieving demographic subgroup, whichever is higher.
He explained that to determine the starting point for math for
example, DEED will take all of the scores statewide for math from
th
the 3rd, 6th, and 8 grade benchmark test and list the schools
based on percentage of students proficient. Therefore, a school
with 100 percent of its students proficient at grade 8 would be
the number 1 school. All schools would be rank ordered and the
th
school at the 20 percentile would become Alaska's baseline.
DEED is currently working with its school designator contractor
to create a model based on last year's data. He said the baseline
must be established this summer.
MR. LEAL referred the bottom of page 10 of the handout and said
the chart shows the concept in the ESEA of increasing achievement
over time with the goal of 100 proficiency at the end of 12
years. He said if DEED finds the starting point on math this year
is 40 percent proficient, it will have to set measurable goals to
achieve 100 percent proficiency in 12 years.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if a penalty will be enforced if there is
no progress in seven years, for example.
MR. LEAL said the ESEA contains sanctions for each school and
each district. He added that each subgroup will also have to show
adequate yearly progress.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN commented, "This makes the designator program
look like a piece of cake."
MR. LEAL addressed slide 21 on page 11 of the handout, which
defines the sanctions. Districts must identify the schools that
fail to make adequate yearly progress at the beginning of each
school year. After two consecutive years of not meeting adequate
yearly progress, the school would be expected to develop an
improvement plan to cover a two-year period. The school would
receive technical assistance from the district and they would
need to provide school choice for which the district would pay
transportation costs. After three years of not meeting adequate
yearly progress, the district would need to provide supplemental
services to students from independent service providers at the
district's expense.
DR. MCLAIN added that to give members a sense of the immediacy of
the ESEA, he recently signed letters for six school districts
with school sites in their second to third years of making
inadequate yearly progress. Those districts will have to provide
school choice and transportation for students. Even though the
federal government cannot dictate how districts will provide
transportation, the law still applies even though the nearest
school might be 100 miles away. This will become an immediate
issue for Alaska.
MR. LEAL referred to page 12 of the handout, which delineates the
sanctions after four years of inadequate yearly progress. A
school would move into a corrective action status and the
district would have to implement at least one action. The list of
corrective actions includes:
· Replacing staff
· Implementing a new curriculum
· Decreasing management authority at the school level
· Appointing an outside expert
· Restructuring the internal organization of the school.
In addition, the district would have to continue to offer
supplemental services and public school choice to students.
After five years of inadequate yearly progress, the district
would need to prepare a plan that would take effect within a
year. That plan would require the district to implement at least
one of the following options:
· Reopen the school as a public charter school
· Replace all or most staff
· Enter into a contract with a management company
· Turn over the operation of the school to the state.
He pointed out that a school must make adequate yearly progress
for two years before any sanctions can be removed.
He stated that, regarding supplemental assistance providers,
there will be additional responsibilities to the state. DEED will
need to maintain a list and develop criteria to measure the
effectiveness of the providers.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked who would be defined as a provider.
MR. LEAL said DEED will have to develop standards by regulation.
Providers would include private tutors. DEED will be in an
awkward position because it wants to be able to assure the
quality of providers but it does not want to be accused of
limiting choice for parents.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if other states have begun the process of
licensing providers.
MR. LEAL said some states are moving in that direction but many
are expressing doubt about that route. He noted they are waiting
for further direction from the US DOE.
MR. LEAL noted the reporting requirements for schools identified
as needing improvement will provide notification to parents no
later than the first day of school. That notification should
explain what identification means, how the school compares with
other schools in the local attendance area, the reasons for
identification, and what the school is doing to address the
problem. DEED will annually review the progress of all districts
to make sure they are making adequate yearly progress and it will
publicize the results of its review. He pointed out the remainder
of the handout lists the accountability provisions for districts.
He then offered to answer questions.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if it would be possible to see the ESEA
requirements formatted in a timeline from 2003 to 2005.
MR. LEAL said DEED has been working on a time line for the next
three months, which is huge, and eventually plans to create a
timeline for the next three years. DEED is looking for the best
way to communicate this information to interested parties.
DR. P.J. FORD SLACK informed members that DEED has always been
challenged to find highly qualified people. Other states are
equally challenged and are recruiting from DEED. She commented:
So while departments of ed haven't been mentioned in
this law, I believe that we are also an endangered
species. I know that some of the members of this
committee have seen me in other roles and I thought
that I had seen the federal law that would beat all
federal laws with IDEA and all of its iterations, but I
must say that this law, in itself, if people don't
retire they may be thinking of a new profession here
pretty soon.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said she has heard many concerns expressed about
the school designator program but its requirements are nothing
compared to the ESEA.
DR. MCLAIN said her comment brings close to home the reason why
DEED put forth legislation to align the date for the state
accountability school designator program. He thanked the
committee for its efforts on that legislation. He said that DEED
has been working on the status and growth piece, which has been
very complicated, only to find out now that the US DOE may have
some of its own ideas about whether or not the state can do that.
Therefore, DEED is looking at meshing all that it has already
done and, thankfully, the rules are not set in cement. He
commented that Dr. Ford Slack and Mr. Leal have been involved in
the norm referenced/criterion referenced debate and did not have
time to discuss that with the committee today. On that issue, the
US DOE has been moving more towards Alaska's position.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if there were any further questions.
There were none.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN wished the DEED representatives well and asked
them to keep legislators informed of any legislative changes that
may be on the horizon. She then adjourned the meeting at 2:52
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|