SSSB 248-HIGH SCHOOL COMPETENCY EXAMS/DIPLOMAS CHAIR FRED DYSON announced SSSB 248 to be up for consideration. SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, sponsor, stated that SSSB 248 concerns children with disabilities, but it doesn't compete with SB 372. They could easily work in concert. She explained that SB 248 takes a broad approach and makes it unnecessary to ask whether or not a child has a disability because not all students with disabilities have been diagnosed whether they have been tested or not. The purpose of SB 248 is to ensure that the high stakes exit exam minimizes "false negatives" and clarifies the legislative intent regarding severe cognitively disabled students. It proposes using the portfolio system, which is similar to a system developed in Indiana and provides an alternate method for students to demonstrate proficiency. With this approach, students are required to attempt the high stakes test and retake it if necessary. But once the student is a senior, they have the option of retaking the parts of the test that they failed or developing a portfolio to show that they have mastered the skills that are on the part(s) of the test that they failed. In the portfolio the student must demonstrate or include the following: · That they have a 95 percent attendance record · That they have a 2.0 GPA in all courses that are required for graduation · That the student has enough credits to graduate · That the student has attempted and failed to pass the exam · That the student completed remedial class in the failed area(s) if available · Letter(s) from the student's teacher(s) in the failed subject area(s) stating that the student knows the material required by the exam · Documentation regarding the student's competency in the failed area(s) The student submits the portfolio to the principal and he or she certifies that the material is valid and that the student meets the competency standards on the exam. SENATOR GUESS said that the state of Indiana simply monitors how many of the portfolios are given to determine whether or not there are any problems with the program but SB 248 has two additional steps. First, the portfolio goes to the superintendent who repeats the certification process and then a state board panel reviews the portfolio. This final step is to address the concern expressed by Senator Wilken about district level decisions. The panel would be composed of the commissioner, a state board member, and a governor appointed at- large member. They would make the final determination as to whether the portfolio demonstrates that the student knows the material that's on the exam that they failed. The portfolio would be just as high stakes as the exam, but it would provide an alternate method of demonstrating competency. "We're denying diplomas so I think it's important for this body to realize the enormity of this task and take it seriously in terms of trying to put together a statute and a process that works for all students." CHAIR DYSON asked how a portfolio would enable a student to demonstrate reading or math skills. SENATOR GUESS replied that she would look to educators for a definitive answer, but the exam is about one way of giving information back and there are multiple methods. Videotaping might be included for example. In Indiana, the state issues guidelines and then it's up to the student and their family to figure out a way of demonstrating competency. If the school elects to provide resources, that's a local decision. CHAIR DYSON asked whether a student that is trying to demonstrate reading competency, might read to a teacher or proctor in some stress free environment. SENATOR GUESS replied if the three experts all say that the contents of the portfolio demonstrate the ability, she would say yes. However, for ages 15 to 18 there is no requirement to be able to read out loud. It says, "Analyze and evaluate how authors use narrative elements and tone in fiction for specific examples of purposes." CHAIR DYSON commented that would demonstrate comprehension and reading and discussion of the material with a proctor could demonstrate that. But with regard to math, he asked how an alternative method would be demonstrated in a portfolio. SENATOR GUESS reiterated that she would certainly like to hear from an educator, but her interpretation is that class tests and schoolwork could be evaluated. She pointed out that although tests used to be just one way, we now know that students don't give the material back using the same method so most teachers and professors provide multiple ways to show mastery of the material. SENATOR GUESS added that in addition to the portfolio, the teacher has to sign off saying they taught the student and he or she knows the standards. CHAIR DYSON questioned whether both were required. SENATOR GUESS replied the student has to have letter(s) from the teacher(s) and they have to demonstrate that they know the material. CHAIR DYSON asked Commissioner Sampson to comment on the bill. ROGER SAMPSON, Commissioner of the Department of Education & Early Development, said the bill takes the broad approach of addressing not only children with recognized disabilities but also children with disabilities that aren't identified and other special needs that don't fall under AS 94.142. He continued: It is the broadest view that we have seen so far, but with rationale as to why. It may be difficult to get some level of consistency, it may not, but would require substantial training on behalf of the department and other recognized experts to both teachers, administrators and parents if parents were going to have a significant responsibility for building those portfolios. And if we have turnover, which we frequently do, that training would have to be ongoing, annually at least. It's certainly very strong support and advocacy for children. It just may be difficult to get the consistency that we also desire. SENATOR GREEN noted that when they originally discussed SB 133 this was one of the discussion points. They tried to address the entire picture of the student's readiness to graduate because there are other benchmarks for determining that there may be undiagnosed special needs and the portfolio was one of many methods that were discussed. This isn't a new idea, but perhaps it's a good idea to discuss this approach again. SENATOR GUESS responded to Commissioner Sampson's comments saying that the best example for her is Indiana. They haven't spent money on substantial amounts of training and there haven't been court challenges requiring training. Although training would be good, the bill doesn't require it in a legal sense, she said. With regard to consistency, she said there wouldn't be consistency with the portfolio method because every portfolio would look different. Consistency would be provided by the fact that they must all meet the standards that are on the current exam. CHAIR DYSON asked if it's correct that SB 248 doesn't address the cognitively disabled students that aren't able to obtain a diploma under state law. SENATOR GUESS pointed to page 4, lines 17-23 and said that waivers are provided for students with severe cognitive disabilities. "If a student with a cognitive disability did everything that their district told them to do, they would get a diploma," she said. CHAIR DYSON asked for an explanation of the transitional provision. SENATOR GUESS replied the transitional language was her best effort to accommodate her colleagues who don't want to postpone the exam this year. Just as seniors are able to retake the exam if it's necessary, this bill provides one year for this year's seniors to develop a portfolio. A final decision on the portfolio would be made not more than six months after it is submitted. CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Morse when he would have updated numbers on how many seniors haven't passed all portions of the test. TAPE 04-17, SIDE A LES MORSE, director of Teaching and Learning Supports with the Department of Education and Early Development, replied they should have the results by late April. With regard to a previous question, [SB 372] he said it would take just a few days to analyze the data and determine how many of the disabled students who have not passed the exam have actually attempted one or more parts. CHAIR DYSON said he would appreciate that. He then told the commissioner he had difficulty believing the DEED fiscal note and if he wanted to make any revisions before the next hearing he would appreciate that. He asked committee members to let him know who they would like to hear from and what additional information they would like when the bill is heard next. SENATOR GUESS said she'd like the public to have an opportunity to testify. SENATOR GARY WILKEN said he would like a day by day account of what happened in March with regard to the exit exam and the time line and how things are moving ahead with the new contractor. He was aware that early in March a group of 60 met in Anchorage to decide on grade level expectations. That information was given to the board in Juneau and they will pass it on to the new testing contractor to come up with the new questions. He said he was particularly interested in the process to evaluate and validate the results of the meeting in Anchorage. He said everyone should be aware of the timeline and the affect that it may or may not have on the quality of the test. COMMISSIONER SAMPSON said Mr. Morse would be the one to do that. CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Morse if he understood what Senator Wilken wanted. MR. MORSE said there has been a lot of activity in March. SENATOR WILKEN said he wanted the information in writing, but he could give a verbal summary. MR. MORSE continued to say that in early March about 60 educators looked at grade level expectations. They also had consultants from the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment who helped guide them through the process. He said that Alaskans primarily drove this but there were also three content specialists from the testing company. Also, earlier that week he met with the testing company to lay out timelines for the rest of the fiscal year for when things had to be done in terms of the whole test development. The grade level expectations that were reviewed by the 60 Alaskans were sent to the State Board of Education on March 16 for approval after which they were transmitted to Data Recognition Corporation. He and a group of Alaskans that make up a technical advisory committee representing several districts would meet with Data Recognition Corporation in Anchorage over the next two days. On Monday about 52 educators would meet with the company to begin writing items for the test using the grade level expectations. CHAIR DYSON reiterated Mr. Slotnick's view that there is a need to bring clarity to the existing law. It is likely that there is a problem with the time for preparation and the Legislature needs to make a policy call to give direction to the department on alternative ways to demonstrate competency. He asked Commissioner Sampson if he would like to add anything. COMMISSIONER SAMPSON emphasized that clarity is needed on the interpretation of the statute as to how to deal with children with disabilities as it pertains to the exit exam. CHAIR DYSON held SB 248 in committee and adjourned the meeting at 3:25 pm.