HB 330-STATE EDUCATION STANDARDS  8:59:24 AM CHAIR DICK announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 330, "An Act establishing a Joint Legislative Task Force on Education Standards; requiring the Department of Labor and Workforce Development to provide information and resources to the task force; establishing state education standards; amending the authority of the Department of Education and Early Development to adopt education standards; and providing for an effective date." 8:59:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 330, Version 27-LS1100\E, Mischel, 3/20/12, as the working document. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion. 9:00:20 AM ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, Alaska State Legislature, directed attention to the handout, in the committee packet, titled "Sectional Analysis CS HB 330 ( ) Version E State Education Standards," dated 3/20/12, paraphrasing the language, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 1: Sets out the findings substantiating the creation of the Jt. Legislative Task Force on Sustainable Education. Section 2: The purpose of the Task Force is to: examine the efficiency and effectiveness of education delivery in Alaska, with a specific focus on education funding and educational standards, and the ability to prepare students for significant careers. The Task Force will submit a report of its findings and proposed legislative changes to the governor, the legislature and the Board of Education and Early Development by September 30, 2013, and make any additional reports it considers advisable. The duties of the task force begin at Page 2, Line 30: 1. Create a process for vetting proposed education standards before the standards are adopted by the state board of Education and Early Development 2. Propose separate education tracks for postsecondary vocational and college readiness; 3. Evaluate school district challenges that result from implementation of federal education laws; 4. Evaluate the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and redundancies of various education assessment, including the high school graduation qualifying examination, and make recommendations to the legislature, the governor and the state Board of Education and Early Development for improvement or restructuring of assessments; 5. Conduct an analysis of public education that funding that includes: A. A determination of the adequacy of public school funding for coverage of appropriate education expenses; B. A determination of the appropriate uses of the base student allocation; C. Alternative methods of addressing fluctuating energy, health, insurance, personnel, and pupil transportation costs; D. The total amounts of state, local, and federal funding available to each district and for each category of special needs service area; E. A comparison of the allocation of administrative and instructional personnel among districts; F. Whether the allocation of administrative and instructional personnel has an effect on the ability to provide effective instructional services in each district; and G. The effect of pension and health care expenses on total state education costs 6. Evaluate the availability of courses meeting core academic curriculum requirements under AS 14.43.820(a)(3) in each district. The membership of the Task Force begins on Page 3, Line 31: The Task Force members are appointed by the Senate President and House Speaker and represent: a. Six members of the Legislature including chairmen of the Education Committees b. Eight members as follows: i. a representative of the Department of Education and Early Development ii. a small business owner iii. a superintendent iv. a school board member v. a public member vi. three representatives of major career destinations of high school graduates in the state, jointly nominated by the commissioner of labor and workforce development and the commissioner of commerce, community, and economic development. The task force meets at the call of the chair. The Senate President and House Speaker shall jointly appoint the chair and vice chair of the task force. Section 3: The existing content and performance standards will remain in effect until the new process is developed and the newly vetted standards are adopted. Section 4: The task force is repealed on July 1, 2014. The temporary law in Section 3 is also repealed July 1, 2014. Section 5: The bill has an immediate effective date. 9:04:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. Without further objection, Version E was before the committee. 9:05:58 AM MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development (EED), expressed concern for the lengthy timeline that is involved with the duties placed on the task force. The ability to adopt appropriate standards, and to bring a college ready curriculum to students of the state, would be delayed by at minimum one and one half years, which could be longer depending on legislative response or other adjustments. Thus far, the proposed standards have been in development for two years. Appointing a task force charged with beginning this process over could delay introduction of new standards until 2016. The proposed standards have been developed to provide students with a career and college ready foundation, and he said, it has been recognized that the current standards do not provide the necessary rigor and have been deemed inadequate. College reports indicate that students arrive at college unprepared and require remediation, and employers report that new recruits lack necessary work skills. Also, three of the largest school districts have lamented that, "the State's going too slow," and indicated interest in adopting the federal common core standards rather than wait longer. He referred to the comments of Superintendent Allen, heard earlier today, who said that meeting the requirements of the proposed standards might be a challenge, but the necessary actions would be taken to accomplish the task. He opined that the cost of maintaining the status quo, or delaying the process, would be to the students. Regarding the development of a two track system, he said the burden could present an impossible mandate, particularly in small districts with limited staff. He offered an example of a small school, with an enrollment of 25, deciding which track to offer. Considering the statewide transient rate of 15-30 percent, a student could easily enter a new school with an alternate focus and find themselves out of alignment. The issue would then become a question regarding what could adequately be offered to students in a comprehensive way, and he predicted that two tracks would create dis parity. 9:10:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that the primary duty of the task force is to develop a process for vetting the proposed standards, prior to adoption by the Board of Education, and he asked for an understanding of how the current standards were developed. COMMISSIONER HANLEY said it was an open process and federal guidelines were followed. Primarily educators provided feedback, but other stakeholders and members of the private sector were invited to comment and vest themselves in the development of the educational standards. 9:12:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA opined that rural Alaska is in a state of collapse, and enormous loss is occurring, as evidenced by the district presentations reporting declining enrollments. A variety of conditions are contributing to the loss including the cost of energy and infrastructure for communities. Reports issued by Commonwealth North indicate that dependency on diesel, in the Alaskan Bush, is a major factor to the collapse. She stressed that the survival of rural Alaska and the human resources that exist in the Bush are on a timeline. The loss of what is currently in place would represents a cost to the state, she said, and suggested the need to take this under consideration. Additionally, she opined, the state must pay more attention to the educational needs and identify appropriate changes that are necessary for students to persevere and progress. 9:14:25 AM CHAIR DICK agreed. He then said that educational rigor is important and the students need to be challenged. The proposed standards will prove suitable to prepare students for tackling postsecondary degree programs, he predicted, but questioned the lack of evidence indicating how the needs of the remaining 93 percent will be met. Referring to notes, he paraphrased a recent statement from Ben Bernanke, Chairman, U.S. Federal Reserve, stating: The U.S. has to foster development of a skilled workforce, if it is going to enjoy good long term prospects. The U.S. education system, despite considerable strengths, poorly serves a substantial portion of our population. CHAIR DICK said that the best and the brightest are being served, and concern must be directed to the students whose needs are not being met; those who will not complete a four year degree. COMMISSIONER HANLEY stated his belief that the proposed standards will meet or exceed what is required for career and technical training. CHAIR DICK concurred and pointed out that the question is whether or not every student must meet the standards. The idea to have every child excel is good, but in reality the needs of students who are not college bound may be lost. He indicated that only four non-educators were involved in the development of the standards and suggested it may be due to the prevalence of the esoteric language utilized. A conversation needs to occur that involves more stakeholders, he opined, stating that the process for creating standards has not changed and a better, updated system, written in an applicable manner, would prove helpful. 9:19:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON acknowledged that the development process for creating standards could be frustrating and give pause for questioning. However, he reminded, that the passage of HB 330 would accept and retain the current standards until 2016, and conjectured whether that would be appropriate. One third of the students may be opted out of the current standards, if three large districts elect to adopt the federal core standards in the coming months; removing the state from the process. The bill poses a challenging idea with a difficult timeline to consider, and he said his office would offer amendments. 9:22:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE agreed that additional outside opinions would be helpful in creating new standards. He suggested that industry retirees may be a resource. COMMISSIONER HANLEY concurred. REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE noted that the new standards will raise the bar, and opined that doing so does not represent a negative action. Raising the bar should that be a problem for students who do not aspire in the same direction as their peers. Further, he said that the proposed standards are reported to be understandable by the current teachers, and questioned the wisdom of putting a hold on the process, thus creating a possible four year delay. The change may be an attempt to fix something that is not necessarily broken, he opined. The idea of a task force is reasonable and he suggested proceeding with the adoption process, as well as seating a task force. 9:26:44 AM CHAIR DICK reminded the committee that the proposed standards are purported to have been developed specifically, of, by and for Alaskans. However, having conducted a page by page comparison, he stated his believe that the standards were created by cutting and pasting the federal core standards, save a few minor changes. Referring to the Brookings Institute handout, available in the committee packet, he reminded members that the findings indicate how it is necessary to look beyond the common core standards in order to improve education in America. The proposed legislation has drawn a cursory response that it would create a dumbing down of the standards, which is not the intent. To understand the intent it may prove helpful to scrutinize and understand the term "rigor" in an educational context. In a school setting, he said the term is understood to mean that a student will advance beyond comprehension and recall and learn higher level thinking skills as developed through synthesis, analysis, and evaluation. He directed attention to the committee handout, titled "Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Levels," and introduced it is a tool used by teachers when incorporating higher level thinking skills; that is rigor. One myth that needs debunking is that high level math, trigonometry and calculus, are required in order for rigor to preside; however, relating math to realistic, daily activities, can afford appropriate and adequate rigor, as applied to farming, mining, and other realistic situations. Further, he agreed that the current standards need to be replaced. He reported that he worked on developing the existing standards, and opined that the process was flawed at the time and that without change it will continue to be flawed. Referring to Representative Feige's suggestion to adopt the proposed standards and "go with the next cycle," he pointed out that it will require another six year cycle before assessments are analyzed and changes can again be considered. Once the proposed standards are adopted, there is no turning back on the path and, he maintained, further information is needed prior to taking that step. He suggested sending samples of the standards to districts for a period of time as a field test, as well as other means for improving the system, which could include writing the standards in layman language, and conducting a state survey asking participants to rate their Alaskan educational experience. He stressed that submitting the proposed standards to a task force for review would be important and perhaps result in advice to continue the process for adoption. Finally, he stated his belief in having high standards and pointed out that currently many districts are teaching beyond what is required, as the standards represent the information that will be assessed without restricting what is taught. 9:33:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled that districts currently establish independent policies for high school graduation requirements, and the standards should not mandate what classes a district must require. He said that the assessments allow comparison of the knowledge base between areas. 9:35:48 AM CHAIR DICK stated his understanding that the proposed standards dictate to each district that every student is required to learn trigonometry. He predicted that having this mandate will affect AYP, and stressed the need to have standards that reflect the abilities of all students, while maintaining extremely high goals. 9:36:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented that the commissioner previously indicated that the proposed standards are directly from the core standards, with minimal alterations. Also, districts have not been restricted from developing approaches and establishing course determinations and credit requirements for gradation, under the current standards. A problem does exist, when students arrive at college unprepared. She held that adopting new standards, developed by the state or common core, will not change what is occurring in the districts. However, adopting the proposed standards will allow the state to qualify for a waiver to out of NCLB, thus removing the AYP compliance factor. She opined that opting out of NCLB to avoid the AYP factor is not an appropriate action. Having a task force will prove to be helpful and provide important feedback, she said and predicted that meaningful determinations would be the result. Finishing, she conjectured that the standards are not a big deal, but it would be important to have a means to identify what is a big deal and take appropriate measures. 9:41:29 AM CHAIR DICK commented on the rationale for providing two educational tracks and standards. The standards, and text books that are in use, are designed for college bound students, thus one track already exists. He suggested that college bound students may be slowed down in class by those who do not have the same focus. The two track approach taken in Northern Ireland has resulted in an increase of career bound students deciding to attend college. Regarding the development of the standards, he said it would be helpful to have input from professionals who did not create a foundation of financial success based on, or derived through, obtaining a college degree. 9:43:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the Northern Ireland approach is instructive but creates a number of questions regarding how applicable it might be to the situation in Alaska, and the task force would make those types of determinations. He agreed with Representative Wilson that the standards aren't a dictate for the way in which children are taught, but represent the basis of what is to be learned. The knowledge base in what is important and what is being addressed in the schools. He stated support for a task force, and conjectured that it would be able to explore information, such as the Northern Ireland approach and whether it employs two sets of standards, or establishes two methods for student engagement utilizing vocational and academic tracks. 9:45:22 AM COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the state standard establishes a requirement for a minimum of 21 credits for graduation, which must include two years of math and certain other courses. He pointed out that the two year math requirement could be satisfied without taking a senior level math course. CHAIR DICK asked whether the students would be tested on the proposed standards. COMMISSIONER HANLEY responded that the students would be assessed in grade 10 [HSGQE] on the standards. The standards are currently established for grades 3-10, and he said he would not anticipate a change in the assessment structure. CHAIR DICK questioned the structure and accuracy of the assessments. COMMISSIONER HANLEY explained that the curriculum will be aligned with the standards to help students attain their highest level of interest. He pointed out that two courses in math may put a student through Algebra but does not allow them to qualify for certain opportunities, including the Alaska Performance Scholarship, which requires four. In closing, Commissioner Hanley said HB 330 requires placing a freeze on the current standards until the legislature takes further action, and he expressed concern for creating that type of delay. Finally, he stated his understanding that the task force would be reviewing the process for creating standards, not reviewing the proposed standards for approval. [HB 330 was held over.]