HB 151-SCHOOL GRADING SYSTEMS  9:21:54 AM CHAIR GATTIS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 151, "An Act establishing a public school and school district grading system for purposes of improving accountability and transparency; providing for Alaska strategic educators in public schools; and providing for an effective date." [Version 28-LS0496/O, Mischel, 3/14/13, was before the committee.] 9:22:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD, speaking as sponsor of HB 151, stated that the bill's short title is the parental education information act. 9:23:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 151, [labeled 28-LS0496\O, Mischel, 3/14/13], as the working document. [Version O was previously adopted on 3/15/13.] 9:24:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD paraphrased from the sponsor statement, which read [original punctuation provided]: "An Act establishing a public school and school district grading system for purposes of improving accountability and transparency; providing for Alaska strategic educators in public schools; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD restated the short title of HB 151 is the parental education information act. She characterized this bill as being a consumer report card for education. As previously stated, the public has consumer reports on many things, such as cars or refrigerators, but education is very important so schools should also be subject to a grade. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD continued with her sponsor statement, which read [original punctuation provided]: Alaskans currently have no unified, consistent and easily understandable method of measuring the performance of our K-12 schools and monitoring their progress. [HB 151], the Parental Education Information Act, will establish grades for our schools and school districts in a format that is familiar and understand: "A through F" grades like our students receive. This bill sets up a clear and specific grading system for schools and school districts, with grades based on both overall student achievement on statewide, standards-based tests, and individual learning gains, including a significant 25 percent of the grade being based on the gains of those students who scored in the lowest quarter of the tests for reading and math. Parents, teachers and administrators will know where their students stand and know what is needed to improve their school districts and their district grades. School districts who raise their performance two grade levels will receive an "A" and they will be rewarded with incentives, including increased autonomy and local control. In other words, we don't want to get in the way of success. The State of Florida implemented the "A through F" grading in 1999. Since then, Florida has made significant gains in [its] test scores, and the gains have been especially notable among students who come from lower-income households or face significant challenges. I strongly believe that HB 151 will do the same for our state, and I request your support for [HB] 151. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD continued with her presentation. She explained that a grading of "A-F" will bring clarity and understanding to the process. She suggested the grading will encourage school excellence, reinforce the current goals, and motivate school improvement. She said the grading system will also direct media and attention to schools, initiate positive statewide competition, and spark widespread support. She further said the grading system will increase parental involvement and create school pride. She offered her belief that all schools can be "A" schools. Finally, the data is already being collected [so it will be easy to implement.] 9:28:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to a letter [of support] in members' packets from Natasha Von Imhof, Anchorage School District dated March 14, 2013. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD then referred to a two-column chart, with headings entitled, "K-12 Education Spending Per Capita" and "4th Grade Reading Scores." 9:29:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reported that according to the NEA the state and local spending [for education] in Alaska is the highest in the nation. However, according to the U.S. Department of Education, Alaska ranks last for the 4th grade reading scores, which is depicted on the far right column. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that Florida is sixth lowest in terms of education funding but its scores are the sixth highest in the nation. 9:30:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to a chart entitled, "Proven Results of the A-F Grading System." She said this depicts the education reform as charted for Florida since 1999. In 2012, over three-fourth of Florida's schools are rated "A and B schools" so the grading system demonstrates positive results in Florida. In 1995, Florida began grading schools as high performing, performing, low performing, and critically low performing. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated that according to the chart the number of "D and F schools" hasn't changed significantly. She asked for further clarification on schools with a "C" rating and where they are depicted on the chart since it seems some data is missing. ROBERT PEARSON, Staff, Representative Lora Reinbold, Alaska State Legislature, responded that the number of "D and F schools" dropped precipitously from 1999 [to 2012], numbering approximately 400. He stated that the number of "A and B schools" is almost seven times more productive. He pointed out this chart doesn't show "C" schools since the chart was designed for comparison purposes for the two groups. He pointed out more schools currently exist in Florida than in 1999; however, in the first year about 1,200 schools fell into either "A and B schools" or "D and F schools." 9:32:38 AM MR. PEARSON stated that based on the chart a larger number of schools received a "C" in 1999, but the number decreases in later years. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND directed attention to the dotted lines on the chart and pointed out the "D and F schools" line is relatively flat, particularly from 2003 to 2011. MR. PEARSON directed attention to the vertical dotted lines on the chart with arrows. He said this demonstrates the five times when Florida raised its standards for "A and B schools." He explained that Florida raised its standards when a certain percentage of schools reached the "A and B" status, which meant the schools must perform better to continue to maintain its status. 9:33:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what happened to the "D and F schools" standards when the "A and B schools" standards were raised. She further asked whether the "D and F schools" standards were also changed. MR. PEARSON answered that the standards were raised for all schools "A" through "D" standard. He explained if the schools could not meet the "D" standard, the schools received an "F." CHAIR GATTIS understood the bar was raised for everyone. MR. PEARSON answered that is correct. 9:34:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the aforementioned graph. She pointed out a lack of consistent movement; instead there seems to be a series of ups and downs. She said she had a hard time understanding the reason for these fluctuations. CHAIR GATTIS asked for further clarification. 9:36:32 AM CHRISTY HOVANETZ, Senior Policy Fellow, Foundation for Excellence in Education (FEE), offered to provide an explanation of the previously mentioned chart. She explained that during 2003-2004 there were considerably more "D and F schools". This graph shows improvements even though the vertical line is absent. Schools performing at a "C" level are not depicted on the graph since some schools dropped in ranking while others increased in ranking. The primary purpose of this graph is to track the excellent performers ["A and B schools"] and the "D and F schools", which are depicted on the top and bottom lines, respectively. She confirmed that the standards have increased over time and the bar was raised across the board for each grade. Additionally, the number of schools has increased in Florida. More importantly, she pointed out that the "D and F schools" depicted are not the same schools [since some of the failing schools improved]. Further, personnel from successful schools frequently are recruited to assist the failing schools, which may adversely affect the schools they left. This explains the consistency in the numbers of low-performing schools since some schools will fluctuate between levels of performance. She drew attention to slide 3, [not in members' packets] which shows the national assessment progress scores. She stated this slide compares Florida student achievement on the 4th Grade reading test beginning in 1992, noting the green line indicates Florida's performance. She directed attention to 1998 and 2002, which showed an increase of eight points on the national assessment for educational progress. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON remarked that the referenced charts are not in members' packets. MR. PEARSON confirmed that Ms. Hovanetz is referring to a slide that is not included in member's packets. 9:40:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the chart entitled, "Proven Results of the A-F Grading System" and pointed out an increase from 2011 and 2012 the "D and F schools", which seems somewhat significant. She asked for further clarification on the increase in failing schools in those years. MS. HOVANETZ answered that during 2011-12, Florida changed its proficiency standards for the Florida Comprehensive Assessment tests, or the statewide standardized assessment testing for reading and math. She pointed out the vertical line between 2010 and 2011 shows the timing; however, higher proficiency standards went into effect during 2011-12, which raised the bar on proficiency. For example, prior to 2012, Florida had approximately 75 to 80 percent of its 4th grade class reading at a proficient level. Once the standard changed, only 55 to 60 percent of the 4th grade classes were considered proficient. While the points weren't altered in terms of the "A-F" schools, Florida changed it statewide standards for student proficiency. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recalled the "C" level schools were not included on the chart since it wasn't possible to identify whether a school increased or decreased. She asked for further clarification why it isn't possible to track these changes since it seems important to know the outcome. MS. HOVANETZ confirmed the line chart indicates the net effect. She assured members that the progress for each school is tracked year to year, including "C" school progress. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further information. MS. HOVANETZ offered to provide the detailed tracking information to the committee. 9:44:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON observed that the bar was gradually raised for requirements. She asked for feedback on the process. MS. HOVANETZ answered that one thing the Foundation for Excellence in Education (FEE) firmly believes is that any educational goals need to be aspirational but achievable and goals should not be unrealistic goals. She suggested that in 1999 their standards were tougher, but she still thought the goals were aspirational ones. She again referred to the chart entitled, "Proven Results of the A-F Grading System" and noted the 515 "A and B schools" were listed with 677 "D and F schools". She emphasized from 1999 to 2001 the standards, statewide tests, the number of points between grade categories, and proficiency standards were not changed. During those three years nearly twice as many "A and B schools" and half as many "D and F schools" are listed. She offered her belief that this is due to the way the material was presented, engaging more people in the educational conversation. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether teacher training changed. MS. HOVANETZ responded since Florida was a local control state, that initially the target and aspirational goals, or standards, were provided and allowed school districts the flexibility to implement them. She acknowledged that students don't all learn in the same way or need the same things so the school districts had flexibility to make the determinations. As the school grading system progressed, the FEE provided more direction to the chronically low-performing schools. Additionally, the highest performing schools, the "A and B schools" earned more flexibility in terms of the accountability system in place. 9:48:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD provided some background for Florida, relating the models the state used for grading prior to the successful A-F grade standard it adopted in 1999. In fact, what education reformists have discovered across the nation is that "what gets measured, gets done." She cautioned against pouring money into an educational system without measurable assessments. Since the data is already being collected in Alaska, additional testing is not required to implement HB 151. She suggested all that is necessary is to synthesize the data and put it into an easily readable and measurable format. Again, she reiterated that all schools have the potential to become "A" performing schools. In short, Alaska's schools need a "jump start" and HB 151 would provide that stimulus. The grading system of A-F would bring a catalyst for change. 9:50:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the Florida approach is being considered beginning with the first year achievable goals. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD anticipated his question would be answered in the remaining presentation. CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the Florida schools knew in advance that the standards would be raised or did the schools learn this during the process. MS. HOVANETZ acknowledged the initial changes to standards in 2001 were included in the enabling legislation in 1999. The changes in 2004-2005 occurred with rulemaking, in part, to comply with NCLB. In 2007, another planned assessment and enhancement occurred. In 2010, the changes were made to include high school accountability, such as college and career readiness, to incorporate the ACT/SAT scores and graduation rates into the calculated. In summary, significant planned enhancements happened and school districts were provided at least a one year notice of any enhancements. 9:53:46 AM MR. PEARSON offered to review the section-by-section analysis of the bill. He stated that Section 1 provides a short title: "Parental Education Information Act." [HB] 151 will give members of the public and parents of students in Alaska's schools comprehensible information on school and school district performance. He characterized this as a consumer report for education. MR. PEARSON related that Section 2, AS 14.03.123 (a), would add charter and boarding schools to the school and district accountability statue and place all qualifying schools under the grading system specified in Section 5 of this bill. He noted that approximately 78 schools will not be qualified to participate since they have 20 or fewer students. MR. PEARSON said that Section 3, AS 14.03.123 (c), specifies the performance designation regulations shall include the grading system specified in Section 5 of this bill. Section 4, AS 14.03.123 (f), specifies that student performance measures are to be based on statewide standards-based assessments. It would also add the science assessment and specifies that the accountability system include indicators of school progress. It would remove unspecified "other measures" currently in statute. MR. PEARSON said Section 5, AS 14.03.124, would add a new provision that identifies the school and school district performance designations as "A," "B," "C," "D," and "F." It would also specify the formula for assigning school designations and exemptions from the designation. It would also provide incentives based on performance as well as identifying criteria for school district performance designations. It would also identify "Alaska Strategic Educators" who are classroom teachers who volunteer and are assigned to teach in schools that earned a "D" or "F" designation the previous year. Finally, Section 6 provides an effective date of July 1, 2014. He concluded that the EED would implement the program. 9:56:26 AM DAVID BOYLE, Executive Director, Alaska Policy Forum, stated support for HB 151, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided with formatting changes]: Chairwoman Gattis and committee members, I am David Boyle and I am speaking for the Alaska Policy Forum. The Alaska Policy Forum strongly supports HB 151. To illustrate and shine the light on the issue of transparency and the definite lack of information provided to parents by school districts, I would like to share some personal stories that I experienced last year. These stories occurred during the last day of formal registration in the Anchorage school district. I wanted to inform parents of their rights according to both federal and state law, that they could get their kids out of failing public schools and get them into successful public schools. In addition, the school district is required to transport these children free to the successful public school. What I discovered was eye opening. I stood out front of three failing schools in the poorer side of town, Mountain View to be exact. I handed out information which included a list of those schools that had failed NCLB for three years or more. This list included 16 schools in the district. I also included an ASD application form to transfer a student to a successful public school. Finally, I had a flyer which described, in easily understood language, the parents' rights under the law. I talked to 21 parents and informed them that the school they were about to enroll their children in had failed NCLB. Of those 21, none, repeat none of them knew the status of the school. Of those 21, 17 were going to opt out of the failing school and get their kids into a successful public school. One African American father had just enrolled his son in a failing school, Clark Middle School, which has failed NCLB for 9 years with no changes as required under the law. The father told me it was a terrible school. He said all they did was to give the kids free stuff. He was enthused when I told him about his rights to get his son to a successful public school. The next day I received a call from an Alaska Native grandmother who scolded me several times because I was not outside the elementary school on the first day of registration-that was the day she had enrolled her two granddaughters in a failing public school. She thought I was a school district employee providing information. I told her I was not a district employee, just a volunteer trying to get the best education for the kids. I then took a package of information to her apartment and she thanked me profusely. You see, she had already lost a granddaughter to drugs at East High and was determined to get the best for her two other granddaughters. I thanked her for being involved in her grandkids' education. Later next week, I received a call late at night from a father who spoke in broken English. He had taken off work to get his two children out of a failing school in Mountain View. Unfortunately, the district had lost his paper work and his kids would have to remain in the failing school for a few more days. The principal had even tried to persuade the father to keep his children in the failing school. I contacted a school board member and before the next school day began, that father's two kids were in a successful school. I could tell you more personal stories but time limits me. The ASD mailed out more than 8,600 letters to households informing parents of their rights under law to get their children out of the failing schools and enroll them in a successful public school. Unfortunately, most of these letters were received the day after the formal registration window closed. If one assumes about 1.5 students per household, this would mean that about 12,000 students were in failing ASD public schools - about 25 percent of the total student enrollment. I have to add that if the Department of Education and Early Development gets a waiver to NCLB, which they requested, none of the districts will be required to offer public school choice and free transportation. These kids will be trapped in failing schools. To me, I find that disgusting. I also have a physician friend who had a kid in a failing school in the district. She received a letter from the school district and was unable to understand what it said. We believe this is about power and transparency. Information is power and bureaucracies know this best. Parents are the consumers of public education and they should be told how well or how poorly their schools are doing. Would you eat at a restaurant if you knew it had failed its health inspection? Would you go to a restaurant that had a good health inspection rating? Well, let me tell you: education is much more important than restaurants. When you travel, you look for lodging. Would you stay at a one star hotel at $100 a night or would you stay at a five star hotel at the same price? This is exactly the way it is in Alaska's education system. We have great public schools in Alaska. School districts should be proud and tell parents how well their schools are doing. By the way, the Alaska Policy Forum has report cards on the ASD and the Mat-Su School Districts. We used a simple metric: we averaged together each school's SBA math and reading scores and assigned a letter grade based on these scores. The Matsu only has two D and F schools. The ASD, on the other hand, had 21 schools that received a D or an F. You can go to our website and see for yourself. Some of you listened to Mr. Kevin Chavous testify at the joint House and Senate Education and Judiciary meeting last month. Remember one of his truisms: you don't know what you don't know. This is true, especially for parents. The bottom line: if we are going to grade students, we should grade ourselves and our schools. I might add rather than put the grade for the specific school on the school's website, I would strongly recommend you put it on the home page of the website because in my experience it's very difficult to find information on some school district's websites. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important matter to all parents and Alaska's children and please pass out HB 151. 10:02:58 AM [HB 151 was held over.]