HB 151-SCHOOL GRADING SYSTEMS  8:05:47 AM CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first 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." 8:06:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD, prime sponsor of HB 151, observed that the education committee is tasked with an important mission: to oversee the laws of education in Alaska. As a whole, Alaska can improve its system of education by instituting a grading system to help schools become aware of their effectiveness and to be a catalyst for change. She said HB 151 - the Parental Education Information Act - is a consumer report for education that creates school accountability through transparency by providing a simple and comprehensive grading system. The bill directs the Department of Education and Early Development (EED) to establish by regulation the criteria that accounts for improvement in student achievement by assigning annual performance designations on an A-F scale. She clarified that criteria for the performance designation, based on two years of data, would be as follows: (1) 50 percent combined student achievement data in reading, writing, math, and science (2) 25 percent individual learning gains of all students in reading, writing, and math (3) 25 percent individual learning gains in reading and math achieved by students who scored at or below the 25th percentile on the statewide standards-based assessment in reading or math REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD pointed out the bill exempts schools with less than 20 full-time students from this section. The impacts of the grading system are as follows: · bring clarity and understanding · provide a consumer report card to communities · motivate improvement · spark community-wide support · increase parental involvement · be a catalyst for change REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD provided background information on the next speaker. 8:11:41 AM CHRISTY HOVANETZ, PhD, Senior Policy Fellow, Foundation for Excellence in Education, directed attention to the graph found in the committee packet entitled, "School Grades by School Type in 2012." She explained the graph is a complete representation of all of the schools in Florida receiving grades A-F in 2012. Also in the committee packet was a graph entitled, "School Grades for 2012 Compared to 2011: Elementary Schools," and she noted that Florida substantially raised its proficiency standards between the 2011 and 2012 school years thereby affecting one-half of each school's grade. The graph depicts the number of schools improved to a higher grade even though the "bar of proficiency went up" in 2012. Dr. Hovanetz said, "... specifically for F schools and D schools as had been highlighted in our previous conversation, that not many schools that earned a D or an F remained a D or an F the following year. There is a lot of movement of those schools up and down based on the instructional practices and the instructional leadership of that school from year to year." 8:14:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON requested clarity on the second graph. DR. HOVANETZ restated the purpose of the graph. In further response to Representative P. Wilson, she said the numbers in yellow are the number of schools that maintained their grade from the previous year, the numbers in green are the number of schools that increased a letter grade, and the numbers in pink are the numbers of schools that declined a letter grade. She offered that the graph portrays a comparison of schools' letter grades from 2011 to 2012. Discussion on the graph followed. 8:20:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the same graph for middle schools, and pointed out that in B, C, and D categories there were more schools that declined than increased a letter grade. He asked whether data from 2010 to 2011 was available, as that data would not be affected by changes in assessment criteria. DR. HOVANETZ said the data exists for each year, although the standards are raised every "couple years." She reminded the committee that Alaska will be writing its own proficiency standards and its own grading criteria. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested comparative information for 2010. He acknowledged that Alaska proficiency standards also change each year. [The middle school graph Representative Seaton referred to was not included in the committee packet.] REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, again taking information from the middle school graph, advised that for middle schools, in the B category, eight times as many schools decreased a letter grade than improved. In the C category, seven times as many schools decreased a letter grade than improved, and in the D category, twice as many schools decreased a letter grade than improved. 8:24:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated her general support for the idea of grading schools; however, she suggested that the data could be used in a different context to attribute improvements in grades to school choice, or to other factors in the Florida schools. She asked how the data proves that these improvements are due to the school grading system. DR. HOVANETZ stated that data, prior and post to the implementation of the grading system, indicates that the percentage of students improving on national assessments for fourth grade reading and math has increased substantially, even though there were not many other reforms taking place in Florida. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for the effective dates of the following programs in Florida: the school grading system, the third grade reading and retention program, and the school choice program. DR. HOVANETZ responded the school grading program became effective in 1999. At the same time, there were multiple school choice programs available, including opportunity scholarships for students in failing schools who wanted to move to better- performing schools. The third grade retention policy did not come into effect for another five years, thus that program did not play a part in the initial improvements in school performance. 8:28:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND reported from a newspaper article that the Florida school system has slipped out of the "top ten" due to budget cuts and stalled national test scores. She asked to see the accountability program data aligned with Florida's budget, noting that the governor is seeking to restore education funding, and Florida is falling in all 14 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) categories. DR. HOVANETZ agreed that Florida's scores declined slightly in 2011, and observed that a change of governor has led to a weakening in the leadership advocating for educational reform. However, there is a strong effort to maintain the rigor of the accountability system and to increase proficiency requirements. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated her support for the grading system, but agreed with the need for details on all of Florida's reform efforts, beginning with the starting point at which Florida was compared to other states. Information on the grading system could then be looked at relative to all of the other reform efforts and student funding. DR. HOVANETZ reported that in the 1990s Florida was in the bottom ten ranking for fourth and eighth grade reading and math, nationwide. The most recent rankings put Florida into the top ten after the implementation of school grading. She offered to provide the state ranking data for those years, and pointed out that Florida has not mandated any type of statewide professional development instruction or curriculum. Statewide policies such as expectations for reading levels are without specific classroom direction as to how the expectations are to be met, although districts were offered professional development, curriculum and materials, and diagnostic training assessments. For the grading system, the state holds schools accountable for ensuring that students are proficient and make at least one year's progress in one year's time, but did not direct the local districts on how to do so. 8:35:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether students in the Anchorage School District receive A-F report card grades. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD understood through third grade students receive N, S, or O. Students in higher grades receive A-F. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER observed there are other assessments of school performance at the state and federal levels, and asked the sponsor for information on those assessments. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated the annual yearly progress (AYP) report - related to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) - is available, but is complicated and includes information on the district as a whole. Each school receives an individual report card on topics such as race, participation, attendance, retention, transience, economics, volunteers, drop-outs, and reading scores. She opined that HB 151 adds one more layer to data that is already being collected in order to create a simple report card similar to the sample found in the committee packet. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the NCLB AYP report concludes with an overall rating. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said no. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER then asked whether there is a state assessment. 8:39:40 AM MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development (EED), informed the committee EED's standards based assessment (SBA) is given annually in grades three through ten as a function of complying with federal accountability measures. Although the data can be broken down by subgroups, the main score reflects whether a school meets AYP or not. The bill adds a separate system in addition to the one already in place. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the system added by HB 151 is duplicative or complementary. COMMISSIONER HANLEY said the systems would measure slightly different aspects. At this time, EED has submitted a waiver to change the AYP model and instead rate schools on a five-star system; the proposed bill "could be considered complementary." In further response to Representative Saddler, he said a parent would go to the state web site to see the status of federal compliance and the report card created by the proposed bill. 8:42:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested a simpler chart could be developed on how many schools met or did not meet AYP rather than bringing in a new system to report on the same year. DR. HOVANETZ clarified that the school grading system does not improve student achievement; the school grading system highlights students' performance in the school to demonstrate whether or not the school is meeting the needs of its students. The A-F grading system has been a major catalyst for schools to change albeit without any direction from the state. As schools are held accountable and grades are made public, the A-F system shines a bright light on schools that are or are not successful, leading to changes and improvements at the school. She advised that these changes follow immediately. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned attention to the graph indicating declines and said he could not see how the letter scores actually produced those results. He noted that HB 151 uses a rolling average of two years and asked how a two-year average would affect the changes in Florida. DR. HOVANETZ said Florida does not use a two-year average and could not comment on the possible impact. The two-year average is not used because it complicates the system and does not give a true picture of what is happening in a current year. She returned attention to the graph, explaining that when a 75 percent improvement rate in the number of schools graded A or B is attained, Florida raises the standard higher. From 2011 to 2012, Florida raised the bar and that explains the number of schools that are in decline. She assured the committee that in 2013 there will be an increase in A and B schools; in fact, data from 2010 to 2011 shows "a very different picture." Dr. Hovanetz restated the importance of continuing to raise the bar on standards to prevent the data from becoming meaningless. 8:49:45 AM CHAIR GATTIS noted that Alaska is currently using a five-star program to grade schools, but the bill proposes to change from stars to A-F, for simplicity, and the rating will be prominently displayed for easy access by parents. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD emphasized that the same data will be in a different and clearer form. Further, the data would be 50 percent based on achievement and 25 percent on individual learning gains in reading, writing, and math, and 25 percent on the lowest 25 percentile. Basically, the bill strips out all of the accessories and focuses on the core of achievement and learning gains. She called attention to an unnamed handout in the committee packet to point out that Alaska spends the highest amount per pupil yet ranks last according to 2011 NAEP scores; Florida spends only $1,517 per pupil, yet ranked sixth overall in the nation in reading. Representative Reinbold concluded that the grading system was a part of a comprehensive system of reform that can also be a catalyst for change in Alaska. 8:52:38 AM ROBERT PEARSON, Staff, Representative Lora Reinbold, Alaska State Legislature, clarified that the star system is part of EED's NCLB waiver application and is not in place at this time. Furthermore, there is a major difference between the criteria for grading in that the proposed one- to five-star system uses 70 percent achievement and learning gains, 25 percent attendance, and 5 percent participation. The grading system in the bill determines a grade on the basis of 50 percent achievement and 50 percent learning gains. 8:53:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, referring to both the star and HB 151 grading systems, observed that a school that starts out very low and makes significant gains may earn a higher grade than a school that was already performing well. Her experience is that a grading system should be based on performance rather than improvement. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD responded that the grading system does just that by eliminating the nonacademic statistics such as attendance and participation, and grading 50 percent on reading, writing, math, and science testing. However, it is important to show progress to motivate schools and students. DR. HOVANETZ agreed that the ultimate goal is to have all children proficient. Further, if students enter school proficient, there still needs to be an indication of continued progress. On the other hand, there needs to be an indication that teachers are ensuring that underperforming students are also making a year's worth of progress. 8:57:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER cautioned that if the basis for assessments is "gains" there is the possibility that schools will reach a limit at the top. He pointed out that Florida continues to raise standards thus students will always have room for achievement; however, if HB 151 bases 25 percent on the growth in the lowest 25 percentile of schools, and 25 percent on learning gains, there may only be a "a tiny fraction of improvement available." MR. PEARSON advised that all schools have a mix of various achievement levels among their student body. The point of the criteria of the grading system is that a high-achieving student body will still have to make a year's progress, or more, to improve or maintain a grade. The rewarding of extra points is intended to help schools rise up students in the lowest 25 percent, and that component is recognized by schools and teachers as a very important part of the education system. DR. HOVANETZ added that the method of defining learning gains addresses students who are performing at an advanced level, in that it measures whether they are still performing at an advanced level in the following year. In fact, only those students who maintain their advanced level are counted as making learning gains even though they are proficient. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER agreed with the previous statement that an A-B-C grade is a reflection of achievement but does not imply accelerated learning or improvement, and he said he was not comfortable with the added element of a change in achievement level. He asked for information about the Alaska Strategic Educator section of the bill, and any related cost. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD relayed her intent is to give EED the power to recognize outstanding teachers who are willing to transfer to a D or F school. The teachers will be identified as Alaska Strategic Educators, and this can be accomplished without adding a fiscal note. 9:02:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if the grading system provides a means to assist individual teachers who need extra help. DR. HOVANETZ answered that the school grade does not provide data on individual teachers, but the principal will receive accountability information on individual student performance within the school, and this will reveal whether there are classes with a majority of students who are not making learning gains. 9:05:13 AM CHAIR GATTIS opened public testimony. 9:05:28 AM BOB GRIFFIN, Research Fellow, Alaska Policy Forum; Contributing Member, Students First - American Federation for Children, stated his support for HB 151. He said he has attended dozens of education seminars across the country, and views this reform as one of the most effective and inexpensive that he has encountered. Alaska has a combination of expensive K-12 education per pupil and low performance, and the state is in desperate need of cultural change along the lines of the Parental Education Information Act. He compared educational statistics between Florida and Alaska, reporting that in 2011, Alaska was first in per-capita educational spending and fiftieth in reading for low- and upper middle-income students. One of the most important aspects of the Parental Education Information Act is a rating system that allows for chronically low- performing schools to show improvement. He opined there is a lack of choice in small communities and in chronically low- performing schools, and assigning grades to schools will serve as a positive catalyst for cultural change and will spur innovation and change such as happened at the Alaska Native Cultural Charter School. He disagreed with those who consider HB 151 as punitive, and compared the bill to other simple consumer rating systems that provide [objective] data. Inspiration for the Alaska Strategic Educator came from the education summit in Anchorage and this model has been used to great advantage in another state. Mr. Griffin urged for a cultural change in K-12 education statewide, beginning with HB 151. 9:11:29 AM LADAWN DRUCE, Representative, Kenai Peninsula Education Association/NEA-Alaska, indicated her opposition to HB 151. Ms. Druce stated that educators in Alaska are continuing to learn and strive to better Alaska's education system. She said she will serve on the advisory teacher evaluation group formed to advise EED on the new teacher evaluation regulations, a component of which is related to student learning data. Ms. Druce referred to earlier testimony and disagreed that the proposed grading system is simple and comprehensive; in fact, it is not simple to understand, as evidenced by the questions generated by the committee in this meeting. Furthermore, although assignment of a letter grade may be simple, education is not, and educating students is a complex art that involves other subject areas that the grading system does not address. The bill intends to motivate improvement, but she questioned how, and stated parental involvement is attained by inviting parents into schools to be part of the school community. She suggested that education is not a competition and is not relevant to a business model, because schools do not control their populations. She recalled teaching at Kotzebue High School in the 1980s, and said becoming a D or F school attaches a stigma - not a positive motivation - to a school in a situation where students have no other high school to attend. Finally, she asked the sponsor to identify the problems that the bill seeks to address, and to work with educators to identify and solve problems. 9:14:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether teachers would be attracted to serve in low-performing schools as an Alaska Strategic Educator. MS. DRUCE was unfamiliar with that section of the bill. 9:15:56 AM TIM PARKER informed the committee he has been a teacher at Lathrop High School for 15 years. He said his experience in motivating and improving student performance has proven that shaming is not a positive approach on how to improve schools. It is a fact that most of the low-ranking schools deal with the problems of poverty and transiency, which cannot be solved by assigning a grade to a school. Mr. Parker recalled his teacher training taught him that improvement comes from talking to students and providing extra support. He agreed with Representative LeDoux that the bill is not tied to student performance, and advised that teacher in-service opportunities and extra time with students would be actual solutions to do so. He urged for adequate support for schools to enable teachers to provide services to students who are struggling. He stated that NEA-Alaska is in favor of positive changes in education such as providing directed professional development, professional learning communities, peer review, extending the time of the school year, creating a good evaluation system, family/school partnering, and delivering a varied curriculum. Mr. Parker urged for future legislation addressing the aforementioned topics. 9:19:58 AM JACOB BERA said he is a teacher at Eagle River High School and a member of the Anchorage Educational Association and NEA-Alaska. He expressed his concern about HB 151 because it stigmatizes a school instead of providing ideas for improvement. He agreed with the intent of the bill which is to recognize and identify areas of success and areas which need improvement; however, HB 151 moves in the wrong direction to motivate parents and provide a catalyst for change. He returned attention to the existing school report card issued by the Anchorage School District (ASD), noting that education and assessment is more complex than a letter grade can represent and the ASD report card provides a more complete picture. For example, the ASD report card for Eagle River High School indicates improved scores, the school's goals and actions for improvement, parental involvement, school strategies, and school successes. Mr. Bera's research revealed that although the intent of the bill is well-meaning, and he supports accountability, rigor, parental information, and parental choice, the proposed report card does not provide pathways to improvement. He referred to the Alaska Strategic Educator section of the bill and questioned whether there is motivation for a teacher to transfer to a school that has been identified as a failing school. Mr. Bera gave an example of the excellent teaching staff at Mountain View Elementary, even though it has been targeted by the Alaska Policy Forum as a failing school. He provided copies of NEA-Alaska's guidelines, "Six Principles for Leading the Profession" to the committee. 9:25:20 AM KEVIN SHIPLEY, Superintendent, Kake City Schools, agreed that Alaska needs to make changes in its educational system that will improve the performance of all students. Although he does not have a problem with the A-F grading system, he stated he has concerns about the bill. Mr. Shipley noted his experience as a "turn-around specialist" for 12 years in Texas, on which the Florida grading model is based, and that he understand the reform model of education and how it affects changes that have been implemented in Alaska. While the challenges are similar, there are differences between Alaska, Texas, and Florida, thus solutions to problems are not the same. He provided specific outcomes to the Florida model, and opined that standards have been manipulated: scores for minority students were raised, but not in a way that related to college readiness or to the ACT and Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). He questioned the wisdom of implementing a system from another state into Alaska, citing the cost of new testing requirements for science. Mr. Shipley cautioned the unintended consequences of the bill may stigmatize low-income schools and students. CHAIR GATTIS restated that the science section has been removed from the bill. 9:28:32 AM CHAIR GATTIS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony. [HB 151 was held over.]