HB 190-CREDIT FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL COURSES  9:08:12 AM CHAIR GATTIS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 190, "An Act providing for course credit in secondary school based on demonstrated mastery of the subject." 9:08:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, sponsor of HB 190, reviewed the intent of the proposed bill, and stated that students taking college courses were not receiving full course credit because of a lack of "seat time." He explained that the proposed bill allowed students who had demonstrated mastery of the course content to challenge to test out of the course and receive the full academic credit. He reported that each school district would still define the demonstration of mastery for the course subject, and would be required to provide an assessment for a challenge to a course. He pointed out that although some school districts had already established policy for challenging courses, other districts had not, and the bill required this for every school district. He noted that the course credits would apply toward fulfillment for the Alaska Performance Scholarship, but it was not required that these credits be factored into a grade point average. He shared that this challenge did not include credit for any of the prerequisite courses. He directed attention to the Credit By Choice program in the Anchorage School District [Included in members' packets], and clarified that it was not the intent for all the policies to be the same. He reiterated that each school district could determine its own policy of course challenges for credit, which would only apply to those courses already offered by the school, and that a fee could be charged for the assessment. He stressed the need for progressive education and to keep students engaged. 9:13:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her belief that some classes would be more easily assessed than others, expressing her support for the opportunity to challenge offered by proposed HB 190. 9:14:32 AM CHAIR GATTIS shared an anecdote about required coursework, and commented that students were often held back due to the lack of opportunity to challenge out. She stated support for HB 190. 9:15:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to page 1, lines 10- 11, and asked about the implied cost for development of an assessment tool. He pointed out that, although the fiscal note was zero to the state, the school districts would have some cost to develop a fair assessment tool. He asked the sponsor for an estimate to the cost of a fair assessment tool. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that, a final exam could be used for any class using a text book. For classes that required actual production, it could require individual time from a teacher, which was the reason the Anchorage School District required an $85.00 challenge fee. He opined that scholarships for fees would be available, if necessary. He declared that there was not a mandate to design a separate assessment tool for every student. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested that school districts share standards and approaches, which could lead to more consistency. 9:18:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON directed attention to page 1, lines 10- 11, which stated that a school district "shall" establish as assessment tool, and she suggested a need for the language to be more flexible. She proposed that this could be better addressed as each course challenge arose. 9:19:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed agreement that assessments should only be required when a course was challenged. 9:19:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that it was not the sponsor's intent to have a challenge assessment established in every district for each class offering, but merely to ensure the response to a student request. The district would still determine the definition for mastery and the determination for a passing grade. 9:20:58 AM CHAIR GATTIS opened public testimony. 9:21:04 AM CHAIR GATTIS asked about a requirement for advance assessments versus creation of an assessment when the course was challenged, and how this program would work in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District. GENE STONE, Assistant Superintendent, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District, said that the circumstances were tailored to each situation in order to have this program work. He relayed that the student consulted with a guidance counselor, a teacher, and an administrator, all prior to allowing a student to challenge a course. He described that the on-line support programs could be used to determine the level of mastery, which would allow for a shorter course completion time and recovery of the credits. He stated that it made no sense to have a student sit through a full semester class if they had already mastered a significant part of the course. He explained that students could also receive both high school and college credit by taking a college level course, and then demonstrating mastery. He referenced a situation whereby a student failed the first semester of a course, but stayed in the course, and then passed the end of year examination, which demonstrated mastery of the entire subject. 9:25:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how many students succeeded with their challenges. MR. STONE replied that the challenge option was only available to students when the teachers had a high degree of confidence for success. He offered his belief that this process could become more frequent. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the school district had a stock of assessments, or would develop new ones. MR. STONE responded that the school district had invested in APEX Learning for credit recovery, but that other school districts would need to determine what was going to be used for an assessment tool. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the school district would share its assessment tools. MR. STONE replied that it would be necessary to invest in the APEX Learning on-line courses, but that the other assessments were the standard teacher generated tests of the curriculum, including year-end final examinations to demonstrate mastery. 9:28:15 AM CHAIR GATTIS explained that the aforementioned APEX Learning was an on-line credit recovery and advanced placement course. She noted that there was a proprietary cost involved with APEX. 9:29:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asking if the final examination for Algebra I did encompass the entire scope of the year, questioned whether a final examination was a full assessment of the students understanding of the range of the course. MR. STONE replied that this would be necessary for each school district to determine, and possibly augment the assessment for certain courses. 9:30:24 AM BRUCE JOHNSON, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School Administrators, stated support for HB 190, and said that seat time was becoming increasingly obsolete in some classes. He declared that it was appropriate to have the determinations placed under the purview of each school district. He suggested that the standards based assessments results could be used for determinations, as well as a variety of other tools which could be deployed on an individual basis. He opined that this was in the best interest of students, and that the standards would evolve and make the assessment process much easier. 9:32:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned whether testing out or challenge programs were being implemented in other educational systems. MR. JOHNSON replied that it had been a standard in other states and universities for some time, and that many nationwide school districts were now implementing this approach. 9:32:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there were associated costs to the programs in the other states. MR. JOHNSON offered his belief that in the two states in which he had worked, Illinois and North Dakota, there had not been significant costs. 9:33:31 AM HERB SCHROEDER, Vice Provost, University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), Alaska Native Science and Engineering Program (ANSEP), stated his support for HB 190. He declared that ANSEP classes had "raised the bar for education for our students," as incentives were provided to the students. He reported that, although most ANSEP students completed college courses while still in high school, many would not receive equivalent high school credit. He declared that this was a de-motivator for hard work, and that students needed encouragement to take these college courses. He pointed out that proposed HB 190 provided a mechanism for students to be rewarded for academic excellence. 9:35:26 AM MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development (EED), in response to a request by Representative Seaton, reflected on page 1, lines 10-11 and the concern for the language stipulating "shall establish an assessment tool." He offered his interpretation that, although this would be a school district responsibility, it did not necessarily require any response prior to the challenge for a course. 9:36:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for his interpretation of assessment tool preparation as a practical matter. COMMISSIONER HANLEY opined that it was not difficult for a school to prepare an assessment for testing out of most courses. He declared that it would be a task for a school district which had not thought of assessment for challenges, but that school districts would be prepared if the proposed bill was passed. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired about what was an acceptable delay for an assessment to test out of a class. COMMISSIONER HANLEY hypothesized that the school district would encourage the appropriate action to meet the requirements of law. He offered his belief that it behooved the district to be prepared. 9:39:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if it would be appropriate to alter the language in the proposed bill to allow the districts some latitude for preparation. 9:40:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that preparation time was inherent in the process to implement a policy, as the current version would allow school districts to develop their policies ahead of time. He offered his belief that school districts would request teachers to prepare assessments appropriate to their courses, which could include the standard based assessments, independent assessments, or final examinations. He surmised that it did not require a school district to drop everything, and immediately develop an assessment for every class. He declared that teachers would already have some assessment tool for the end of the class. He allowed that the most important aspect for each school district was to determine the bar for mastery of a course, currently a 90 percent assessment in the Anchorage School District. Although he defined mastery as the ability to move on to the next course and succeed, he declared that the state should not make the determination of mastery for each school district. He reported that data from previous testimony in the House Education Standing Committee indicated that "most kids that drop out of school have already passed the high school exit exam, and the reason they're dropping out is because they're held in courses that are not challenging ...." 9:43:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed her concern for a student interested in testing out of a class which was necessary for graduation. If the district was slow to provide an option, and the student did not take the class and ultimately did not pass the assessment, there could be a difficulty. She declared her assumption that "the districts will get their act together and provide an assessment in a reasonably timely manner." She opined that this could be revisited at a later date, if this was not the case. 9:44:35 AM CHAIR GATTIS expressed her agreement with Representative LeDoux, offering her belief that the school districts understood the necessity for supporting students in a progressive way, and that the proposed bill provided another tool for attaining that goal. 9:45:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related that the intent of HB 190 was not an immediate mandate for each school district to establish assessment tools for every class, but to create the assessments as needed by reasonable interpretation. He suggested that school districts determine the classes most likely to be challenged, and prepare those assessments. He advocated that a "B" grade was sufficient for mastery, although this policy would be defined by each school district. He requested that the school districts maintain data for the number of challenges, and the percentage of successful challenges. 9:46:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the Anchorage School District policy for course challenge, as it had established parameters that would be helpful to other school districts. 9:47:03 AM CHAIR GATTIS, in response to a comment by Representative Seaton, asked to clarify whether the student transcript should note that a course was credited by examination. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON shared that this was the policy of the Anchorage School District, and that each school district could determine its own policies. CHAIR GATTIS closed public testimony. 9:47:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, directing attention to page 1, lines 10 - 11, maintained her concern for the "shall" language, which she opined required an assessment tool for every course provided by the school district. She suggested a conceptual amendment which would better define the limitations. 9:49:18 AM CHAIR GATTIS expressed her agreement for a timeline to the challenge and testing interval. 9:49:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON cautioned that it would be counterproductive to place a deadline in statute. He declared that the most important aspect of the proposed bill was the requirement for each school district to act. He pointed out that any course that was being offered would have a teacher to easily make an assessment. 9:51:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND suggested that students be required to indicate an interest for a challenge at course registration time. She expressed agreement with earlier testimony that school districts would prepare assessments once a challenge had been requested. 9:52:46 AM CHAIR GATTIS pointed out that many course assessments were already in place. 9:53:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested that a conceptual amendment inserting "within a reasonable time following a demonstrated need" would better clarify the intent. 9:53:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined that "reasonable time" was implicit in the language of the proposed bill. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER shared that a school district could determine that a final examination was sufficient to meet the intent of the proposed bill. 9:54:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, as follows: Page 1, line 10, after "shall establish" Insert ",within a reasonable time following a demonstrated need," REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion and asked for clarification that this was a conceptual amendment. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 9:56:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report HB 190, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 190(EDC) was moved from the House Education Standing Committee.