HB 220-REPEAL SECONDARY SCHOOL EXIT EXAM  8:47:21 AM CHAIR GATTIS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 220, "An Act repealing the secondary student competency examination and related requirements; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR GATTIS added that testimony for both HB 220 and the preceding bill, HB 278, would be taken jointly; as the topic in both pertains to the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE). 8:48:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt the proposed Committee Substitute (CS) for HB 220, labeled 28-LS0947\U, Mischel, 2/6/14. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected to hear the proposed changes. 8:49:02 AM THOMAS STUDLER, Staff, Representative Pete Higgins, Alaska State Legislature, pointed out that the CS makes two changes to the original bill. First, a section has been added to allow a sunset period for completing the test, until 2017; secondly the effective date has been changed from 7/1/2014, to 9/1/2014. 8:49:41 AM CHAIR GATTIS noted that this is the transitional language, alluded to by the EED Commissioner, Mike Hanley, during the previous bill discussion on HB 278. 8:49:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. Without further objection, Version U was before the committee. 8:50:13 AM MR. STUDLER said that HB 278 includes comprehensive discussion of school examinations, beyond the scope of HB 220; however, two sections are identical. 8:51:22 AM CHAIR GATTIS recapped that HB 220 is titled to address the HSGQE only, whereas HB 278 includes considerations of other tests and assessments, including the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT), American College Testing (ACT), or WorkKeys. 8:51:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed plans to offer an amendment to remove Sec. 6 of HB 278, effectively removing the three year transitional language, and cited that approximately 80 students per year might benefit by the legislation, at a cost of $1.3 million. Alternatives to accomplish the same end exist, such as the availability of the general educational development (GED), he said, and underscored the need to consider fiscal responsibility. 8:53:13 AM CHAIR GATTIS asserted that the test is a state mandate for every graduate. She acknowledged the high cost of offering the extended exam period and pointed out that it is also expensive, monetarily and socially, for anyone who doesn't hold a diploma. She said it is a challenge to equate the balance. 8:53:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND recalled the discussion regarding the contract that exists with the provider of the test, and suggested a more timely elimination may not be possible depending on the terms of agreement. 8:53:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that current statute may already include proviso for re-testing, and the effects will need to be considered. Additionally, she commented that a retroactive effective date may solve the issue. Agreement appears to exist that at some point the HSGQE ceased to serve its intended purpose, she observed, and suggested awarding everyone a diploma that from that established point forward. 8:54:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed that either a transition period or a retroactive date could be necessary or a legal challenge may arise. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that only students from the current school year would be a concern, and they would have notice to accomplish any re-testing within a plausible time frame; 9/1/14. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why not eliminate the HSGQE immediately, rather than go through the complete exercise in May, 2014. MR. STUDLER said, "Good point." 8:57:00 AM MIKE COONS stated opposition to HB 220 and Sec. 2 of HB 278, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: I am in favor of the vast majority of HB 278, however, I do object to Section 2. I oppose HB 220 transitional aspects. I propose changing Section 2 to read: Lines 12-18 change to read: Sec. 14.03.075. College and career assessments. (a) A student shall be issued a secondary school diploma upon completing all required course study throughout High School with a 2.0 GPA or higher. (b) A student who fails to qualify for the issuance of a diploma under (a) of this section will be held back so the student can retake the needed courses to meet the 2.0 GPA requirement, upon successful completion the diploma will be issued. I have spoken to this in the exit exam bills, both House and Senate opposing transition and my proposal here mirrors the proposal for changing transition in SB 111. To Rep LeDoux and Seaton. Administration last week testified that last year 700 kids did not pass the exit exam. If I'm not mistaken, this was not failures by handicapped. These kids are in the workforce and I'm sure not having a sheep skin is giving them some problems, but if they are smart they will get the transcripts of High School and give to employer's. Lastly, my last employer had nothing asking for WorkKeys test results, just if graduated High School. Remember, these young adults are entry level employee's and not seeking jobs that are in need of high level of knowledge, education and experience. If I take a WorkKeys, at age 61 along with 42 years of work experience that will have a bigger impact on employment over that of a 18 year old with no work experience and a foundation of education. 9:00:11 AM DAVID NEES stated opposition to HB 220 and Sec. 2 of HB 278. He said a high school diploma is a document that is often requested when a person applies for work or enlists in the military. He recalled that the initial installation of the test occurred in 1998, but with only 50 percent of the high school seniors able to successfully pass, it was re-normed in 2002 to the current standard. Reading skills have gone from 29 percent non- proficient to 16 percent, indicating a good level of progress. However, writing and math continue to be areas where students struggle to grasp the concepts, as indicated by low test scores. The seven years period, 2005-2012, has seen graduation rates increase by eight percent, from 61-69, which does not appear to directly co-relate to the HSGQE. The State Board of Education is charged with improving academic achievement for all students; however; he opined, eliminating this exam does not accomplish that goal, rather it dilutes the test. He rhetorically asked, "Do you really want to go to a doctor or a lawyer who has not passed their exam?" He maintained that the HSGQE is the exam that answers the question, "Do you know what it takes to be a high school [graduate]?" Studies, he noted, indicate that student assessment scores from fifth grade, directly reflect high school graduation assessment scores. Reviewing the 2013 statistics for the total Alaska graduates taking the HSGQE, he reported that for the last 15 years, an average of 200 students do not pass this test. The majority of the students do pass and employers and military recruiters understand these percentages. However, the University of Alaska system indicates that 30 percent of continuing education students require remediation; lacking skills in math and writing, the very areas showing no improvement across the state for the last 15 years. This is the only legislation setting an educational floor as required under the Moore, et al. v. State of Alaska, 3AN-04-9756 CI, (2010) decision, unless the Legislature sets an education floor other than the HSGQE. 9:04:54 AM MARY NANUWAK expressed support for education in general and said the combined federal, state, and local efforts are important. 9:07:06 AM POSIE BOGGS questioned the state reading assessment standards in comparison to the national standards, which appear to require greater proficiency. She expressed concern for state reading levels and suggested that an investigation of the discrepancy in the test scores might be in order. 9:08:45 AM CHAIR GATTIS closed public testimony on HB 220, and stipulated that the public testimony would remain open on HB 278. 9:09:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Sec. 6 as follows: Page 4, lines 23-29: Delete all language. CHAIR GATTIS objected for discussion. 9:09:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the students have adequate time to retake the test, additionally, the provider contract is ending. He said extending the contract for an additional three years is an expensive undertaking and there is an alternative pathway for students to receive an equivalency diploma via the GED exam. 9:10:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarity from the department regarding contractual obligations. The committee took an at-ease at 9:11 a.m. 9:11:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1. 9:12:36 AM CHAIR GATTIS announced HB 220 was held over.