HB 156-SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES; FED. LAW  8:19:08 AM CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 156, "An Act relating to compliance with federal education laws; relating to public school accountability; and providing for an effective date." 8:19:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to adopt CSHB 156, 29-LS0566\I, as the working document. Without objection Version I was before the committee. CHAIR KELLER passed the gavel to Vice-Chair Vazquez. 8:20:29 AM CHAIR KELLER, as prime sponsor, suggested that the last 15 years have been evidential in determining whether No Child Left Behind {NCLB) has been a positive means to reform education in the state. He offered the following question to the committee to consider: "Has test based education reform worked? Has, or can, education reform effort we've been focused on for over 15 years ... or roughly 15 years now, a little less maybe ... you know, can it improve education or has it improved education?" He advised HB 156 is based upon the premise that it is time to admit the legislature made a mistake after spending an enormous amount of money and time attempting to reform education using the test based theory. He opined it is time to stop the over- testing taking place in Alaska, stop the narrowing of the curriculum to enforce alignment with standardized tests, stop teaching to the test mode, and stop the unhealthy time spent getting ready for the test. He said his teacher education was completed in 1983, and he had no inkling of the concept of test based reform because a test is a teaching tool. He pointed out that test based reform was "enshrined" in 2002 when NCLB passed as it was a reenactment of the Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. He opined it was passed to address the continuing problem of closing gaps to make education assessable, but NCLB has not made a difference for poor children and communities not being served with education. Initially, he remarked, it appeared to be an appropriate means to understand the measurement of progress. In 2001, the Alaska legislature did express support for NCLB but it was conditional support based upon the possible advantages which have not been proven, he pointed out. He mentioned that in 2001, the resolution was HJR 13 and there were 134,358 students, and when HJR 13 passed the next year, third graders were the first group to be exposed to the new idea. They are now 21 years old and; therefore, the high stakes tests should have been proven by that generation. He opined that the federal government entrusted these Alaskans to the unproven and ambitious belief that children are to be tested and teachers held responsible for improving the test scores. Thereby, almost all of the children would be proficient. He stated they gave a promise that by 2014 no child would be left behind. However, he said by 2014, NCLB could not be attained. 8:26:18 AM CHAIR KELLER pointed to HB 156 and said it is time to rethink this educational approach in that the bill directs the state school board to allow parents to opt out of high stakes testing; and it eliminates all high stakes tests within three years unless new legislation is enacted to specifically reauthorize the Alaska testing system in place in existing laws. He said sun setting the mandated tests as opposed to repealing them would be against federal law and the bill establishes a direction for repeal. He opined that the premise for NCLB may have an honorable intent, and assuming the honorable intent allows room for renegotiation of how the state is doing business and in compliance with federal law. The testing was pushed by two presidential administrations but it has become a real problem. He pointed out that the federal funds, $69 million per year, is not an on/off switch and opined that this bill would in no manner cause the federal government to throw the switch and determine that no more money goes to Alaska. He related that firm resistance is appropriate to allow an opportunity to vet the concerns and issues of Alaska's teachers, superintendents, and children, and to be involved. He asked the committee to consider that there is a process coming into being that will begin to evaluate teachers based upon the test results of the students, and teachers are told it is federal law. He referred to a comment within the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), February 7, 2015 new release that it would make the test based reform process be part of the teacher training process, and use high-stake tests to qualify teachers. He described a pattern wherein legislators read about these issues in the press and it soon shows up in regulation, and yet the legislature has had nothing to say about it. He summarized that it is past time to take action "And what this bill does, the most dramatic thing I think it does is it deletes this much. That's ESEA, and that's before NCLB, there is actually another 300 pages you can add to that." Within this bill there are two sections, "this" must be implemented and the legislature has to conform to it. 8:33:03 AM CHAIR KELLER passed to the committee, Sec. 14.03.123 "School and district accountability," which is one page "but it's one page plus this. The bill simply takes this out. Okay now, does that negate ... does that say that we're annulling what the feds are doing? Not at all. The federal law exists and stands and it doesn't matter what we do in state law. And I think you'll get testimony from the department and Department of Law (DOL) that taking this out does not, in and of itself ... any kind of defiance ... legal defiance here." He commented that there are 1,291 pages that have been added. He said, "Oh by the way, just that bill ... there's another ... because of the fact that we are held responsible to oversee public education in the State of Alaska, there is another factor. I mean it's not just the 1,291 pages, you've got the waivers, and you've got the agreements that happen not because they want to leave us out but just that we're not part of the process." He stated the real issue is whether or not the legislature can comply with the court mandate that the legislature oversees public education. He cited a one page press release from the Council of Great Urban Schools "I think it is, and I think Anchorage is a member of that." He mentioned a comment within the press release, "The council urges the states' to apply for the new waivers ... NCLB waivers, and work with their districts on those applications. If the states are reluctant to proceed, urban districts should initiate their own application." He surmised it is an appeal by an organization to our school districts to work directly with the federal government if DEED or the legislature does not engage. 8:36:03 AM CHAIR KELLER directed attention to the bill and advised it offers an "opt out" process for students, mandates the elimination of those tests pending action and approval by the legislature, and a vetting process. He referred to page 2, lines 7-9, which read:  (5) the methodology used to assign the state   public school system a performance designation   that compares the state public school system to   public school systems in other states and   countries.  CHAIR KELLER referred to a comment in the fiscal note indicating the language may be incorrect, but states his intent. He then referred to AS 14.03.123(a), School and district accountability, which read: (a) By September 1 of each year, the department shall assign a performance designation to each public school and school district and to the state public school system in accordance with (f) of this section. CHAIR KELLER continued, it is law that the department assigns these public school systems "a grade or give us some kind of idea of what is going on." He said the missing piece is the requirement that they report the methodology. He opined that nothing new is required in Title 14.03.123(a) as there is old, trustworthy, and good information comparing how the state is doing which is the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) that evaluates all states and provides a rating of the proficiency of the students together with a comparison of the other states. He explained that he did not want to include, within AS 14.03.123(c)(5), that the methodology should be narrow and favored DEED using whatever metric system it prefers to determine the grade in rating Alaska against the other systems. He referred to AS 14.03.123(c)(4), page 2, lines 3-4, which read: (4)... [AND WITH FEDERAL LAW; TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL LAW,] ... CHAIR KELLER then referred to AS 14.03.123(f)(1), which read: (1) [IMPLEMENT 20 U.S.C. 6301 - (ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965), AS AMENDED: CHAIR KELLER explained that the language deletes the reference to the implementation or conforming to the federal law, and it does not delete the state's accountability system as it simply deletes references to the federal law. 8:39:23 AM CHAIR KELLER referred to AS 14.03.123(d), Sec. 2, page 2, lines 17-20, and advised the section addresses the low performance designation for students, which read: (d) ... The improvement plan must give preference  to measures that increase local control of education  and parental choice and that do not require a direct  increase in state or federal funding for the school or  district. CHAIR KELLER advised it emphasizes when a school is in trouble (d) doesn't presume that the local community cares or that the parents care, but (d) says "if they do ... and then you have ... that's part of the plan ... that has to be given preference." He opined that it is legitimate, especially for rural schools to have that type of input. 8:40:20 AM CHAIR KELLER referred to AS 14.03.123(e), Sec. 3, page 2, lines 23-25, which reads: (e) ... , based on the accountability system  under (f) of this section, that demonstrates an  improvement over the school's performance designation  for the previous year. CHAIR KELLER explained that (e) refers to schools performing well and a mandate that DEED must establish special recognition. The department included the improvement element in evaluating these schools, which is excellent, he said. The above states that schools with high and special recognition are those schools that are constantly improving and removes the high cap. 8:41:36 AM CHAIR KELLER referred to a new subsection AS 14.03.123(h), Sec. 5, page 3, lines 9-18, which read: (h) The department shall, by regulation, develop procedures to (1) allow the parent or guardian of a student or a student who is emancipated or is 18 years of age or older to opt out of any student assessment used to implement the accountability system under this section; and (2) ensure that individually identifiable data pertaining to a student collected under this section is stored securely and is only accessible to the student, the student's parents or guardian, the student's teacher, and other individuals in the state with a legitimate need for the information to perform the duties described under this section. 8:41:44 AM CHAIR KELLER advised that AS 14.03.123(h) provides for an opt out segment for parents and students, and data collected on the students is safe, secure, and legitimately protected, and is not personally identifiable. He pointed out that AS 14.03.123(h)(2) is part of the reason the bill will not be moved out of committee today as he would like the committee's consideration on whether or not it should be strengthened. He advised that a bill has been requested for hearing from Representative Reinbold, regarding data security. Subsequent to Representative Reinbold's presentation he would like the committee to consider folding in the elements it prefers into the subparagraphs. 8:42:58 AM CHAIR KELLER pointed the committee to a new section, AS 14.03.123, Sec. 6, page 3, lines 19-31, and page 4, lines 1-9, which read: *Sec. 6. AS 14.03 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 14.03.124 Approval of standards-based  assessments and teacher performance standards. (a) The department shall establish, by regulation, a process for submitting standards-based assessments and teacher performance standards to school districts and the legislature for approval. The process must include (1) school district involvement in developing, revising, and selecting standards-based assessments and teacher performance standards; (2) an opportunity for school districts to review and recommend approval or disapproval of the standards-based assessments and teacher performance standards; (3) submission of the standards-based assessments and teacher performance standards to the legislature for approval if a majority of school districts recommend approval of the standards-based assessments and teacher performance standards; (4) procedures for revising standards-based assessments and teacher performance standards that the legislature disapproves under this section. (b) If the legislature fails to take action on the standards-based assessments or teacher performance standards before the end of the legislative session in which the standards-based assessments or teacher performance standards are submitted to the legislature, or, if submitted during the interim between legislative sessions, the session immediately following that interim, the standards-based assessments or teacher performance standards on which the legislature failed to act are approved. CHAIR KELLER said the section is the process for stopping the high-stakes tests unless there is a process in the legislature that includes the school district vetting the issues. He pointed out that the working language is AS 14.03, Sec. 6, page 4, line 8-9, which read: (b) ... immediately following that interim, the standards-based assessments or teacher performance standards on which the legislature failed to act are approved. CHAIR KELLER said "if after consideration and maybe new legislation being presented in the following session, the standards-based tests and teacher performance standards on which the legislature failed to act or approve." He summarized that if the legislature doesn't act, and something comes forward from the department and school districts then it automatically becomes law. Whether that is an appropriate trigger or not, he said, he would ask the committee to determine as he is somewhat uncomfortable with it. 8:44:20 AM CHAIR KELLER explained that AS 14.07.020(a), page 4-6, is existing law, and page 6, lines 10-11 is a "clean up," which read: (B) ... AS 14.03.123(f)(1)(A) [AS 14.03.123(f)(2)(A); and ... 8:44:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE COLVER expressed general support and said he agrees with deleting conforming to federal law, and an area of trepidation is the draft new process for teacher evaluations and developing performance standards that have not been tested. He referred to page 3, Sec. 6, wherein the legislature cannot act to repeal standards and process as developed by the department through the Alaska State Board of Education & Early Development. He asked whether this would hold an abeyance to the current process until a better formula is better vetted and the districts have an opportunity to participate in the teacher evaluation process. CHAIR KELLER opined "it would not" as it is a system being phased in and he deferred to the department for details. He said from his perspective, he does not know what is appropriate because the issue has not been vetted. REPRESENTATIVE COLVER commented that he would like to hear the department's thoughts. He suggested the committee include a section that "we put on hold the existing evaluation process until we have one that's more thoroughly vetted and involves more stakeholder ... involvement." He pointed out there is a large dark cloud hanging over educators and the legislature in moving away from condemnation of failing schools under NCLB when reviewing this type of reform. He appreciates Chair Keller's statement of more local control, parental control, and Alaska getting back control of its education process and pealing back federal control as much as possible. 8:48:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled debate on a bill brought forward by the previous administration wherein the legislature was looking at teacher evaluations at 50 percent or 30 percent evaluation. He questioned whether that issue is being revisited here because a number of people were firmly committed to a much higher percentage of the teacher evaluation being related to the performance of their students. He noted that his understanding of the presentation was to put in abeyance the teacher accountability. He said he was unsure what form would come forward if there wasn't the system the previous legislature considered. CHAIR KELLER said he does not recall the interaction Representative Seaton referred to or the bill, but was not on the House Education Standing Committee at that time. He offered that it is an issue driven from the federal government and the legislature may have unrealized options within the 1,291 pages. 8:50:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON provided that over the last several years the legislature dealt with the idea of low performing schools, taking over, and having an improvement plan in that local districts with the full control of their curriculum, plans, and development were called "failing schools" by Alaska's standards. He asked whether this bill takes Alaska back to the system that local districts will have all control of curriculum even if they are under-performing. CHAIR KELLER explained that it does not, as it leaves the existing system in place. He said, "I think what you are referring to is that if we violated the waivers that are in place to NCLB then there is a possibility that we would go back to the NCLB as we've just deleted ... an area, if we go through with this bill ... so under that system, under the NCLB, then I think we would be back to the old designators, and all the criterial. But, I think, that HB 156 as you have it in front of you does not change that, it just kind of opens the door for reconsideration on it." 8:52:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to CSHB 156, Sec. 2, and the added language to AS 14.03.123, and asked whether the sponsor had specific ideas of measures of improvement they might incorporate that represent local control of education of parental choice. He pointed out that if the bill is encouraging local control of education, the sponsor may want to prescribe measures to local school districts to improve that are trying, or not trying, to embrace local control. CHAIR KELLER replied that the manner in which the bill is written is that the department would be required to provide preference, or ideas if it saw it as appropriate as DEED's duties and responsibilities do not change in the bill and to pay attention to what the local districts prefer. He referred to mentors, and said in the event a school creates a plan for improvement, it would have to be worked on by the department and the community. He suggested the language indicates that in the event a community was against a mentor in its community they would have to consider that as a primary factor in working with the plan for improvement of local schools. He summarized that it puts emphasis on a low performing school and to discuss it with the parents, local school board members, and the community to determine what they believe is required for improvement. He commented that the failure of the test based reform project is that Alaska has not stepped forward with the resources necessary to address issues in the local community. 8:56:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that currently the legislature is revising the entire idea of testing so it is not only computer- based but analytical in concept as opposed to regurgitation of facts. He opined that Chair Keller was appropriately addressing the testing regime of regurgitation of facts that has proven to not assist students in engaging in long-term learning. He asked whether the change in testing, in that Alaska is now going to testing based on analytics and analysis, whether the reform of that regime makes any difference, or whether it is a discussion regarding all tests within the bill. CHAIR KELLER related that the problem lies with the fact that Alaska has made the results of the tests so high-stakes with everyone focused on a high score on the test, which it isn't so much whether it is computer-based. He opined the computer based element of the testing enables Alaska to do that more easily than a paper-based system. He noted that he questions the process of making the test-based element the lever to try to force a better education system, which was NCLB in 2002. He remarked he is calling into question the entire concept as there are other options. 8:59:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE COLVER opined that NCLB is a failed experiment that has become a major driver in the educational system and submitted that educators in the trenches are stressed by the mandates for testing. He described the loss of local control as a concern and would like feedback from the districts as to what they would do in lieu of these mandates. He pointed out that the high school exit exam is an example of how standardized testing can be misdirected. For example, he explained, a few years ago there was testimony within the Senate Education Standing Committee from administrators and students from Chehak. The administrators testified that their students were at a disadvantage because questions were asked on the standardized test ... for instance, "How do you get to the hospital?" The students answered "airplane," except the correct answer on the standardized test was "ambulance." He opined that was where they segwayed into local control. He described that the meaning of local control to a community in Alaska, and the norm necessary for education and survival may be much different than the nationalized standard test. Currently, districts are under pressure because the teacher evaluations will be generated from the results of these tests. He opined that the bill provides a fresh means of addressing what may or may not be working, and how to provide appropriate local control for assessments. He added that cultural sensitivity is a concern as each specific area of Alaska is different. 9:02:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS directed the committee's attention AS 14.03, Sec. 1, page 2, lines 7-9, and requested the sponsor to speak to the intent of the language, which read: (5) the methodology used to assign the state  public school system a performance designation that  compares the state public school system to public  school system in other states and countries. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS added that his interpretation is that it would compare the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) against other similar Departments of Education around the country. CHAIR KELLER responded "No, that is not my intent," as the school system is how Alaska is performing overall. He said that in reviewing the law, AS 14.03.123(a), which is not in the bill but provided earlier by Chair Keller, may clarify that section, which read: (a) By September 1 of each year, the department shall assign a performance designation to each public school and school district and to the state public school system in accordance with (f) of this section. CHAIR KELLER went on to explain that the reference on Page 2, lines 7-9, goes back to the one element of the "public school system." He said the intent of the author was to identify how the department would give the school system a grade and opined that should he assign a grade, he would use the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as there are national and international comparisons. He said his "first inclination was to write that they use NAEP" which offers Alaska a proficiency rating in how students are doing in reading, writing, and arithmetic in the schools, but if there is a different methodology to use he wants it identified. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the removal of the reference of the federal statute in Sec. 4, jeopardize Alaska's waiver to NCLB, and whether there are ramifications in terms of loss of federal funding. CHAIR KELLER deferred to DEED, but he opined that it will not. He previously reviewed the history, and research how it became law in the first place. He then realized he did not vote on the bill, but was in the legislature and spoke to the bill. He confessed he has had a change of heart in the entire process as he is frustrated with the constant evidences received on the low performance of Alaska's schools. He advised that on the record, when the bill passed, Neil Slotnick from the Department of Law said there is nothing in the NCLB that requires it to be encoded into state law. 9:09:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2, lines 7-9, regarding performance for the school system, and surmised that the preference is that the comparative student performance is used on a test to rate the different school systems. CHAIR KELLER answered that NAEP is not a high-stakes test as it is data collected on the school system in general, which is a reason Alaska went to the high stakes testing beyond NAEP. A student cannot be identified and tracked through schools with NAEP as it gives a general overall proficiency assessment for national comparison. He stated that the answer to Representative Seaton's question is "yes," although it is not fair to say that Alaska is using a high stakes test to get rid of the high stakes test. He pointed that the record shows that NAEP costs the state zero dollars, but does cost time when testing students. 9:10:17 AM VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked what the acronym NAEP stands for. CHAIR KELLER deferred to the department. [The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)] VICE-CHAIR VAZQUEZ requested the definition of high stakes testing. CHAIR KELLER opined that the failure has consequences that are significant beyond just the awareness there is a lack of knowledge, in that a student may not graduate. He explained it is high stakes in the sense that this bill must pass or Alaska will lose federal funding. VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked the last time the NAEP test was used by the State of Alaska. CHAIR KELLER advised that NAEP is an ongoing annual event, and deferred to the department for details. He said that NAEP was under the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ presumed it is no longer used in the State of Alaska. CHAIR KELLER replied it is ongoing and a person can go online to obtain the NAEP scores, which is the basis for comparing Alaska with other states currently. 9:12:56 AM VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked whether NAEP can be provided to each student, not on a sample basis. For example, she said, a parent may request the performance level of their child whenever these tests are administered and the parents may assume their own child is doing well compared to the state and national level. CHAIR KELLER opined that it is not an option for NAEP as it is not proctored in that manner. He reiterated that this bill does not mean that Alaska quits tracking its students with tests, because as a teacher he understood early on that when teaching a group of children the first thing a teacher must do is find out what they know by testing. At the end of the class another test is given to determine whether the teacher succeeded in their efforts. He described the bill as a reaction against the high stakes part and not a reaction against testing to track student locally, at home, and in the state, as long as the tracking is performed in a secure fashion. 9:14:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether in Sec. 5, page 3, lines 11- 13, the legislation does not give the parent or guardian of the student the ability to opt out of assessment. He noted there is only a certain assessment that the legislation allows them to opt out of and this doesn't give them the ability to opt out of that end of course or end of school year test. CHAIR KELLER responded that the terminology used in the bill "allows the option to opt out of an assessment used to implement the accountability system under this section." He related his intent is that the state accountability system stay in place until the legislature reconsiders whether the language should be more specific regarding what can actually be opted out of and name the tests. He reiterated that, as a teacher, he wants to know where the students start and where they finish. He opined it is the parent's constitutional right to not have the child participate, and no penalty can be placed upon them as they have the option to not be there and not take tests, which is a human basic right. He suggested it may need to be refined better because the requirement put on the district is different than the basic freedom given the parent. 9:17:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said she was somewhat confused in that the test of the proposed law indicates that students may opt out of any student assessment used to implement the accountability system under this section, but within Chair Keller's explanation, a parent may opt a student out of any test including that which the teacher gives at every step of the process in their classroom. She questioned how a teacher would know whether the students are making progress if they are opted out of every test the parent choses to opt them out of. CHAIR KELLER responded that he was referring to the broader sense of opting out, the parent has the right to have the student there, or not. He described his intent when discussing high stake tests is that the State Board of Education & Early Development determines a process to allow the students to opt out. Currently, in other states parents are voting with their feet and are not sending their children. He opined there is no reason the legislature cannot ask the State Board of Education & Early Development to determine a process to opt out. He advised that when he said it is the parent's right, he was thinking in the most basic and fundamental sense. 9:19:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested a list of the high stakes tests being administered in the state since the elimination of the exit exam, other than bill inserting a graduation requirement. He described the graduation requirement as a high stakes test on a passage of a constitutionalism element. He opined he is unaware of any high stakes graduation requirements in the state other than passing all of the required number of credits. CHAIR KELLER replied that teachers in the State of Alaska, currently, would list that AMP and MAP is taking up their class time that could be used for curriculum and instruction. He indicated he would provide a list. 9:21:22 AM VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ requested the definition of the acronyms he used. CHAIR KELLER said he could not, but they are tests required by the state accountability system, grades 3-10 motivated by NCLB which actually requires testing from grades 3-8. In the State of Alaska its accountability system has grades 3-10 and 2 tests, AMP and MAP, he explained. 9:22:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that he question was not what tests are required to be taken, but rather the designation of a high stakes test - meaning if a student does not obtain a certain test score they do not pass. He questioned whether the high stakes terminology is being used in a different terminology than an exit exam or passing the bar exam which are high stakes tests, whether it is being used in a different context. CHAIR KELLER pointed out that the high stakes tests are terms he "he has been throwing around in discussion" as the tests are very high stakes in the sense that if Alaska does not comply, there are $69 million federal revenue stream dollars at stake. 9:23:48 AM DAVID NEES, testified in support of CSHB 156, and stated it is time to review the relationship between the Alaska education system and the federal government. He advised that when the NCLB came in everyone said it would be impossible to get everyone on track by 2014, and they were correct. He added that the NAEP is an actual test, but encouraged the committee to take a look at the tests of adult basic school education "that pays the test." It costs approximately $1.25 to administer and requires a pencil, approximately 20 minutes, and is accurate, and he pointed out is what all GED centers have used to determine whether student are behind. He advised there is nothing in current state law mandating DEED do any intervention on students not performing well. He said one of the things missing is assigning the responsibility for intervention on a child's education when falling behind. 9:25:48 AM BARBARA HANEY, advised she has a web page entitled "Alaskans Against Common Core," but is testifying on her own behalf. She commented that the NAEP test was recently given in Houston. In the context of the high stakes tests, she opined, anytime there is district funding and accountability tied to testing it is high stakes whether it is high stakes for the student, the district, or the state is the issue. She addressed the comment of what local control look like, and encouraged the committee to review Mary Janice's statement at the February 15, 2015, Lunch and Learn as within the presentation she discussed her own upbringing in the State of Alaska in the 70's and 80's when there was absolute local control. Ms. Haney reminded the committee that the Alaska Statehood Act, Sec. 14, made it clear that the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) would have no control over curriculum in the organized districts as that right was extended to Regional Educational Attendance Area (REAAs) on January 1, 1976. Since 2005, or 2006 DEED has been allowed to intervene in areas of curriculum and testing with the local districts. She advised she applauds this bill, but pointed out that parents currently have the right to refuse the test and referred specifically to page 412, of the District Test Manual. She said it is her hope that the committee consider the issue of redacted testing as well, as before this current test was adopted they got rid of the legislation (indisc.) testing in order that redacted testing could be implemented. She noted that testing should sunset at the end of 2016-2017, and the new (indisc.) "or whatever they reauthorize" will probably be known by that time and consequently the sunset with this and federal legislation would dovetail nicely. She pointed out that within the methodology section of the bill, if NAEP is used, to consider the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (IMSS). Any researcher would take into consideration the problems on the 2000 NAEP tests because computers errors were so bad it can't be used by researchers for benchmarking. She asked the committee to consider an index of freedoms, political considerations, and sampling size in making any state or international comparisons. The Journal of American Statistical Association and the American Statistical Society recently published a review regarding the value of student test scores, teacher quality, and teacher variability. The review found that less than one were actually involved in accountability for teacher variability. Finally, there are laws on the books regarding spending money on Common Core and, she advised, the department has done almost nothing in that regard and it is still spending money on Common Core. She remarked that laws do not have an impact on DEED unless the laws are backed by sanctions or action. She referred to the Moore v. State, Case No. 3AN-04-9756 Civil, decision and she stated that Judge Gleason may not have understood that one of the witnesses had "skin in the game and had a testing company." Generally speaking, she said, she is supportive of the bill but is looking for something with teeth that will end federal involvement, and give local control back to Alaska that was given within the Alaska Statehood Act. VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ invited DEED to work with the sponsor in this legislation and announced CSHB 156 would be held over. 9:32:15 AM The committee took a brief at ease. 9:32:32 AM [VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ passed the gavel to Chair Keller.]