HOUSE BILL NO. 146 "An Act relating to competency testing requirements for secondary students; and providing for an effective date." LYNNE SMITH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE, testified in support of HB 146. She asserted that many high school graduates are finishing school and receiving high school diplomas without the skills necessary to survive in the world. Ms. Smith noted that over twenty states now conduct student competency tests for a standard high school diploma. The students in these states must pass a test with a minimum score before they are allowed to graduate. Three states also have an exit exam for an "Endorsed Diploma." To earn this, the students not only have to pass the test, but must score at a designated level, higher than the minimum required for a regular diploma. "Honors Diplomas" are awarded in three states for higher testing levels. Ms. Smith observed that under the provisions of CS HB 146 (HES), a student is required to pass a competency examination in the areas of reading, English, mathematics, science, Alaska and United States history before receiving a high school diploma. The test would be selected by the Department of Education. A pupil who failed this examination and was no longer in attendance would get a certificate of attendance. It would indicate the number of years of attendance, but would also show that the pupil has neither passed a competency examination nor received a diploma. The pupil would have the opportunity to be re- examined, within three years after the pupil left high school. 2 Representative Martin provided members with Amendment 1 (copy on file). He noted that the amendment would begin testing earlier. NANCY BUELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TEACHING AND LEARNING SUPPORT explained that it is important for students to have multiple opportunities to take the test and be remediated. Co-Chair Therriault summarized that the test would be administered to earlier grades so that there would be a number of years for students to be brought up to speed. Ms. Buell noted that the Department could not only administer the test in the senior years. Co-Chair Therriault observed that the test would be administered in grades 9 through 12. Representative Mulder noted that the committee substitute would test United States and Alaska history. Ms. Buell noted that social science tests are developmental. She stressed that social science is a broad field. She stated that social science tests are more complex. She emphasized that it would be difficult to estimate the cost of these tests. Representative Mulder spoke in support of testing in mathematics, English and reading. He failed to see how a diploma could be denied to a child that did not have an understanding of Alaska history. Ms. Buell observed that the Department cautioned against the inclusion of this subject area. Representative Martin maintained that the development of humanity and civilization are basic subjects. He stated that the Department of Education should be able to evaluate the students. He noted that Amendment 1 would test children in grades 4, 8 and 11, and make sure remedial courses are available. Ms. Buell clarified that the Department of Education doesn't have the expertise to develop tests that will withstand legal scrutiny, from the state level, to deny a diploma. She observed that teachers throughout the districts are adequately testing competency. She emphasized that there are no mandated curriculums or standards in the State. Representative Kelly questioned why there is a three year limit on the test. Ms. Smith observed that the Sponsor felt that it would be a good idea to enable the student to have another chance. She observed that Representative Bunde felt 3 that three years was a reasonable amount of time to retake the test. Representative Kelly spoke in support of extending the time that a student could take the test. Representative Grussendorf noted that good students may not be able to pass the test. He asked what would happen to children that cannot pass the test. Ms. Buell stated that the Department is concerned about students that do not pass the test. She observed that studies in Texas show that adequate students have dropped out of school after failing the test, due to test anxiety or other reasons. She stressed that students that could succeed in secondary education will fail the test due to other factors. Representative Grussendorf stated that the system sometimes fails in the delivery of the initial skills, such as reading and writing. Co-Chair Hanley clarified that the legislation would not affect GED's. Ms. Buell noted that GED's cannot be given to anyone who is currently in school. Co-Chair Hanley noted that the student has three years after they leave high school to pass the test. He felt that three years was a reasonable extension. Ms. Buell noted that other states have begun testing in the 8th or 9th grades. She stated that it takes 3 to 4 years to get everyone through the test. She added that there will be a substantial dropout rate following the institution of the test. Co-Chair Hanley stated that it is clear that testing needs to start earlier. He maintained that if able students are failing the test then the test is flawed. He stated that, ideally, it would be up to each individual school district, starting in the first grade, to make sure their students were trained. He observed that the question is "at what place do we as a State mandate, so that the school districts that aren't doing their jobs are forced to do have a test." Representative Davis expressed concern that the test would compete with the GED program. He asked how the content of the test would relate to the GED test. Co-Chair Therriault noted that pupils have to meet all the requirements of high school and pass the test to get a high school diploma. JAMES POPHAM, IOX ASSESSMENT ASSOCIATES testified via the teleconference network. He stated that he has developed 4 assessment tests and has testified regarding assessment tests. He explained that the motivation behind assessment tests is to increase the caliber of the education that the State's children are receiving. He observed that Alaska is in a position to profit from the experiences of other states. He emphasized that the nature of the test is the most important issue. He maintain that if the test is inappropriate or cheaply purchased that education in Alaska will not benefit. Mr. Popham explained that the tests measure the important knowledge and skills that legislators think a high school student ought to possess before receiving a high school diploma. He stated that if the test conceptualizes those skills in a manner that the teachers of the state can address then the test becomes a powerful catalyst to improving the quality of the instruction. If the test is not well designed it can be an impediment to high quality instruction. The test functions as a curriculum magnet. Whatever is assessed becomes a target of instruction for the state's teachers. He cautioned against an "off the shelf" test, such as a standardized achievement test. He noted that these tests are not designed as instructional targets. He observed that these tests cannot be defended in court. He stated that it costs between $150 and $250 thousand dollars to develop a test per subject matter. He stressed that this level of funding has to be available to assure that the test will withstand litigation. Co-Chair Hanley observed that HB 146 provides that the Department of Education develop and score the test. He asked what areas are the most commonly tested. Mr. Popham cautioned against installing measures of content that would not be considered mainline for United States citizens to possess, such as Alaska history. He stated that it would be a violation of a child's constitutional right to be refused a diploma for not passing a test on Alaska history. He observed that most tests focus on reading, language arts and mathematics. Newer tests have included science and social studies. He noted that the first tests were developed to assess basic skills. He noted that there are four major areas reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. In response to a question by Representative Martin, Mr. Popham noted that tests have been installed because legislators did not believe that students were receiving a proper education. Tests have been used as a lever to increase quality. He cautioned that the installation of a badly conceived test has negative impacts. 5 Representative Martin noted that legislators are expressing the frustration of parents, employers and colleges. Mr. Popham agreed that citizens have cried out for the tests. He noted that tests, that are built properly, benefit structural planning decisions and improve the quality of schooling. Representative Mulder asked if the scope was limited to only reading, writing, and mathematics, would the State have a more defensible test. Mr. Popham indicated that limiting the subject matter would make it easier to build first rate, legally defensible tests. He noted that there has been ample experience and guidance in the area of basic skills. He observed that the work of other states could be used. Mr. Popham noted that educators and non-educators must review each item for bias. Representatives of individual minority groups must review each item. He emphasized that it is too important not to do the job well. Representative Mulder asked if the State would save money by limiting the scope. Mr. Popham agreed that the State would save money by limiting the scope. He emphasized that any time an exotic area, such as social studies, is considered the cost is greater. He noted that social studies includes history, geography and government. He recommended that the State start with what is well known. Representative Martin maintained that if a person is going to be a full citizen of America they must learn the full political process. (Tape Change, HFC 97-97, Side 2) Mr. Popham observed that the inclusion alone of social studies as a test area would not be contested in court. However, if the test was not properly developed, with involvement of all concerned constituencies, it could lead to a court challenge. He stated that tests cost approximately $200 to $250 thousand dollars per subject area. Co-Chair Hanley stated that the intent is to test for skills versus understanding. He observed that the ability to read allows learning in a lot of areas. He emphasized the benefit of verbal and written communication. He asked how often tests should be issued. Mr. Popham recommended that the law not include all the details. He stated that students should be given four years notice that they are going to master the skills that are going to be tested. He observed that no state has been able 6 to require testing with less than three years notice. Students should begin testing in the ninth or tenth grade. Multiple forms of the test are needed. Co-Chair Therriault summarized that the first test would be offered to ninth graders two years from now. The test would be phased in over four years. Mr. Popham stated that parents and children should be notified in advance of the first test. He observed that some lawsuits have claimed that students have been emotionally marked by doing bad on the first test. Parents should be given a sample test. Representative Martin emphasized that parents and educators need to be responsible. Mr. Popham stated that teachers and administrators do not like testing. He agreed that the focus should be on the educational delivery system. He stressed that the notion is to have reform stimulated by the tests. Representative Grussendorf observed that many tests depend on memory. He asked if a true skills test could be constructed. Ms. Buell stated that the Department of Education does not have the expertise to construct the test. She referred to the Alaska Student Content Standards. She observed that the standards address learning in a more sophisticated way. She stated that the CAT 5 could not be used as an exit exam. Representative Martin MOVED to adopt Amendment 1 (copy on file). He observed that the amendment incorporates recommendations by Anchorage educators. Amendment 1 would assess students at grades 4, 8 and 11. The amendment would also require intervention plans to be developed to assist students whose assessments reveal they have not mastered skills required for the exit exam. Co-Chair Therriault noted that there will be multiple chances for students to be tested. He observed that school districts can implement testing at earlier grades. He asked if the fiscal impact of remedial instruction had been considered. Representative Martin responded that he did not know the impact of remedial instruction requirements. Co-Chair Therriault reiterated that testing will occur in grades 9 through 12. Representative Martin stressed that testing should begin in earlier grades. Ms. Buell explained that the Department will have bench marks available to school districts, of what students will 7 need to know in each grade. Co-Chair Therriault observed that most states administer exit tests in high school. Co-Chair Hanley noted that under the amendment the Department of Education would determine the examination, but the district would set their own standards. Representative Martin responded that perhaps the Department of Education would be a better facilitator. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that individual districts can do what they want to prepare their students. The State establishes the hurdle for graduation. Representative Martin noted frustration by teachers. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment 1. IN FAVOR: Martin, Grussendorf, Foster, Kohring, Kelly OPPOSED: Mulder, Davis, Hanley, Therriault Representatives Moses and Davies were absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (5-4). Representative Mulder discussed Amendment 2 (copy on file). Amendment 2 would delete the requirement for testing science, and social science. He stated that the amendment would leave in the basic areas of reading, writing and mathematics. He stressed that the amendment would reduce the fiscal note and future litigation costs. Representative Kelly MOVED to rescind the Committee's action in adopting Amendment 1. Representative Kelly expressed concern with the fiscal cost of the amendment. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Martin spoke in support of Amendment 1. He maintained that the amendment will be minor in relationship to the failure of students in earlier school years. Co- Chair Therriault asserted that establishment of the test will cause school districts to reevaluate their students. Representative Davis emphasized that the legislation has been drafted around other states' experiences. He stressed that the amendment should be addressed in separate legislation. He stated that the legislation is the first step. Representative Mulder agreed that HB 146 is the starting point from which to expand. He emphasized that if the legislation is too broad and encompassing it will fail. 8 A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment 1. IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Kohring, Martin OPPOSED: Mulder, Davis, Foster, Kelly, Moses, Hanley, Therriault Representative Davies was absent from the vote. The MOTION FAILED (3-7). Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Amendment 2. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Mulder asked if the Department of Education's fiscal note could be revised downward. Ms. Buell stated that the Department's fiscal note was underestimated. She stressed that the fiscal note is conservative. She observed that the fiscal note did not anticipate implementation of tests for two years. She observed that funding should be transferred from personal services to the contractual line. She stressed the need for expertise. She did not think the fiscal impact of the first year would be changed. She emphasized that if the test security is lost it has to be redeveloped and reprinted. In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Ms. Buell stated that additional clerical support should be maintained. She noted that Department of Education staff has to oversee security, confidentially, scoring, and transmission of data. She estimated that one higher level staff person could be eliminated. She observed that the Department of Education currently has one person for all assessment tests, with no clerical support. She noted that this is almost the only general fund position that "does this kind of thing". Other positions are supported with federal funds. She emphasized that it is not possible to redeploy staff from other tasks. Co-Chair Hanley recounted that the cost to develop the test is around $200 thousand dollars per test. He observed that reading and English would be one test. He stressed that only two tests would be developed. Ms. Buell noted that travel is necessary to convene groups of people who will scrutinize the test. Co-Chair Therriault noted that the educational specialist II position, at range 21A, costs $71,602 thousand dollars. He suggested that this amount be removed from personal services. He stated that he would support $400 thousand dollars in contractual. Ms. Buell stated that this would be 9 the minimum amount needed. She maintained that reading is a separate area from the rest of language arts. Representative Kohring spoke against the legislation. He questioned the cost of the legislation. Ms. Buell noted that Hawaii's assessment budget is $500 thousand dollars per year. Hawaii's student population is similar to Alaska's. Representative Kohring emphasized the need to reduce the budget. Ms. Buell stressed that the Department of Education cannot support the legislation if it is not adequately funded. In response to comments by Representative Martin, Co-Chair Therriault emphasized that tests have to be defensible in court. HB 146 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. (Tape Change, HFC 97-98, Side 1)