HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 14 Suspending Rules 24(c), 35, 41(b), and 42(e), Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature, concerning Senate Bill No. 133, relating to high school competency testing. SENATE BILL NO. 133 An Act relating to a two-year transition for implementation of the public high school competency examination and to establishing an essential skills examination as a high school graduation requirement; and providing for an effective date. SENATOR LYDA GREEN testified that HCS for CSSB 133 (HES) Version "T" is a combination of the Senate-passed version of SB 133 and the Education Committee's HB 94. The bill maintains accountability for the State Performance Standards. It also addresses the public's concerns about opportunity to learn, children with disabilities, and students who transfer into an Alaskan high school from another state. She noted the work, which had gone into the effort, was intended to make the High School Competency Test fair to all students and make it legally defensible. The bill includes the following provisions: · Delays the effective date of the High School Competency Test until February 1, 2004; · Legislature's commitment to improving education through the State Performance Standards and intent that the High School Competency Test would be part of an evolving process; · Students must demonstrate mastery of the State Performance Standards in reading, English and math in order to receive a diploma, or have passed a competency test in another state; · A waiver could be granted to students who transfer to an Alaskan high school or who has rare or unusual circumstances and who has satisfied the state performance standards to the maximum extent possible; · If a student cannot demonstrate mastery of the standards, he/she would receive a Certificate of Achievement, which would note which portions of the test the student had passed, his/her attendance record, and any other qualifications the district felt were appropriate; · Special education students may demonstrate mastery by a combination of passing the test without accommodations, with accommodations, or through a portfolio; · A requirement that the Department of Education would provide the Legislature with an annual report showing indicators of the progress that schools are making toward high student achievement; · Rewards students, between 2002 and 2004, for passing the High School Competency Test; · Asks the Department to make recommendations to the Legislature regarding an appeals process and portfolios; and · Asks the Department to report to the Legislature on the proposed criteria and procedures for waivers. Representative Harris asked about the changes made to the House HESS version of the bill. Senator Lyda stated that she preferred the "simplicity" of the Senate version. She stressed that it is important that the high standard be maintained. Representative Croft asked the difference between accommodation, modification and waiver. Senator Green recalled that the waiver language would refer to someone who is not currently included. Under federal law, a student can qualify through various ways in order to be classified as a student with special needs to make their education comparable to the other students. She explained how an accommodation or modification could be made for certain circumstances. She commented that the intelligence or the manner in how the student reaches the result should not be the focus. Senator Green deferred to Dr. Bruce Johnson for a more thorough definition of the terms. Representative Hudson voiced appreciation for the hard work that had been undertaken for the betterment of the young people in Alaska. He questioned if there was one area in the House committee substitute, which needed to be modified. Senator Green voiced her concern with the minimum competency record and the portfolio referenced on Page 3, Line 19-20. Vice-Chair Bunde interjected that language referred to the State Board of Education and the option of providing a report back. Senator Green added that the language addressing the State performance standards was of concern. The performance standards for math are not in the best interest of the student. Representative Hudson pointed out the difference on Page 3, Line 30, and the certificate of achievement. The Senate version contains no certificate of achievement area. Representative Hudson asked why it had not been included. Senator Green explained that the current exam is being rewritten. Using the essential skills subset as the goal versus the larger rack of information to test over, the test is being brought to a standard that most students should do well on. She believed that all of the individual needs of students were being addressed. If the State has a small number of students who do not pass the test, she would not be concerned, as that child could repeat the year in order to pass the test. She stressed that it is the goal that the student meets the established standard. Representative Hudson reiterated that he was looking for the area of disagreement. He noted the inclusion of diploma or certificate of achievement, suggesting that a policy issue is the "difference". Senator Green was not sure how essential the certificate of achievement would be. Representative Davies asked if there were issues regarding the standards of treating special education students differently, by allowing them the same opportunities and success. Senator Green explained that each student deserves a diploma. Those that are severely developmentally disabled would take a different test. Some students will need the accommodations. In the Senate version, those students would be able to do that. In the discussion regarding the waiver language, it is the role of the Department of Education & Early Development and the State School Board to develop the language. Representative Croft referenced Page 3, indicating that the student either pass the test or has a portfolio of work for a certificate of achievement. He recommended having a test or having an alternative way that the student can achieve an appropriate level. He stated that would provide everyone the opportunity to "get there". Once that is accomplished, they would receive their diploma. As the bill currently stands, there would be only one standard, the test. He emphasized that something else was needed because there are going to be a lot of special need kids that will not meet the standard of that test. Representative Croft stressed the need for an alternative route for those kids. Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out that 40%-50% of the current Individual Education Program (IEP) students do not get diplomas at this time. Under the current standard, that number is lax for graduation and that about 10% of all high school seniors do not get diplomas under the current system. He recommended that defining a diploma should be discussed. Senator Green advised that referencing the portfolio refers to a child with a disability. She pointed out that the Senate version contains present statute language on how to implement that test. LUCY HOPE, SPECIAL EDUCATION, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (NEA)-ALASKA, WASILLA, voiced support for SB 133. She pointed out concerns indicated on Page 3 and the portfolio language addressing special needs children. She stated that the proposed language would not be the best way to determine special needs student proficiency. She asked who would score the portfolios. Ms. Hope commented that the language of the Senate version more clearly acknowledges the concerns of the special need students and that language is already in place and defined. She urged substituting the language for the IEP accommodations and modifications and using the Senate version of the bill. Representative Croft asked good examples of modification and accommodations. Ms. Hope noted that an "accommodation" would allow the student to take the same test. Ms. Hope explained that an accommodation is something that would not give the student an unfair advantage versus a modification that would give the student an advantage such as using a calculator. The accommodations and modifications are determined by the IEP of the student. Braille for a blind student would be an accommodation, but reading to a blind person would be a modification because someone else could benefit from having it read. She noted that reading a reading test would be totally disallowed; the seriously dyslexic student would be disallowed from getting the diploma in that case. Representative Whitaker clarified that the IEP team would determine the criteria for a special needs student earning a diploma. Ms. Hope acknowledged that was correct. Vice-Chair Bunde clarified that the IEP team consists of the parents, teacher and a representative from the school district. Vice-Chair Bunde referred to the Senate version, which would provide for as many competency tests as IEP teams. He believed that different teams would have different standards. Ms. Hope replied that it would depend on the student's proficiency. Representative Davies asked how many students have difficulties in passing the tests. Ms. Hope replied that there are many reasons that a modification could be recommended. She did not know the percentage, but noted that it would usually be for students with specific learning disabilities. Representative Davies questioned the drawback to having all students using a calculator. Ms. Hope replied that it would depend on what was being tested. The ability to think through a process is being tested, not the knowledge of those facts being reviewed. TAPE HFC 01 - 87, Side B  RITA DAVIS, SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER, NEA-ALASKA, PALMER, noted that she had worked with teens providing IEP goals to set the standard and developing class schedules to meet the graduation requirements with the alternate of a diploma. She reviewed a situation with a special needs student, who had been one of her students and had disabilities and then how the accommodations and modifications helped that student complete her high school graduation. She urged passage of SB 133. Representative Davies agreed with the comment that the State does not have to "water down the standards" being an important portion of the bill. He understood that the students would be "moving" toward the same standards, using different routes. Ms. Davis explained that the goals are matched according to the student's disability. Every IEP looks different. Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out that the University of Alaska system does not require a high school diploma. Ms. Davis replied that when students are labeled with a learning disability, it is difficult to predict what makes that student "vulnerable". She spoke to the effort each student must make in order to succeed. Representative Croft commented that there is an unspoken worry that IEP's don't expect enough of the students or that IEP's are sometimes used for students that do not really have a disability but instead want some type of modification. He inquired if IEP's were being abused. Ms. Davis replied that there are stringent guidelines regarding disabilities established by the federal and State government. The assessment evaluation is a well-established system. The IEP is a part of that standard and it is a way to give information to identify the student's ability. She emphasized that programs are designed to meet graduation standards. Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out that a parent must "sign off" on the IEP. Ms. Davis responded that it is a team decision and at the high school level, the students are involved in the decision. She commented that the standard would not be lowered if the parent thinks it is too tough. ROD MCCOY, SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER, NEA-ALASKA, ANCHORAGE, addressed his experience as a teacher of special education students in Anchorage. He emphasized that he supported the Senate version of the legislation. He addressed how painful it is to expect more than the student's individual ability. Mr. McCoy pointed out that it is important to respect the individual differences between students. Vice-Chair Bunde interjected that it is "criminal" to damn a child to low expectations. Mr. McCoy agreed. Vice-Chair Bunde voiced his concern that the standard continues to decline. He pointed out that currently, high school students are functioning at a junior high level. Mr. McCoy th interjected that the national level is that of a 5 grader. KARLA GRISWOLD, TEACHER, NEA-ALASKA, ANCHORAGE, voiced support of the Senate version of the bill. She commented on the exceptional standards that currently exist in the State. Ms. Griswold voiced concerns regarding the portfolio. There are some things that are not essential skills which are being required of the students. She suggested that some students do need "extra tools". The State should stick with the standards and have high expectations of the students. She added that on the whole, the special education students are hard workers. TIM WEISS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PARENT INCORPORATED, ANCHORAGE, commented that Parent Inc., is a group of parents of children needing special education services. These parents want to insure that no matter how severe their child's disability is, they are able to get a diploma. Mr. Weiss noted that the bill provides for several concerns which are necessary for students with disabilities: · Recognizing that after taking the test, the IEP team may determine that re-testing is inappropriate; and · Explicitly outlining the methods by which students with disabilities can receive a diploma. Mr. Weiss worried about the fact that an EIP team could not request a waiver in unusual circumstances. The Department of Education & Early Development has currently determined that their "alternate examination" through portfolio work can only be for the lowest functioning 2% of students with disabilities. LOUISE PARRISH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), VALDEZ, voiced support for the legislation and concern that legislators have not had experience with disabled children. The majority of those kids in Alaska fall under the category of specific learning disability. She addressed concerns with dyslexia and specific learning disabilities (SLD). Ms. Parrish commented that all struggling kids could benefit from a system of K-2 screening, diversion and intervention using proven methods of reading instruction. She stressed that all children can learn if schools decide to make reform a priority. DR. ED MCLEAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), KENAI, stated schools are expected to teach a full array of skills to children and to decide what is essential. Out of that full set, the schools are attempting to identify which skills and concepts are essential. All students cannot be required to cover the entire broad range. The question revolves around what level is enough. Dr. McLean discussed essential skills. He suggested that if the use of a modification is allowed, it should be allowed during the assessment. Dr. McLean referenced Page 5 of reports, which would be provided. He stated if the districts were required to report the number of kids with waivers and the number that graduate with the exam, the district could add an additional report indicating the number of students that graduate with the use of modifications. He pointed out that federal save-guards already are in place and would not need to be modified. TAPE HFC 01 - 88, Side A    Dr. McLean voiced his appreciation of all the work that had been done through the legislation. Vice-Chair Bunde inquired if the current test standards met the definition of "essential skills". Dr. McLean replied that his district did define the essential skills. It is being developed and the district is determining how the passing skills are measured in determining foundation or essential skills. Dr. McLean explained that the important piece is not only the level but also the focus of the test. Vice-Chair Bunde thought that the modifications could change the test and raise a red flag. Dr. McLean replied that there are federal regulations, which outlines the requirements that IEP must follow in terms of eligibility. He stated if there was a district with a high number of IEP students, that the district office would initiate an inquiry. Representative Hudson asked about the Kenai certified diploma. He inquired how the State could guarantee that the money being spent for education was producing students that can meet the necessary minimum standards. Dr. McLean replied that setting the standards, the Borough begins with a yearlong process of monthly meetings held to establish indicators of a successful policy. Then those ideas are accessed and the criteria reference is considered. Representative Lancaster asked which version of the legislation was preferred. Dr. McLean responded that he preferred the Senate version as it provides for accountability and that a variety of the details would be addressed through the public process. He commented that cost is critical for modifications. KAREN DEMPSTER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SUPERINTENDENT OF YUKON KOYUKUK SCHOOL DISTRICT, commented that she had been a special needs student, who continued on to law school. She noted that she could not finish the general education diploma (GED) exit exam. She commented that the debate now revolves around two situations, special need students and those students that only have a specific limitation. Ms. Dempster spoke to the objective criteria currently being used. After the student meets the testing qualifications, then they must meet the standards. Ms. Dempster added that it is important to look at what criteria are being used to determine whether a student is handicapped or not. She addressed concerns with the portfolio work and testing for the IEP student. Currently, there is a standard in place that allows seeing which student has a handicap. That standard is rigorous. Ms. Dempster recommended going with the version of the bill that allows for the identification of the handicap and for the modification to accomplish the testing. She urged that consideration be made on how to handle this concern. She noted that employers often do look at the other criteria. She applauded Vice-Chair Bunde with the inclusion of the high school education standards to help raise the awareness of why education is important. The accommodation should not be a lessening of the standard. Vice-Chair Bunde noted that both versions of the bill provide for accommodations and that the divergence begins with the modifications. BARBARA LEFLER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PARENTS FOR EFFECTIVE READING CURRICULUM (PERC), ANCHORAGE, testified to experiences with her child who has a learning disability. She commented that a curriculum was formed to address his needs. She stressed that children with learning disabilities can succeed if there is a curriculum for their conditions. Ms. Lefler stressed that parents are becoming worn down in fighting for their child. She urged that the IEP diploma language be removed. Representative Hudson asked about the "weight" referenced on Page 3 with regard to the certificate of achievement. Ms. Lefler responded that a certificate of achievement is a "back door" to allow the IEP team to let them off the hook. She stressed that a certificate of achievement does not carry as much weight as a diploma. Vice-Chair Bunde commented that the certificate of achievement applied to all students not just the IEP. MILLIE RYAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL ON DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL EDUCATION, ANCHORAGE, stated that the Council does support high standards for all students and that expectations need to be higher. The performance standards offer an opportunity for schools to accommodate for the students and their learning style. Ms. Ryan added that it is important to provide a variety of ways to provide for students to demonstrate what they have learned. The Council recommends adding language that allows for the participation in the alternative learning assessment outlined in their IEP that results in a diploma if they do not pass the exit exam three times. She recommended that the alternative assessment be in line with the performance standard. Vice-Chair Bunde stated that an assessment would be a modification of the test. JENNIFER JONES, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL ON DISABIITIES AND SPECIAL EDUCATION, ANCHORAGE, addressed her own physical disability. The ability to pass the test with modifications currently exists. A certificate of achievement does not carry the same weight as a diploma and limits the student's ability to succeed in the future. Students fear that they are not going to be able to move forward. Ms. Jones recommended adding language for the alternative assessment to be in line with the performance standard. JEAN BUGG, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EDUCATOR, ANCHORAGE, commented on the certificate of achievement amounting to a diploma with a "disclaimer". She stressed that document would not qualify the student for a "real" job. Ms. Bugg stated that the Alaska education system needs better teaching skills to assure the best methods to reach disabled students. Co-Chair Williams stated that SB 133 would be HELD in Committee for further consideration.