CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 133(HES) "An Act relating to a two-year transition for implementation of the public high school competency examination and to establishing a secondary student competency examination as a high school graduation requirement; and providing for an effective date." DARREL SANBORN, testified via teleconference from Unalaska. He indicated that in a couple places in the bill it stated "the governing board" and requested clarification as to whether they meant the state board of education or the local board. Senator Green clarified that the bill was referring to the State School Board. Mr. Sanborn stated that his second concern was that ESL (English as a Second Language) was not addressed in the bill at all. He pointed out that English is a second for many students in Unalaska. Senator Green answered that it might be different if they had an ESL student under an Individual Education Plan (IEP). She deferred the question to the department. BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development, indicated that CS SB 133 (HES) did not address IEP students directly. He explained that if that were to take place it would have to be done through the waiver process. Senator Green pointed out the three things that she felt were of priority: one, continue to give the exam; two, have the exam address the essential skills of the students; three, address provisions for learning disabled student. She noted that during the process they realized that they needed a safety valve or waiver so that a district would be able to handle any extraordinary circumstance. She explained that in the bill they created a transition period; they would begin giving the test for accountability in 2002 and the students who passed the exam would have it indicated on their transcript and diploma. She noted that there would also be provisions for the learning disabled students who might need some provisions made for their exams. She pointed out that all IEP students had the option of a regular assessment without accommodation or with accommodation or an alternate assessment. She explained that in the year 2004 the exam would be retooled and they would have the same procedures in place. She added that there would be a waiver procedure for the following: the student who might transfer in late; illness; injury or what they would consider extenuating circumstances. She stated that a school district would present to the department the number of waivers approved and in January of 2003 the department would come back to the legislature. She said that they believed there should be legislation that would place the exit exam in a position where it would be legally defensible. She added that they tried to create something that would avoid legal entanglement. Mr. Johnson applauded the Senate Health, Education and Social Services (HESS) Committee and Senator Green. He indicated that the department was pleased with the many refinements to the secondary pupil competency testing law as outlined in the committee substitute for SB 133. He noted that the department sincerely believed that they were on the right path to ensure that Alaskan's standard space reform effort would prevail and that students would be treated fairly. He indicated that the fair treatment of students with special needs had been successfully addressed in the bill. He further stated that the potential of waivers for unique situations had also been addressed and could, in their estimation, be crafted by the State Board of Education and Early Development to maintain integrity. He offered two suggestions: first, an effective date of 2006, which would allow for greater defensibility when the law was challenged; second, the endorsements outlined in the bill would be best left on the transcript. In closing, he commended the Senate on the legislation and added that the legislation would ensure that Alaska's public schools would have enough time to prepare all students. Senator Wilken referred to page 2, line 7, specifically the language, "or receives a waiver from the governing body". He requested clarification that "governing body" was referring to the local school board. Senator Green clarified that it does refer to the local school board. Senator Wilken indicated that he was uncomfortable with that language. He asked Mr. Johnson to explain how they would put together regulations that would be so tight that they would not be putting a burden on 53 different school boards to have continual waiver hearings. Mr. Johnson noted that obviously it would be a challenging task. He believed that the intention of the Senate HESS Committee would be to have it narrowly defined. He added that he would preserve regulation that would be narrowly defined and there would be no room for misinterpretation. He said that they would simply look at a student to see if they met the requirement or not and they would either be granted a waiver or denied. He explained that they planned to take it out to the Alaska public and gain their insight. Depends on the amount of time available. He declared that it was a daunting task, but something that the state board was willing to take on and bring back to the legislature for their consideration. He noted that many of the members had emphasized the narrowness that they desired in the waiver process and he did not anticipate that the state board would ignore that desire. Senator Hoffman wondered if Mr. Johnson would expand on his desire for a 2006 deadline. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the key to defensibility was the opportunity to learn concepts. He noted that the key to the Texas case was their capacity to show that there were plenty of intervention opportunities for young people; therefore, they knew what the requirements were early on and they were given an opportunity for intervention. He explained that in Alaska they have the three benchmark exams at grades three, six and eight. He said that the 2006 deadline would give families and students the feedback from the sixth grade and the eighth grade benchmark exams, as well as, the high school qualifying exam. He advised that if they stuck with the 2004 deadline then they would only have one benchmark exam. He concluded that collectively the opportunity to learn both from knowing the results early on and more time for remediation and intervention would all strengthen their capacity to argue successfully in the court that the law makes sense. Senator Leman said that he would resist changing the deadline to 2006 and believed that the 2004 deadline would be workable. He pointed out that the legislature enacted the law in the first place to get people serious about standards and meeting those standards; therefore, putting it off for another two years would do a disservice to the progress. He noted that he had seen some evidence where some students believed that the legislature would not take this issue seriously and he urged that the message be that they were serious. He indicated that they would require that the results show up on the transcript and he hoped on the diploma as well. He suggested that it be a very simple system of endorsement stickers or stamps. He believed that it would be an incentive for students to receive those endorsements. He commented that he might divert from his colleagues in saying that the math exam needs a little work, but not a whole revision. He encouraged them in the revision process to not back it off too much in keeping it at a high school level when it came to math. He believed that the process had the potential to be productive. Senator Olson assumed that the children that were being home schooled would need to be tested as well. He wondered how that would occur. Senator Green responded that she was not sure of the answer, but she believed that they passed legislation two or three years ago that would keep the legislature out of the home school purview. She assumed that it applied in this case. Co-Chair Kelly pointed out that there were some home school courses that used the state high school curriculum; therefore, some would be through private organizations and not applicable. Senator Green responded, "That's true." Senator Olson attempted to clarify that a student home schooled in rural Alaska would not be inhibited in any way from receiving a diploma. Co-Chair Kelly reiterated that if they were going through a state school district that provided correspondence courses then they would have to take the test, but if they went through a private organization they would not have to take the test rather they would have a diploma through that private organization and not from the state. Senator Wilken requested clarification that a student could complete a home school program and then if they wanted to receive a diploma they would have the option of taking the exam. Mr. Johnson explained that they would have to be enrolled in a public school and have met the attendance requirements of that school and all the local requirements and the requirements of the exit exam in order to have the option of taking the exam. He summarized that if a student was truly home schooled and not a participant in any public program then they would not be eligible to take the exit exam. JANELL PRIVETT, testified via teleconference from Wrangell, stated that she was very impressed with the work that had been done on the bill and supported the bill the way it was currently written. Senator Leman thanked Ms. Privett and noted that the Wrangell community had produced some of the best results in the early rounds of testing and affirmed that obviously the Wrangell School District was doing something right. ED MCCLAIN, Assistant Superintendent, Kenai Schools, testified via teleconference from Kenai, testified in support of the bill. He thanked the Senate HESS Committee for their work on the bill, as well as, the Department of Education and Early Development. He voiced appreciation for the encouragement to local districts to develop additional endorsements and awards for higher-level achievements. He indicated that they also appreciated the addition of waivers to handle the variety of unexpected and unusual situation. He referred the Committee to page 3, lines 27 through 30, with regards to the waiver. He commented that it would provide a way for accountability and he believed that it was a wise decision. Senator Green thanked Mr. McClain for his testimony and indicated that he had been a key player in making the bill something that the Committee could be proud of. Senator Hoffman offered a conceptual amendment to delete "2004" and insert "2006." Senator Green objected. Senator Hoffman spoke to the amendment. Senator Leman indicated that he was opposed to the amendment. He pointed out that in 1997 the previous legislation was passed effectively setting the date for 2002. He believed that it was appropriate to put pressure on the school districts and the department to make the changes. He also noted that they have the momentum now. Co-Chair Kelly voiced that under the previous provisions the bill was more of a "drop dead" bill, but believed that the Senate HESS Committee had provided a bill that did not present so much at stake if a student did not pass the exam. He concluded that the work of the Senate HESS Committee removed the need to extend the date. Senator Hoffman agreed with Senator Leman and Co-Chair Kelly, but again the idea of having the whole exam held up in court was also very important. Senator Green clarified that they would continually be working on improving the test. She pointed out that the Senate HESS Committee was assured that all would be in order in 2004. Senator Olson indicated that it would be better for them to have more years behind them and expressed support for the amendment. A roll call was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Senator Hoffman and Senator Olson OPPOSED: Senator Green, Senator Leman, Senator Wilken, Senator Donley and Senator Kelly The motion FAILED (5 - 2) Co-Chair Donley made a motion to move CS SB 133 (HES), 22-LS0607/P, from Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There was no objection and CS SB 133 (HES) was reported from Committee. Co-Chair Kelly thanked the Senate HESS Committee for the work that they had done on the bill.