HB 405-SCHOOL PERFORMANCE DESIGNATION/REPORT    The committee took up CSHB 405(HES). CHAIR DYSON noted that his staff had prepared a committee substitute (CS). MS. KAREN McCARTHY, staff to Senator Con Bunde, said Representative Gatto sponsored the bill. Senator Bunde's major issue with the bill is to ensure that in Section 5, the requirement for the department to provide a report to the Legislature on the progress of each school toward high academic performance continues. That report is required by AS 14.03.078. CHAIR DYSON moved to adopt the proposed CS, version U [labeled 3-LS1443\U, Mischel, 5/7/04]. CHAIR DYSON objected for purposes of discussion. MR. CODY RICE, Staff to Representative Carl Gatto, responded to a question from Chair Dyson said this was the first he has seen of the CS, but he has worked closely with Chair Dyson and Senator Guess's office. CHAIR DYSON asked what the original bill did. MR. RICE said the original bill repealed and re-enacted the school designator statutes to comply with certain mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act, while at the same time, creating simplicity and ensuring there were not two separate designator systems that might be conflicting. CHAIR DYSON asked if this brought the state's designator system into conformity with the federal system. MR. RICE said more or less. SENATOR GUESS explained that the first version indicated the getting rid of everything that was done in SB 36 and replacing it with No Child Left Behind (NCLB). MR. WES KELLER, Staff to Senator Dyson, said the word "designator" does not appear in NCLB at all, but there are designators given in the sense that if a school is designated as lacking two years of adequate years of progress, it becomes eligible for certain sanctions and concerns; the term "designator" has been maintained. MR. KELLER addressed the changes that were made in version U. He referred to page 1, line 5, where a new section was added that requires the department to publish a report of all the district revenue received on the district website. The information is currently available in the department and this asks that it be placed on the website. The second change is on page 2, line 29, adding the words, "and the weight of the measures used to assign a performance designation," will ensure that the designator assigned by the department under Section 4 of the bill, (indisc.) is reported to the public with reference to the measures used to assign the designation. Subsection (d) of AS 14.03.120 is the requirement for each school to report to its community. This change is in the report card the school makes to its own community. MR. KELLER continued that the third change, on page 3, line 17, was a drafter error. It probably isn't necessary because the school is working with the district, the department on this designator, so the school has probably already reported to the governing body the designator and the weight of it. He asked that this be taken out. He pointed to the next change, page 3 line 25, "in accordance with (f) of this section." A sentence is deleted here also, as the sentence in version I was, "The performance designation shall be based on student achievement measures that include the results of statewide assessment from the school year." Basically the way it was written, performance designation is required but the meaning of the designation is left up to the state board. This changes it, and also ties the designator to the state accountability assessment standards, not just the NCLB. MR. KELLER explained that the next change is on page 4, line 1, the word "standards" is replaced with "criteria." "Criteria" is a better word if trying to understand what the designation means. On page 4, line 2, a new subsection was added. High achievement/low achievement designations based on accountability require that the state accountability system recognize both the failures and successes. When students are excited about what they're doing, you want to recognize that, give them the positives. MR. KELLER outlined that on page 4, line 5, there is a subsection requiring the school improvement plan be deleted, the reason being there is a new paragraph (d) on page 4, line 12, speaking specifically to the school improvement plan. School improvement plans are a requirement of NCLB. The way NCLB is written, there is just brief mention of school improvement plans, with no guidelines or references whatsoever, whereas paragraph (d) puts in some basic guidelines. He continued that a new subsection was added on page 4, line 19. It requires the department to establish a program of special recognition for schools with high designators. Again, you want to recognize a school with a high degree of success; there is nothing as positive as a group of kids proud of their school. MR. KELLER referred to page 4, lines 27 through page 5, line 1, expanding the measures for the state accountability system. In version I, the designator was based on improvements that the student made and multiple measures. This CS proposes not only to use the improvement that's going on in other measures, but also to reference it very clearly to the state assessment system that includes a competency test, benchmark tests, and specifically addresses reading, writing, and arithmetic. In the first part, the weight of the designators are tied to the measures that are in this subsection. He said another change was on page 5, after line 7, a definition of statewide assessment system; it used to be in the old paragraph (a) but it's been taken out. He said one more change was the one mentioned by [Ms. McCarthy] regarding the "thick report." CHAIR DYSON asked if there was any objection to these changes. [There was none.] CHAIR DYSON said he'd like [Conceptual Amendment 1] to omit lines 16, 17, and 18 on page 3 and re-number accordingly. He asked if there was objection to that. [There was none.] Chair Dyson announced that the CS was amended to move lines 16, 17, and 18 on page 3 and to renumber accordingly. SENATOR GUESS asked about section 1. She agreed with Senator Wilken that this is a great addition. She said she was confused by the language, "submitted under (a) of this section and include all revenue received by each school district organized in easily sortable categories including ADM and district." SENATOR WILKEN said he thought it said, "and include all revenue" by districts organized in categories including ADM and districts, so the categories are the [indisc.]. SENATOR GUESS suggested, "modified in categories." SENATOR WILKEN continued that ADM and district are categories. SENATOR GUESS referred to page 4, line 1, "criteria that will be used for assignment of each designation," and to page 2, and page 3, and asked what formula would result in a designation; she wondered if there was a reason behind the conflicting language. MR. KELLER said "criteria" could be used in all places and it would be the same thing. CHAIR DYSON asked Senator Guess if she'd like to move a conceptual amendment to change "weight" to "criteria." SENATOR GUESS moved conceptual Amendment [2] so that there would be consistent language in the description of the designator [in Sections 2,3, and 4]. CHAIR DYSON asked if there was any objection. Seeing none, it was adopted. SENATOR GUESS referred to page 4, line 27. Because the bill is specific about the reading, writing, and mathematics assessments, she wondered if there would be a problem complying with NCLB, given that science is coming up in '06 as part of the accountability system. MR. LES MORSE, Director of Assessment and Accountability for the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), said this shouldn't be a problem. There will be a science assessment, and that assessment will be for reporting purposes, but not part of the designation system, according to what he's been told by the U.S. Department of Education. In terms of reporting, the focus of Alaska's statutes has been on reading, writing, and mathematics, and the desire is to maintain that and work with the federal government to avoid having the science be anything other than reporting requirements. CHAIR DYSON asked if the department has any problems with anything that's been brought up. MR. KEVIN SWEENEY, Special Assistant to Commissioner of Education and Early Development, stated that the only section the department wasn't aware of ahead of time was Section 1, and he doesn't know if that will be a problem or not. CHAIR DYSON asked that Mr. Sweeney check on this to let him know, before the bill gets to the floor. MR. SWEENEY confirmed he would do that. CHAIR DYSON asked for the wish of the committee. SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS moved to report SCS CSHB 405(HES) out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. CHAIR DYSON asked if there were any objections. There being none, it was so ordered. The committee was recessed to the call of the Chair at 5 p.m.