JOINT HOUSE AND SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE February 18, 1998 8:15 a.m. SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Gary Wilken, Co-Chairman Senator Loren Leman Senator Lyda Green Senator Jerry Ward Senator Johnny Ellis SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT None HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chairman Representative Joe Green Representative Brian Porter Representative J. Allen Kemplen HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Fred Dyson Representative Tom Brice Representative Al Vezey COMMITTEE CALENDAR OVERVIEW OF EDUCATION WEEK PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION No previous action to record. WITNESS REGISTER Craig D. Jerald Project Director, Quality Counts Education Week 4301 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 250 Washington, D.C. 20008 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the Quality Counts '98 Report Bridget Keenan Curran Senior Research Associate, Quality Counts Education Week 4301 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 250 Washington, D.C. 20008 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about the Quality Counts Report Lynn Olson Project Editor, Quality Counts Education Week 4301 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 250 Washington, D.C. 20008 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about the Quality Counts '98 Report Commissioner Shirley Holloway, Ph.D. Department of Education 801 W. 10th St., Ste. 200 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the Quality Counts '98 Report Susan Stitham Alaska State Board of Education Lathrop High School/901 Airport Way Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the Quality Counts '98 Report Robert Gotstein Alaska State Board of Education 630 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the Quality Counts '98 Report Bill McDiarmid, Director Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska Anchorage 3211 Providence Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99508-8180 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the Quality Counts '98 Report Skye Rubadeau Alaska State Board of Education Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the Quality Counts '98 Report ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-12, SIDE A Number 001 CO-CHAIR BUNDE called the Joint House and Senate Health, Education and Social Services (HESS) Committee to order at 8:20 a.m. Present were Representatives Bunde, Kemplen, Porter and Green, and Senators Wilken, Leman, Ward, Green and Ellis. Co-Chair Bunde announced the committee had gathered to discuss the Education Week Report on Alaska's schools with the goal of learning about perceptions of Alaska's schools, how we got to this point, and what the Legislature can do to improve Alaska's schools. Co-Chair Bunde noted the following people from Education Week would be participating via teleconference: Craig Jerald, Project Director of Quality Counts; Bridget Keenan Curran, Senior Research Associate of Quality Counts; Lynn Olson, Project Editor of Quality Counts; and Jessica Sandham, Quality Counts' staff reporter. Other participants would be Commissioner Holloway and Deputy Commissioner Rick Cross of the Department of Education, and Susan Stitham, Robert Gotstein, Bettye Davis, Mila Williams, and Skye Rubadeau of the State Board of Education. Co-Chair Bunde noted the committee would take testimony from Mr. Jerald first to accommodate a time constraint. CRAIG JERALD, Project Director of Quality Counts, stated two years ago Education Week received funding from the Pew Charitable Trust to publish a report on the condition and progress of education reform in the 50 states. The grant followed a call from governors and corporate CEOs at the 1996 National Education Summit for an independent, external, non-governmental report on state progress in setting standards, improving teaching, and making technology acceptable to schools. Quality Counts is an independent project; it accepts no funding from any organization other than the Pew Charitable Trust. The judgments and evaluations necessary to this kind of endeavor belong solely to Education Week. MR. JERALD commented at the onset of the project, the group had to determine the components of a high quality state education system. To do so, the Quality Counts' team reviewed the available research, scoured 15 years of Education Week reporting, talked to experts across the nation, and applied a "dose of good, old-fashioned human judgment...." The team concluded that the following five components are most important to a good state education system: 1. clear, explicit and rigorous standards for student achievement; a comprehensive assessment system to measure whether students are meeting those standards; and a system to hold schools, districts, and students accountable for meeting the achievement standards; 2. policies on teacher licensure/certification and professional development to make it possible to create and support a teaching force that is truly capable of educating students to very high standards; 3. schools that are organized and operated in a manner most conducive to teaching and learning, where teachers, students, parents and administrators are all focused on student achievement and have the flexibility and support to meet high standards; 4. a finance system that provides adequate levels of education funding where funds are distributed equitably across districts and enough resources are spent on instruction; and 5. most important, students who are graduating on time, taking rigorous courses, and achieving proficiency in core academic subjects. Having identified the components of a high quality state education system, Quality Counts' team then constructed a system of more than 75 indicators to evaluate and grade state progress in each of the components. Some of the data was in the form of hard numbers, such as the percentage of education dollars that go to instruction, and some was policy-related data, i.e. whether a state has adopted academic standards. To measure the indicators, the Quality Counts' team relied only on the most reliable, comparable, and recent data available and often used the U.S. Department of Education's data because it is the most comparable and reliable. The nation's effort to collect data on education leaves much to be desired, especially at the 50 state levels. However, the data reveals something about the quality of state education systems. The Quality Counts' team worked very hard during the past two years to fill gaps in the nation's education data. MR. JERALD informed committee members that the Washington-based Council for Basic Education evaluated the rigor of each state's math and English standards this past year at the request of the Quality Counts' team. That evaluation is now included as part of the report. Quality Counts believes the grades and standards, teacher quality ratings, school climate, and resources scores reflect either real progress or a lack of progress by states in building a sound state education system. The states that scored high in those four areas also showed the most improvement in fourth and eighth grade mathematics scores from 1992 to 1996. Good grades from the Quality Counts indicators correlate to an increase, over time, in the percentage of fourth and eighth graders who are proficient in mathematics, and not necessarily to the current percentage of students who are proficient. At present, no state has a majority of students proficient in reading, math or science, and no state would receive a passing grade on student achievement given what this nation now expects students to achieve. This year no state received A's in all categories; the average grade was a solid C. MR. JERALD gave the following synopsis of Alaska's grades. In the first category, standards and assessment, Alaska received a D+ because Alaska does not have a comprehensive assessment system in place to measure student achievement. Alaska averaged a D in specificity and rigor for its math and English standards. The state DOE plans to put a better system in place and is considering requiring proficiency on the ninth grade test to graduate. Alaska received a D+ on efforts to raise the quality of the teaching workforce. That grade was based on whether the state had in place a system that grants licenses to teachers based on skills and performance, rather than on time spent in education schools; whether secondary teachers have degrees in the subjects they teach; and whether teachers have access to and are engaged in professional development. Alaska has taken an important step forward by adopting standards for new teachers. However, the state has yet to adopt performance standards or standards to determine whether teachers have the skills and knowledge to be granted a license, whether they are supported in the classroom, and whether they are evaluated in the beginning years of their professional lives. Alaska received a C- in the third category, school climate. That grade was based on a class size of 25 or fewer students, indicators of student engagement, such as absenteeism, indicators of parent involvement, and policies that allow for greater autonomy and flexibility at the local level. Alaska's C- grade reflects the fact that it is average on all of the indicators. Alaska received a D- in the fourth category, which pertains to resources. That grade was based not only on a cost adjusted per pupil expenditure, but also on whether spending kept up with inflation over a ten-year period, and the proportion of the state's total taxable wealth devoted to education. Alaska's grade was due almost solely to the state's failure to keep up with inflation. From 1986 to 1996, the public education system experienced about a 25 percent decrease in real spending after factoring out inflation. Regarding equity of resources, Quality Counts conducted an analysis of the variation in spending across school districts in Alaska. After factoring out very small districts that cannot exercise an economy of scale, and factoring out some acceptable sources of variation in spending, such as higher percentages of poor and special education students, or geographical areas with higher education costs, Alaska received a grade of F. After figuring out this analysis, Quality Counts' staff looked to what state education officials and experts had to say. Some observers pointed out that Anchorage has about 40 percent of the student population, yet only receives 30 percent of the state and local education dollars. A separate grade was given for resource allocation, based on one indicator from the National Center for Education statistics at the U.S. Department of Education. That statistic is the percentage of education dollars spent on instructional incentives directly associated with teaching and learning, such as teacher salaries and benefits, and classroom supplies. Alaska ranked lowest among the states and received an F in that category. No grade was given for student achievement because Quality Counts believed such a grade would have muddied the picture. Quality Counts believes the best indicator, and best grade, for student achievement comes from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Alaska participated in the national assessment in 1996 and the results showed that the state has a fairly long way to go on the issue of student achievement. Twenty-one percent of fourth graders and 30 percent of eighth graders demonstrated proficiency in math. About one out of every three fourth and eighth graders fell below even the basic math proficiency level in Alaska. Those students failed to meet any of the performance benchmarks on the national test. MR. JERALD noted to determine the resource grade, Quality Counts worked closely with the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. General Accounting Office to apply the most sophisticated adjustments currently available to the raw finance data they relied on in the report. It was done for geographic cost differences using a new cost of education index developed by the National Center for Education Statistics. Quality Counts adjusted for special student needs to account for the higher cost of educating poor and special education students, and small districts with fewer than 200 students were discounted in conducting the equity analysis. Those guidelines have currently been set by school finance analysts. MR. JERALD advised that it is important to keep in mind that these adjustments, while more comprehensive than those used in other education reports to date, are still somewhat incomplete. For instance, data does not exist to allow adjustment for expenses associated with educating students with limited proficiency in English. Jay Chamber, the economist who developed the Cost of Education Index, tried to include as many factors as he could to account for variations in spending among different geographic regions. Adjustments for personnel costs, including teachers and administrators, and for different costs associated with transportation and fuel costs were included. In some ways Alaska is an outlier state, therefore the necessary data might not yet exist to appropriately adjust for its unique circumstances in the resources category. MR. JERALD concluded by saying that the Quality Counts team does not claim that the grades given capture all of the nuances and complexities of any single state's education system. There is no Dow Jones Index for education. Quality Counts hopes that states will take a critical look at the evaluations with the goal of sparking intelligent conversations about how to improve each state's schools and how to raise student achievement. According to Quality Counts' indicators, Alaska is moving in the right direction. The ongoing attempt to update the funding system, the attempt to create better assessments for student achievement, and to approve standards for new teachers, are steps in the right direction. Number 285 CO-CHAIR BUNDE thanked Mr. Jerald and stated the committee agreed to view this report as a catalyst to help further discussions. He referred to Mr. Jerald's statement that no schools in the nation scored higher than a C and questioned whether Quality Counts created a test that no one could pass. MR. JERALD said the Quality Counts' team believes its assessment was fair because the grades reflect states' efforts. Data to grade individual schools or districts is not available, therefore Quality Counts did not give grades to each of Alaska's schools and then calculate an average. It developed grades based on state policies and hard data. Quality Counts believes it is possible for all states to do well in each category and to develop a comprehensive system of high quality schools. Four states received an A and six states received an A- in the standards and assessments component. In the quality of the workforce component, one state received an A- and a number of states received B's. School climate is in some ways the most difficult category to score well on, nevertheless a handful of states received B's this year. A couple of states received A's in the resources category. Clearly it is possible for states to do well in any one of the categories; the real challenge is to score high in all of the categories. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if all five components of a good education system are of equal value. MR. JERALD said Quality Counts did not give a composite grade to any state because it believes each category is important in itself. Quality Counts believes student achievement is the most important component, and the remaining four categories are of equal importance. MR. JERALD explained that the indicators within each category were weighted differently, for instance, in the school climate component, class size was worth about 35 percent of the grade while student engagement was worth about 20 percent. Number 329 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER questioned what figure was used as the baseline to determine whether Alaska had kept up with inflation. MR. JERALD replied Quality Counts compared spending per student in the year 1986 to spending per student in 1996, and factored out inflation. Quality Counts calculated the amount by subtracting the state's inflation adjustment in 1986 per pupil expenditure from its 1996 per pupil expenditure. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if that method presumed that the appropriate spending level was the amount spent in 1986. MR. JERALD answered that is why several indicators were used in that category. Quality Counts looked at the current level of funding and spending in relation to wealth, and then at whether the state kept up with inflation over time. In a couple of interviews with Alaskans, people expressed concern that a decline in spending in relation to inflation might result in increased class size and fewer classroom materials. When schools are used to operating on a certain budget, and the budget starts to decline, it is likely the quality of education will decline as a result. CO-CHAIR BUNDE maintained that some legislators believe the state was spending too much in the 1980's when it was very wealthy from oil revenues, and now the Legislature is letting reality catch up with the budget. He acknowledged that view is not shared by everyone. MR. JERALD affirmed that is a difficult discussion but said Quality Counts believes it is incumbent on the state to do the research to figure out what an adequate spending level is. That figure should account for all of the components that form a high quality education system. He repeated that school districts become accustomed to a certain level of funding, and when that money is no longer available, something has to give. CO-CHAIR BUNDE remarked that unfortunately, in Alaska, that give has not been in the area of administrative salaries. MR. JERALD said that is why Quality Counts decided to look at the percent spent on instruction versus administration and other costs. Quality Counts believes it is important that 70 percent of the resources be spent in the classroom; in Alaska that amount is about 56 percent. Number 380 CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that one of the criteria was to compare state wealth to the money spent on education. He asked how Alaska compared to other states. LYNN OLSON, Project Editor of Quality Counts, replied that they looked at the percent of total taxable resources spent on education in 1995. In that area Alaska did quite well. The national average was 4 percent, in Alaska it was 4.7 percent. SENATOR WARD asked if Quality Counts compared the United States to other countries. MS. OLSON stated Quality Counts was not able to do an international comparison and establish benchmarks. In areas such as classroom instruction, the Quality Counts' team took into account the fact that larger proportions of education dollars in other countries reach the classroom. That is one reason Quality Counts felt there is room for improvement. New York had the highest percentage of its dollars reach the classroom; that amount was 68 percent. From that number, Quality Counts set its benchmark at 70 percent. Number 404 COMMISSIONER SHIRLEY HOLLOWAY, Department of Education, gave the following testimony. She noted her appreciation for the cooperation Education Week extended to DOE as it struggled to determine the basis on which Alaska was judged in the Quality Counts '98 report. In the future, DOE will be given the judging criteria prior to the time reports are completed. DOE prepared an analysis of Alaska's grades received in the Quality Counts '98 report based on its understanding from reading the report as well as its interactions with Education Week staff. DOE's analysis report was distributed to committee members. COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY informed committee members that during the past three years, DOE has been working on the Quality Schools Initiative, a project designed by the State Board of Education. The elements of both the Quality Schools Initiative and the five components of Quality Count's report are in close alignment. The Quality Schools Initiative's first element pertains to high student standards and assessment processes. The second pertains to quality professional standards, which is what Quality Counts refers to as its teachers' ability to teach to high standards component. The Quality Schools Initiative speaks to school standards that are far more comprehensive than just family involvement or business involvement, it addresses the teaching-learning environment in schools. DOE agrees that the components being judged in the Quality Counts report need to be judged, and DOE wants Alaska's schools to perform well in those categories. Over the last couple of years, the State Board of Education and the Governor have introduced proposals to increase funds for education. COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY informed committee members that DOE believes if those programs are put into place, the probability of greater student achievement is high. All of the standards work done in Alaska to date has been accomplished by piecemealing federal dollars. DOE has advocated for a comprehensive assessment system for the past two and one-half years. The Teaching and Learning Support section of DOE is responsible for supporting public education; it has $5 million in general fund monies. Of that $5 million, $2.5 million is pass-through grant money. In 1985 and 1986, DOE lost $12 million in just that component. In terms of dollars available to DOE, it is highly restricted by the resources available to it right now to move in the direction that Quality Counts endorses. COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY said the State Board of Education formed a licensure task force several years ago. The teaching quality component of Quality Counts' report speaks to the area that the task force worked hard on. Induction programs, teacher assessment, and establishing an independent board equates to long term financial investments. One positive thing that has happened in Alaska regarding teacher quality is that the three branches of the University of Alaska formed a committee called the Professional Education Coordinating Council. That Council is devising a program, based on the teacher and administrative standards, to prepare new teachers and to ensure that graduates leave with the ability to teach to the student standards in place. COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY concluded by saying that HB 351 and SB 257, introduced by Governor Knowles, do not address all of DOE's or Quality Counts' components, but they do take an important incremental step. Those bills would mandate reading, writing, and math standards, put into place a comprehensive assessment system tied to standards, establish a school accountability program tied to rewards and sanctions, and increase education funding tied to improving student performance. DOE's approach has been results- oriented as it believes no matter what system is put into place, the final and most important judgment has to be in terms of student learning. DOE also believes that the Legislature, the Administration, the State Board of Education, and other constituent groups need to work together to improve public education and receive a better report card in the future. Number 478 CO-CHAIR BUNDE indicated Alaska has had a program of voluntary standards in the past. He asked Ms. Olson if such a program met the standards that Quality Counts had in its test. MS. OLSON said some states, such as Colorado, have developed model standards at the state level and then asked districts to develop their own standards at least as rigorous as the state standards. She pointed out that in strong local control states, the idea of having a single set of state standards may not be the most desirable approach. The value that Quality Counts was trying to emphasize was that all students within a state should be held to high standards. Measuring those standards is necessary so that expectations do not differ radically from one part of the state to another to the detriment of students. CO-CHAIR BUNDE thought it fair to say that Alaskans believe they live in a strong local control state. He asked Ms. Olson if she was recommending that the state develop a baseline to which local jurisdictions can add to. MS. OLSON clarified that Quality Counts does not have a particular recommendation; she was explaining that different states have approached the problem in different ways. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated the Quality Counts' report recommended that teachers have a degree in the subject they teach but noted that would be an impossibility in many of Alaska's school districts. He asked if the report gave additional points if teachers were certified in the subjects that they teach, as opposed to having a degree in that subject. BRIDGET KEENAN CURRAN, Senior Research Associate, Quality Counts, stated that indicator is defined as teachers who have a minor or major in subjects, such as math or math education. She did not know whether data on the number of teachers who have an endorsement or certification in a field that they teach in exists for all 50 states. Quality Counts' staff felt it was important that a teacher have some background in the subject to support endorsement or certification in the field. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Quality Counts' staff members made on-site visits to any schools in the state. MS. OLSON replied they did not do so in any states, but they wrote detailed narratives to try to provide some of the context that makes each state unique. Alaska's narrative was based on very extensive telephone reporting in Alaska by Jessica Sandham, and from responses to questionnaires sent to people around the state. One problem staff encountered, when trying to get comparable information across the 50 states, was that by insisting on comparability, some of the context was lost. The narratives were included for that reason, and that is the reason the Quality Counts' team continued to tell states that the grades are summaries and that it is important to look at the indicators. Number 551 SUSAN STITHAM, Alaska State Board of Education member, made the following comments via teleconference from Fairbanks. Regarding the teacher assessment component, she hoped Education Week would consider changing that standard to indicate whether teachers are licensed in a specific area, rather than having received a degree alone. Although receiving a degree provides the best opportunity to get the background knowledge, standards-based licensure, in which the practitioner is able to demonstrate that he/she can meet the standards, is a more important criteria to move toward. MS. OLSON agreed with Ms. Stitham and commented that states are undergoing a transition in the way they prepare licensed teachers. The Quality Counts' team changed its indicators quite a bit this year to reflect the fact that states are moving in the direction of performance based licensure. MS. STITHAM said Alaska is ahead of the curve on this issue. She hoped everyone could work together to find the resources to help the students in Alaska. ROBERT GOTSTEIN congratulated and complimented the Quality Counts' team for its accomplishment because, like standardized tests, the report has its flaws but is very useful. He agreed with most of the analysis, and in particular with the statement that inflation has had a detrimental impact on wages and professional capacities, as well as on student-teacher ratios. About 85 percent of educators agree on where Alaska needs to improve, therefore it is important to focus on the things they agree upon. CO-CHAIR BUNDE stated, regarding administrative overhead, Alaska has many single-site schools. He asked if that situation exists in any other state. MS. OLSON could not say offhand, but she believed there are one-school districts in very rural areas of New York and elsewhere. CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented he believes Alaska has 49 schools with a student population of 20 or less. MS. OLSON agreed that makes Alaska quite unusual. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if schools with less than 200 students were omitted from the assessment of the percentage of funds used for instruction. MS. OLSON replied variations in spending across districts were reviewed in the equity analysis because there are no efficiencies in cost in those extremely small districts. The districts with fewer than 200 students were excluded from the equity analysis specifically. CO-CHAIR BUNDE maintained that meant half of Alaska's districts were probably excluded. Number 557 DR. BILL McDIARMID, Director of the Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, made the following comments. He agrees with a lot of the previous speakers' testimony about Quality Counts' work but understands the kind of pressures the group was under. The Quality Counts' team had to deal with data available, and useful data was further narrowed by the fact that it had to be comparable across states. He expressed concern that the sum of the group's findings might be used as a basis for deciding policy in Alaska. He does not believe it is clear that Alaska should be compared to all 50 states and thought it would make more sense to compare Alaska to other large, sparsely populated Western states. Regarding the components, he stated Alaska received a grade of D in the teacher quality component, yet achievement data showed that Alaska ranked ninth in the country in the number of its eighth graders who achieved at the proficient level in math. The real measure of teacher quality could be student learning. MS. OLSON clarified that Quality Counts was not measuring the quality of teachers in Alaska; it was looking at state policies that are designed to strengthen the teaching force, and particularly at policies toward new teachers who will come into the profession in the future. In terms of student achievement, one must look at progress over time, as well as where Alaska currently stands. A pattern seems to be emerging showing that states that are moving in the direction of, and scoring high on, the indicators are showing gains in national assessment scores over time. Student achievement is due in part to school efforts, and in part to the demographic backgrounds of the students. The issue of what value the state adds over time is an important one. DR. McDIARMID noted when people read in the newspaper that Alaska received a grade of D, they are concerned. MS. OLSON stated the report is complicated and long, and it does, in some cases, get simplified. Quality Counts tried to present a more complicated picture of education than the public, in some instances, is used to dealing with. Number 577 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Education Week would consider ranking schools regionally, or in some other grouping, in the future. MS. OLSON maintained that one could compare states within specific regions now, since the report was based on comparable data. She added there are pros and cons to clustering states. Education Week did not want to send a message that different things were expected of students in some states than in others. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the make-up of the grading board was primarily urban, and why the bar was set so high. MS. OLSON replied the grades were the responsibility of Education Week alone. They did not use an outside board to grade. She explained the purpose of setting the bar high was to reflect the fact that states are working hard to improve their education systems. Survey data from businesses on student performance from the national assessment from international comparisons show U.S. students are doing well, although they are not where they need to be for the modern economy. Education Week did not want to set a bar that reaffirmed the status quo. Whether the bar was set too high is debatable and is where human judgment comes in. Education Week was also trying to reflect changes in states over time. For example, in the first edition, states were given an A simply for having standards because at that time states were just at the beginning of that process. This year, Education Week decided to look at the rigor of those standards, and by doing so raised the bar. MS. OLSON said when Education Week decided how to weight each indicator and how to put the grading system together, that decision was made by the Quality Counts' team. There was no group of outside people who graded states. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he was trying to find out if those grading the states all came from an ideal setting in a metropolitan area, and set these standard without traveling to the states. He wondered if there was some error in first setting up the goals, especially for the more rural states. MS. OLSON replied they did not have an ideal suburban community in mind when they set the goals. The Quality Counts' team selected indicators from research findings about what makes for an effective education system, and based on what states indicated is important in terms of their own efforts to set standards, to develop assessments linked to those standards, teacher licensing, etc. DR. McDIARMID added that the various indicators represent a best guess about what would improve teacher quality. He felt it is important to be upset about the fact that there is not a lot of research that shows that implementing the changes will improve student achievement. MS. OLSON noted they drew on the best research available and the National Commission on Teaching pulled together the best research it could find on the relationship between teaching quality and student achievement. She agreed that educational research is far from an exact science at this time. DR. MCDIARMID explained he did not mean his comments as a criticism but rather as a disclaimer because everyone needs to be honest about what is known and unknown. Number 433 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Olson which of the criteria, if there was improvement in that area, would have the greatest impact on student achievement. MS. OLSON answered the team determined grades for each category because they felt when looking at a comprehensive education system, all of them are important, and create a delicate balance. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Olson if she would agree that reducing class size has the greatest impact on educational achievement. MS. OLSON said the research suggests that smaller class sizes, particularly in the younger grades, are important, specifically for minority students. She warned that California's experience has shown there are tradeoffs, however. In California, class sizes have been reduced, but as a result more inexperienced and unqualified teachers have been put into classrooms. States, in weighing those policies, have to look at how those tradeoffs relate to each other. COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY added that she hopes this meeting represents only the beginning of the conversation on which indicators are the most important, and that DOE believes any plan must be designed to be incremental. SKYE RUBADEAU, student advisor to the State Board of Education, thanked the committee for meeting on this issue. She thought it is very important to focus on the plan for improvement. CO-CHAIR BUNDE thanked the staff at Education Week and all participants. MS. OLSON thanked the committee for taking so much time with the Quality Counts '98 report. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Olson if she has had similar conversations with other legislatures, and if so, whether a "Readers Digest" version of their concerns and comments available. MS. OLSON said Alaska is once again unique since Education Week has not yet had a similar conversation with any other state. She offered to share feedback from other states, if and when it becomes available. CO-CHAIR BUNDE thanked everyone for participating and stated he looked forward to having a similar conversation next year. CO-CHAIR WILKEN announced the Traumatic Brain Injury Act presentation was delayed due to weather, and would be rescheduled. CO-CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m.