Bill Summary for Bill Number SB12-172

Date: 05/07/2012

Final
BILL SUMMARY for SB12-172

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Votes: View-->	Action Taken:
Adopt prepared Amendment L.004 (Attachment E). The Refer Senate Bill 12-172, as amended, to the House	Pass Without Objection PASS

04:31 PM -- Senate Bill 12-172

Representative Beezley, vice-chair, called the meeting to order.

Representative Massey and Representative Hamner, co-prime sponsors of Senate Bill 12-172, presented the bill. In 2008, the General Assembly passed legislation aligning preschool through postsecondary education systems (Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids, or CAP4K). Among other provisions, that law requires that the State Board of Education (SBE) adopt new content standards and a system of assessments to measure student performance and to track longitudinal growth over time.

Senate Bill 12-172 requires that Colorado participate as a governing board member in a multi-state consortium currently developing assessments in English language arts and mathematics. The bill further requires that when adopting reading, writing, and math assessments aligned with state standards, the SBE rely on the assessments developed by the consortium. Where possible, the SBE must also rely on assessments developed in conjunction with other states when adopting assessments for other state standards (e.g., science).

The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) is a consortium of states working to develop a common set of K-12 assessments in English language arts and math. PARCC received a $186 million grant through the U.S. Department of Education's Race to the Top competition to develop and design the assessment system.

PARCC's governing board is comprised of the K-12 state school officers (or designees) from each of the governing member states. The board meets quarterly to make policy decisions related to the assessment system. Each governing member state agrees to participate exclusively in PARCC and administer the commonly developed assessments beginning with the 2014-15 school year. These states will also pilot and field test components of the assessment system during the development period. Currently, twenty-four states take part in the consortium; eighteen of these states are governing board member states, six of these states (including Colorado) are participating states but not members of the governing board.

Pursuant to CAP4K, the SBE must adopt assessments aligned with state standards. Several options have been considered by the Joint Budget Committee (JBC) when preparing this year's Long Bill. The funding options develop assessments on different schedules over the next few years. For FY 2012-13, the introduced version of the Long Bill funds the development of new assessments in science and social studies (for administration beginning in FY 2013-14), and updates to the alternate assessment for special education and English language learners, but does not include appropriations for development of math, reading, or writing assessments. The eventual cost to develop and administer any new assessments (or portions thereof) must be addressed through the annual budget-setting process. This legislation is specific to the state's participation in a consortium effort to create a portion of the assessments needed to satisfy CAP4K.

The following persons testified:

04:36 PM -- Dr. Elliott Asp, representing the Colorado Association of School Executives (CASE) and Cherry Creek Schools, testified in support of the bill. Dr. Asp stated that students must be prepared to work in an international society, noting that to prepare students requires a meaningful curriculum and a comprehensive assessment program. He said that joining the consortium is the right thing to do because the state cannot afford the cost of developing assessments on its own.

04:43 PM -- Lisa Escarceja, representing CASE and Aurora Public Schools, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Escarceja stated that the vision of the consortium is the same vision of the state. She stated that national exams have been used for several years and that common assessments across states can improve the buy-in of high school students.

04:47 PM -- Paul Lundeen, representing the State Board of Education (SBE), testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Lundeen said that the state does not know what it is signing up for with the consortium. He stated that the bill requires the state to a make decision to use this assessment before it has been tested on a major scale. He stated that the consortium's proposed math systems are in conflict with Colorado's ninth and tenth grade growth model. He stated that the costs to administer the assessment are unknown and that funding and oversight for the consortium will end in 2014. He said that the consortium is already falling behind in what it said it would do, noting three key deadlines that have been missed. He stated that different philosophies from the states involved is what is holding up the process. He stated that the principle question is if we want to continue to have local control of public education in Colorado, or go with a process that leads to federal control. He stated that the best reforms in education are those that put decisions in the hands of school administrators, teachers, and parents. He concluded by discussing Massachusetts' achievement levels.

Mr. Lundeen responded to questions from the committee.

05:06 PM -- Dr. Matt Gianneschi, Deputy Executive Director at the Colorado Department of Higher Education (DHE), testified in support of the bill. He provided two handouts to the committee members (Attachments A and B). He discussed the history of CAP4K, noting that the national assessment is totally in line with CAP4K. He stated that in higher education, they are looking for evidence of students' ability to be successful in a college environment, noting that institutions admit students from all across the nation and that they come to college with common evidence of their ability to be successful through the use of national assessments like ACT. He said that in higher education, national assessments are used exclusively and that there is no utility for state assessments in the higher education system. He discussed a report prepared by DHE, which shows that one-third of all Colorado high school graduates pursue their higher education outside of Colorado. He added that we do not know what the assessment is going to cost or look like, but that we do not have that information for assessments developed by the state, either.

05:17 PM -- Meredith Rudolph, representing herself as a mother, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Rudolph stated that the bill implements common standards to use across states and will transition into a nationally run education system. She stated that the bill pushes the belief that parents do not understand what is best for their students, noting that a bureaucrat could not better conceive of a curriculum that best suits her student. She stated that Douglas County has many dedicated administrators and that this bill is an affront to them. She said that to taxpayers, this is a factious type of control. She discussed how religious beliefs have the potential to impact the content of the assessments. She added that the bill goes against the very foundation of freedom on which the country was founded and that it is better to err on the side of personal freedom.

05:22 PM -- Karin Piper, representing Parent Led Reform, testified in opposition to the bill. She provided handouts to the committee members (Attachments C and D). Ms. Piper encouraged the committee to evaluate the content of the bill, stating that the bill is not ready. She stated that we should not rush into a commitment of this magnitude. She stated that this is another example of an unfunded mandate, stating that in Washington State they faced a five-year cost of $17 million, however, the five-year cost to districts, she said, was $182 million. She stated that the bill is void of any cost analysis to the state. She added that supporting data needs to be reviewed before committing Colorado to this kind of agreement.

Ms. Piper responded to questions from the committee.

05:33 PM -- Charcie Russell, representing herself and Great Choice Douglas County, testified in opposition to the bill. She discussed local control, stating that she feels strongly that parents and citizens should be closely connected with their school boards. She stated that she supports her school board and likes that local persons are the ones making the decisions regarding how to educate Colorado's students. She encouraged the committee to evaluate the cost of the bill.

05:36 PM -- Judi Reynolds, representing herself as a parent of three Douglas County students, testified in opposition to the bill. She stated that she is concerned that the bill will squash the creativity that leads to individualized learning. She stated that the one-size-fits-all approach assumes that there is one best way to educate our students. She stated that participation in the consortium puts Colorado at the whim of other states. She stated that we seek diversity in every other aspect, and asked why diversity is not being sought in this too. She stated that we need to look at the individuality of students and be more flexible in educating them. She added that what is needed is a system that allows parents and teachers to be more involved in the personalized education of kids, not another layer of bureaucracy.

05:39 PM -- Jeani Frickey Saito, representing the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, testified in support of the bill. She stated that the business community must have comparable data and that how students are doing in school is a key component of economic development. She stated that when dealing with assessments, it is important to know how you are doing compared to others.

Ms. Frickey Saito responded to questions from the committee.

05:45 PM -- Kayla McGannon, representing Stand for Children and Democrats for Education Reform, testified in support of the bill. She said that the bill represents a cost effective way to develop high quality assessments. She stated that Colorado does not have to go alone in developing assessments, but that we can work alongside other states who are leaders in education and pool resources to have the best assessment possible. She stated that the consortium is working on skills-based assessments and that Colorado's involvement does not preclude it from developing its own assessments. She added that the bill does not specify how teachers should teach.

05:49 PM -- Reilly Pharo, representing the Colorado Children's Campaign, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Pharo stated that what gets measured gets changed, and that in education, we get that information from assessments. She stated that the consortium-developed assessment will address level of rigor and the inability to compare students across states. She added that the bill will allow Colorado to be at the table in developing these tests.

Representative Ramirez asked who are the states that have been involved in these types of consortia and if any have backed out.

Ms. McGannon responded that twenty-four states are members of the PARCC consortium and include Indiana, Florida, Massachusetts, and Tennessee, among other states. She added that the consortium membership includes a wide variety of states that have national leaders in education reform.

Representative Todd asked if the bill would stifle creativity and individuality in the classroom. Ms. Pharo said that she does not believe the bill will stifle creativity, as we still have the freedom to develop and individualize the curriculum.

05:53 PM

Representative Holbert distributed Amendment L.004 (Attachment E) and explained that it would allow the SBE to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on the consortium, annually.


BILL:	SB12-172
TIME:	05:58:23 PM
MOVED:	Holbert
MOTION:	Adopt prepared Amendment L.004 (Attachment E). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Massey
		VOTE
	Hamner
	Holbert
	Joshi
	Kerr A.
	Murray
	Peniston
	Ramirez
	Schafer S.
	Solano
	Summers
	Todd
	Beezley
	Massey

YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection

06:02 PM

The bill sponsors provided closing comments to the bill. The committee members discussed their positions on the bill.


BILL:	SB12-172
TIME:	06:12:53 PM
MOVED:	Massey
MOTION:	Refer Senate Bill 12-172, as amended, to the House Committee of the Whole. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 8-5.
SECONDED:	Hamner
		VOTE
	Hamner	Yes
	Holbert	No
	Joshi	No
	Kerr A.	Yes
	Murray	No
	Peniston	Yes
	Ramirez	No
	Schafer S.	Yes
	Solano	Yes
	Summers	Yes
	Todd	Yes
	Beezley	No
	Massey	Yes

Final YES: 8 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

06:13 PM

The committee adjourned.