Joint Committee Committee on Joint Education (01/28/2015)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

COMMITTEE ON JOINT EDUCATION

Date:	01/28/2015	ATTENDANCE

Time:	09:53 AM to 01:27 PM	Everett	X
		Fields	X
Place:	RM 271	Garnett	X
		Holbert	X
This Meeting was called to order by		Johnston	X
	Senator Hill	Kerr	X
		Lee	X
This Report was prepared by		Lundeen	X
	Rachel Kurtz-Phelan	Marble	X
		Merrifield	X
		Moreno	X
		Neville T.	X
		Pettersen	X
		Priola	E
		Todd	X
		Wilson	X
		Windholz	X
		Woods	X
		Buckner	X
		Hill	X
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
Standards & Assessments Task Force Report		Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only

09:53 AM -- Standards & Assessments Task Force Report

Senator Hill, Chair, welcomed the committee members to the Joint Education Committee. He thanked Senator Todd and Senator Scott for sponsoring the 2014 bill that formed the Standards and Assessments task force. Senator Scott thanked the task force members for their hard work and talked about the process of putting together the task force. Senator Todd also thanked the task force members for their work and stated that the most important part of the process is the input and dialogue between task force members.

09:58 AM

Senator Hill invited the representatives from the Standards and Assessments task force to the table and explained the ground rules for the meeting. He talked about some concerns and questions about how the process worked, and asked committee members to focus their questions on the results and recommendations being presented by the task force. Dan Snowberger, Superintendent of Durango School District 9-R and Chair of the Standards and Assessments Task Force, introduced himself. He talked about the make up of the task force, and explained that the report has both consensus and dissenting points of view. He introduced the other task forces members sitting at the table with him: Adele Bravo, teacher representative, Luke Ragland, business representative, Lisa Escarcega, district administrator, and Dane Stickney, teacher representative. He introduced the other task force members sitting in the audience. He stated that there is one dissenting member, Bethany Drosendahl who is a parent representative. Mr. Snowberger talked about some of the challenges the task force faced, including criticism for a lack of regional and ethnic diversity which resulted in the decision to solicit extensive public input and public feedback to ensure an inclusive process. He explained the contents of the thumb drive that was distributed to every committee member. Mr. Snowberger stated that the task force received no funding which was a challenge due to the expenses incurred by the individual task force members and school districts.

10:05 AM

Mr. Snowberger referred the committee members to page 14 of the task force report (Attachment A). He told the committee that the process included nine public input sessions, 10 task force meetings, and numerous conference calls. He said the public input made clear that the current system is burdensome to schools, students, and parents so the task force was cognizant of ensuring the recommendations focus on this fact. He said the recommendations focus on the short term to make sure that no finances are put at risk. He stated that the state assessment system cannot be the only system, that there needs to be a local component as well and it is important to ensure that the reforms being implemented in Colorado achieve the desired results. He explained that assessments provide a way to measure academic growth, and that measuring value added of work done in districts must be focused on and supported, but it's important to note that there are other ways of measuring student growth besides assessments. He told the committee that summative assessments measure long-term growth, and formative assessments are essential to measuring students on a day-to-day basis. He said that the public input regarding local assessments showed that the system is at a critical point right now and something must be done to reduce financial and logistical burdens. He explained that local assessments are used to improve instruction and show student achievement in a timely manner, as opposed to the state assessments. He said that the public input sessions showed that there is confusion about what is a local assessment and what is a state assessment, and that it's critical that local assessments remain within local control.

JtEd0128AttachA.pdf

10:13 AM

Mr. Ragland began the portion of the presentation on the critical findings that underlie the task force recommendations by first acknowledging that assessments provide valuable data; students spend too much time taking tests; and there is a need to ease the financial, logistical, and time burden on schools. He said that the state's ability to change assessments is hindered by the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). He told the committee that the task force's critical findings are: Colorado's assessment system is not totally comprised of state mandated tests, which confuses the public; the legislature must reduce the financial, time, and logistical burden on schools; local assessments are part of the testing burden, although this does not mean that the legislature should dictate what comprises local assessments; current federal requirements limit flexibility; and moving to a computer-based system presents both challenges and benefits.

10:17 AM

Mr. Stickney began his portion of the presentation on the recommendations for 3rd grade through high school testing. He said there was consensus among task force members to eliminate state-mandated tests in 12th grade, and to combine the 11th grade science test with a college entrance exam such as the American College Test (ACT). He explained that there were several areas of disagreement, including whether the 4th grade social studies assessment and 9th grade assessments should be optional. He said the task force members agreed that there is a need to provide paper and pencil testing options for all districts. He said that the state should tell parents what their options are for opting their students out of the assessments and that this should not be left up to the districts.

10:21 AM

Adele Bravo introduced herself and talked about her professional background. She presented the recommendations on school readiness and explained that kindergarten may be the first formal schooling a child experiences, so the kindergarten school readiness assessment should be given in the fall in six subject areas. She explained that current policy means that some students may require both a school readiness plan and a Reading to Ensure Academic Development (READ) Act plan and that this is unnecessary and redundant. She told the committee that the task force recommendations pertaining to the READ Act are to acknowledge that kindergarten students need time to acclimate to school so the assessment should be administered during first 90 days of the school year as opposed to during the first few weeks and that students who score significantly below proficiency should have a second assessment given within 60 days of the first assessment. She explained the task force recommendations pertaining to the Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State (ACCESS) test for English language learners.

10:26 AM

Lisa Escarcega introduced herself and told the committee about her professional background. She explained that she would be presenting the technology recommendations and future policy considerations. She said that the task force's technology recommendations acknowledge that in the short term, the technology required to administer the tests is burdensome. She explained that the recommendations include that for kindergarten through 3rd grade and READ Act assessments, the state should continue the paper and pencil option for the tests, and for grades 3-10 or 11, paper and pencil should be an option for any state assessment, not just specific ones as is currently the case. She said the third recommendation is that districts should receive more funding for technology. She told the committee that the future policy considerations are focused on the recognition that the short term recommendations do not fully address all concerns or capture the potential of a balanced and fair system. Therefore, the task force feels that an ongoing task force or standing advisory committee needs to be formed to deal with long-term aspects and concerns. She said the five areas that the advisory board would need to address include: the balance between state and local assessments, to what extent should the state assessments focus on district and school accountability, to what degree should districts be allowed flexibility, the rights of parents to refuse having their students participate in the assessment system which was the area of dissent among the task force members, and the equity of access to technology.

10:35 AM

Mr. Snowberger concluded the presentation and opened it up to questions from the committee. Senator Hill asked Bethany Drosendahl, the dissenting member of the task force to come to the table to present her opinion. Ms. Drosendahl read a portion of the dissenting report (Attachment B). She said that the state assessment system has a direct impact on the education system and must provide flexibility at the local level in order to produce desired results. She said that with flexibility allowed within statewide parameters, schools can provide varying models of education to meet the needs of individual students. Ms. Drosendahl answered questions from the committee.

JtEd0128AttachB.pdf

10:41 AM

The task force members answered questions from the committee. The committee discussed local versus state assessments. Ms. Bravo stated that the task force recommends that the READ act literacy assessment be given in kindergarten in lieu of the School Readiness literacy assessment. The task force members answered questions about the timing of the data return on the state assessments and the challenges this causes for teachers. Jay Cerny, a principal and task force member, came to the table to answer questions from the committee.

10:57 AM

The task force members continued answering questions from the committee members about local versus state assessments and the fiscal impact of assessments and technology requirements, especially on rural districts. Syna Morgan, task force member, came to the table to answer questions about task force discussions about the purpose of state assessments, how accountability impacts the type of model used for assessments, flexibility for districts and how this impacts comparability, and flexibility within a school itself.

11:08 AM

Task force members answered questions about the loss of instructional time due to testing and how to deal with this. They said the loss of instructional time is due to multiple required assessments. Susan Van Gundy, task force member and representative of Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), came to the table to answer questions about what is being done to get test results back to teachers and districts in a more timely fashion and the relationship between technology-based assessments and the ability to get scores back to teachers in a timely manner.

11:15 AM

Ms. Drosendahl and Mr. Snowberger answered questions about the dissenting report (Attachment B). Mr. Snowberger stated that districts and schools need additional guidance about what parents' rights are in terms of opting their students out of testing requirements. Task force members answered questions about identifying achievement gaps and how it impacted the recommendations. They discussed how the work done by the task force compensates for the lack of diversity and representation on the task force.

11:33 AM

The committee continued to discuss the benefits of flexibility for schools and districts. Task force members answered questions about the need for proficiency and growth measures in 9th grade. Ilana Spiegel, parent representative on the task force, came to the table to questions from the committee about the purpose and use of 9th grade assessments and issues of equity. Bill Jaeger, task force member, came to the table to answer questions about early childhood readiness in terms of School Readiness and READ Act assessments, and about what changes need to be made to the READ Act via legislative or rule changes.

11:46 AM

The task force members answered questions about the portion of the task force report stating that valid feedback is not yet available on PARCC assessments and why the task force did not specifically look at PARCC assessments. Mr. Snowberger responded that the decision to use PARCC was made at the highest level. He said the task force was not charged with examining state standards. Ms. Morgan talked about the difference between the short-term and long-term recommendations presented in the report.

11:54 AM

The committee discussed the value of assessments compared to the loss of instructional time and lack of timely feedback and about the ability of the state to opt-out of PARCC. Ms. Spiegel answered questions from the committee about data privacy. The task force members answered questions about high school assessments and college readiness and the ability to have an assessment that links both college readiness and growth proficiency for 11th grade students. John Creighton, task force member, came to the table to answer questions about aligning state assessments with college entrance exams. Task force members answered questions about whether the purpose of assessments is to measure student growth, or to measure whether students are reaching state standards.

12:14 PM

Mr. Jaeger answered questions about whether there are different ways to think about student growth and if it is possible to change the way student growth is measured. Ms. Bravo answered questions from the committee about the impact of assessments on teaching, learning, and student/teacher relationships.

12:22 PM

The committee recessed.

12:27 PM

The committee came back to order. The committee discussed the process that went into drafting the minority report and the relationship between flexibility and accountability. Dr. Morgan returned to the table to answer questions about measuring individual student growth.

12:41 PM

The committee continued discussing measuring individual student growth, and the validity and comparability of local and state assessments. The committee discussed a report by Augenblick Palaich and Associates that is referenced in the task force report. Discussion ensued about state standards not being aligned with the ACT exam and the challenges this creates.

12:58 PM

Committee discussion ensued about accountability and the value that teachers place on student growth data. They talked about reducing the time spent on assessments and aligning state standards with the ACT exam. Copies of a report were distributed to committee members (Attachment C). The task force members answered questions about the ability of parents to opt-out of local assessments and the relevance of local assessments to parents and teachers, as well as the disruption to schools of administering assessments.

JtEd0128AttachC.pdf

01:14 PM

The task force members answered questions about their recommendations pertaining to social studies assessments. Mr. Snowberger responded that the social studies assessment is a state requirement and is not required by federal law. The committee discussed the benefits of having a local social studies assessment as opposed to a state assessment.

01:23 PM

The task force members answered questions about cutting back to federal minimum standards. Mr. Snowberger provided closing comments and thanked the committee members.

01:27 PM

The committee adjourned.