---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Fiftieth Legislature – First Regular Session
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON
OUTCOME-BASED EDUCATION FUNDING
Minutes of Interim Meeting
House Hearing Room 3 -- 10:00 a.m.
CoChairman Crandell called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
Members Present
Senator Sylvia Allen, CoChairman Representative Chester Crandell, CoChairman
Susan Carlson Representative Lynne Pancrazi
Linda Honsinger Scott Thompson (replacing Dr. Chuck Essigs)
Stacey Morley Duane Tomlinson
Janice Palmer Vince Yanez
Members Absent
Senator Linda Lopez Wiley Popovich
Dr. Debra Duvall
CoChairman Crandell announced that Mr. Thompson is a new Member of the Committee (replacing Dr. Essigs). Mr. Thompson and Ms. Palmer introduced themselves.
CoChairman Crandell stated that there will be a deviation in the presentations from the agenda.
Move On When Ready Initiative
Mr. Yanez, State Board of Education (SBE), provided and reviewed an overview of the Move On When Ready Initiative (Attachment 1), prepared by the Center for the Future of Arizona (CFA), the vendor selected to administer the program. He indicated that it is a new model for high school instruction designed to increase rigor and provide a potential pathway for students to graduate as early as their sophomore year by earning a Grand Canyon High School Diploma and moving on to a community college setting, if they choose. Students who pursue the Diploma participate in a comprehensive curriculum-driven educational system referred to as a Board Examination System (BES), which is designed to ensure that students who pass the series of examinations have met a minimum college-readiness standard. The BES model includes core courses aligned to national and international benchmark standards, teacher professional development and curriculum-based examinations. These examinations are much more advanced than Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) test, which was developed and is intended as a tenth-grade test.
Mr. Yanez said that implementation of the Move On When Ready model begins in the fall of 2011; 14 high schools are implementing a BES in one form or another. Some are offering it as a specific pathway within a high school for students that choose to participate, while others are taking a more aggressive approach with implementation as a “whole school” strategy. Three additional schools signed on to implement the program in 2012 and it is anticipated that more schools will sign on before the end of 2011.
He indicated that at the last meeting, the Members discussed how the cut scores are determined. Cut scores are the scores a student must attain on the board examinations in order to be deemed proficient. The end goal of the examinations is to make sure the students are ready to do college-level work, so the SBE is reviewing entry-level expectations for community colleges in Arizona and attempting to ascertain how that correlates to specific score or performance levels on all of the examination systems. He added that the utility of the Move On When Ready model is limited because of the size and scope, so in talking about an outcome-based funding model that would be applicable statewide, he is not sure this model fits.
Mr. Yanez provided a handout with a table of current statewide assessments (Attachment 2) in response to discussions about ascertaining what data can be used to make decisions for structuring the funding system. He opined that it would behoove the Committee to review all of the data and not target one particular source of data. This document was provided to the Teacher Evaluation Task Force and prepared by the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) to show what assessments are available, grade levels at which the assessments are offered and where gaps exist.
At CoChairman Allen’s request, Mr. Yanez agreed to email a list of the 14 schools planning to implement the Move On When Ready program. He said most of the schools are in the Phoenix or Tucson areas; however, Yuma and Nadaburg School Districts are participating.
CoChairman Crandell remarked that he knows teachers who were required to have in-service training because of the change in tactics in how the material is presented to prepare students to take the examinations. He asked who does the scoring, to which Mr. Yanez replied that it is done by the BES providers (Cambridge International Examinations, ACT QualityCore, College Board Advanced Placement [AP] and International Baccalaureate [IB]).
In response to a question about cut scores, Mr. Yanez indicated that there are different expectations within the various community college systems in Arizona, which the people at SBE must work through. The SBE is targeting community colleges, and not universities, because the law applies specifically to open enrollment institutions which, in Arizona, are community colleges.
Ms. Palmer asked if the $450,000 that the Helios Education Foundation provided to the CFA for a pilot of the 14 schools will only be used for the assessments. Mr. Yanez responded that he understands those funds are being used for the entire instructional model, which would include curriculum, professional development and the assessments.
In response to a question about how the program will affect the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements and federal funding if the students graduate early, Ms. Morley indicated that it will change the student’s cohort because the student will be considered a graduate earlier, but it will not count against anyone. As to funding, that is a good question, because recently the U.S. Secretary of Education announced that guidelines will be issued for waivers for NCLB on accountability systems. She has no idea what that will look like, but she knows that 100 percent Average Yearly Progress (AYP) by 2014 will not happen. Arizona is on the same wavelength as the rest of the country as to what is used to calculate the graduation rate. If someone graduates early there is no penalty, but if a student does not graduate within their four-year cohort, it is not counted toward the graduation rate.
CoChairman Crandell said he read that
the Race to the Top grant targeted competency-based education as a model that
can be used. He asked if competency is used and whether the pace at which the students
learn fits into AYP in the graduation rate and affects federal funding.
Ms. Morley replied that measuring AYP is based on proficiency only. She said
she assumes that AYP will discontinue at some point, and whether Arizona obtains a waiver or not depends on what will have to be done to obtain a waiver to
do something different. It also depends on what happens with the Presidential
election because NCLB will not be addressed legislatively until after the election,
which is why ADE is moving forward with the waiver process.
CoChairman Crandell opined that ADE should move ahead. He noted that some school districts in Florida and other states are using Move On When Ready, but he does not know if evidence is available as to how the programs are working. Mr. Yanez answered that he does not have any information on states implementing the Move On When Ready model, but of the consortium of states that are implementing a similar-type model, Arizona is the most progressive and has the highest number of high schools coming online this year, so he anticipates that everyone will be looking to Arizona for that data.
Mr. Tomlinson noted that with Move On When Ready, if the students graduate early there is the potential to lose funding to the schools for the seat time. Moving the students into competency-based funding would be the best of both worlds because students would obtain the education that is needed and have the option to get out of the system in a timely manner, and the school’s funding would not be cut because the student was not retained for the extra time. Mr. Yanez replied that if a student chooses to leave early and enroll in a community college, the law provides that the funding is split between the high school the student was enrolled in and the community college the student attends. When the legislation was drafted, the crafters created the mechanism to split funding so there would not be a disincentive for schools to move students on that were ready.
Discussion on 21st Century Skills
CoChairman Crandell stated that much of the literature available says the K-12 system is geared toward providing the skills necessary for students to enter college, but he opined that not much time is spent on workplace skills that are necessary for students to be successful. Even if students choose to go to college, some of the workplace skills are essential and important for students or future employees to be successful. He referred to a handout relating to 21st Century skills (Attachment 3) and asked if any of those skills are not essential or important to have in the workplace.
Mr. Thompson stated that the Dysart Unified School District was very focused on 21st Century skills and conducted an assessment of staff and students. The outcome was surprising in that teachers were better at the skills than the students, but the skills were not being passed along to the students. Also, there is an assumption among adults that students are naturally good at technology, and therefore, have 21st Century skills, but the assessment highlighted the fact that students know how to use technology to Tweet and use Facebook, but they do not know how to write a research paper. It is not so much that students are not familiar with technology; it is imparting those skills to make sure they know how to critically think when using technology. He added that in relation to assessment, it is necessary to figure out what students need to learn, how to measure what they need to learn and how to make sure that and 21st Century skills are delivered.
CoChairman Crandell stated that school districts are required to teach workplace skills, but there is no assessment for accountability to make sure it is done. He hears many people comment that teachers only teach to the tests because that is what is used for their evaluation and assessment. If that is the case, maybe what is needed in moving to outcome-based is being able to see how to incorporate the 21st Century skills into the assessments. He noted that the handout was compiled by the business community in looking at what students need to be successful.
CoChairman Crandell referred to another handout prepared by WestEd and the Education Commission of the States (ECS) (Attachment 4). The first paragraph bears the fact that workplace skills are ignored because of programs like NCLB, which is what time is spent on because of assessments, so he is not sure well-educated, well-rounded students are graduating. The document states that for employers, “workplace readiness” is an entry point concept. He recognized that the Governor’s P-20 Council spent a lot of time looking at these skills and the new term is “college- and career-ready”; however, all curriculum pushes “college-ready” and does not get into what 21st Century skills indicate is “career-ready.”
Referring to The Solution on the third page, CoChairman Crandell stated that WestEd, ECS and Strategic Partnerships are in the process of developing an assessment, not only for core subjects and aligning to the common core standards, but also applications that stress key workplace skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, teamwork, resource allocation and appropriate use of current and emerging technologies. WestEd is looking at coupling academic standards with the 21st Century skills and he would like to discuss how that can be accomplished.
Ms. Carlson said she is a member of the Arizona Skill Standards Commission. The Career and Technical Education (CTE) Department at the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) went through a significant process in terms of gathering together members of various industries to look at what is provided in CTE coursework to make sure the standards measure up to what is needed in the workplace. At the last meeting of the Commission in July 2011, the members approved a new set of workplace skills that are contained in the handout (Attachment 4), which was vetted by Arizona industry, as well as practitioners, who are now looking for assessments for those workplace skills.
Ms. Palmer suggested that it
would be helpful to define competency-based.
CoChairman Crandell stated that perhaps the Committee should determine what
skills and knowledge a student leaving the K-12 system needs to have upon
completing the coursework, the level of assessment, and payment for competency
when the student reaches that level.
A lengthy discussion followed about the logistics of a competency-based system:
· Whether or not benchmarks should be used.
· Tracking and assessing transient students.
· ADE’s data system.
· Assessment of teachers.
· Compensating teachers for outcomes.
· How to address failing schools.
· Free enterprise model contracts and a designated funding source.
Ms. Palmer commented that upfront money will be needed when this concept is implemented and urged consideration of a pilot program to work out any problems and ensure that ADE’s data system is aligned, before implementation on a statewide basis.
CoChairman Crandall asked how many of the 21st Century skills are embedded in the BES provider examinations. Mr. Yanez replied that the systems are all different, but he can probably work with ADE staff and the CFA to answer this question.
CoChairman Crandell said he would be interested in knowing if those are already adopted by the state, look at that as a beginning and work from there. He said he assumes that the school districts implementing Move On When Ready are already determining what needs to be done to prepare seventh and eighth grade students to take the board examinations, which should be followed up.
Ms. Palmer stated that 20,000 high-risk students are currently taking the ACT EXPLORE test so assessing can begin; part of the problem has been that there is no communication from the eighth grade to the high school level about whether students are on track or behind. Also, international assessments such as Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), have many of the 21st Century skills embedded, which could be reviewed.
CoChairman Crandell said a decision should be made at the state level on what the outcome should be for each benchmark so every student in Arizona obtains the same quality of education no matter their learning pace, and students who transfer can be assessed so the receiving school can pick up from there and move on.
Ms. Carlson stated that many
entities have had conversations about what a student leaving the
K-12 system should look like, so she does not believe the Legislature or the Committee
should make that determination. She suggested asking those entities that
question.
CoChairman Crandell said that even though the Committee has that responsibility, it probably will not be able to set what that is. He said he would like to know what the business community believes a student should be able to do upon graduation. There is a financial drain on the state when universities and community colleges have to do remediation, which can take a year or two, beyond 12 years of K-12 education. With a free enterprise model and paying for the outcome, a student’s education should only have to be paid for once, although payment may need to be made on the same student two or three times per year, depending on the pace at which the student learns.
Mr. Thompson stated that whatever system exists must provide teachers with a livable wage and compensate teachers for the work that is done.
CoChairman Crandell submitted that a free enterprise system allows for more competition and use of ingenuity to attract more students. What needs to be looked at is what value should be placed on the product and then work toward getting that value, as well as untying administrator’s hands so the money school districts receive can be used where it will affect outcomes the most.
Ms. Carlson remarked that only focusing on the product ignores making sure the pay level for teachers is adequate to attract the best and brightest. CoChairman Crandell submitted that the free enterprise model will give school districts more freedom to decide how to attract teachers.
After further discussion about funding, Ms. Carlson expressed support for Ms. Palmer’s suggestion for a pilot effort in order to see what unintended consequences may occur with implementation. CoChairman Crandell responded that he has some issues with pilot programs, but he is not so set in his ways that he will not consider a pilot. The major issue, either through collaboration or whatever the case might be, is to determine what a student who is deemed to be competent should look like. There is a lot of talk about college- and career-ready, but, he opined, career-ready is often left out. He said he believes the 21st Century skills are good for everyone, whether college is attended or not.
Ms. Honsinger remarked that in the long run, it will boil down to money, and she fears that funding will be cut for the schools that are struggling that probably need more money, programs, tutoring, social skills, etc.
Mr. Thompson related that it will be necessary to identify the amount of funding that will be received once a certain level is achieved.
CoChairman Crandell remarked that although Arizona has probably not kept pace, statistics show that more money is spent on education in the U.S. than in any other country, except Finland, yet school performance by comparison is getting lower, which indicates that the amount of money does not necessarily address the problem, so maybe it is time to pay for an outcome. Students are currently leaving the education system not prepared to work or do anything. If funding is tied to competency, there will be a direct correlation between funding and outcome.
Public Testimony
No public testimony was given.
Discussion of Future Meetings
CoChairman Crandell outlined the work for future meetings:
· Next meeting: Discussion about a designated funding source (which he asked the Members to think about) and what the contract for a free enterprise model may look like.
· October meeting: Finalize outcomes, discuss what a graduating student should look like and how much money is needed to get the student to that point.
· November meeting: Review draft legislation.
· December meeting: Finalize the draft legislation to take to the Legislature in January 2012.
Mr. Tomlinson stated that Friday is the best day for him to meet, so the Members agreed to hold the next meeting on Friday, September 23, 2011.
Ms. Palmer noted that at the September meeting, it would be helpful to have a framework of the kind of outcomes the Committee wants to produce, and Mr. Yanez agreed. He said that regarding assessments, he would like clarification as to whether there will be a new set, portfolio, etc., to bring in the work-readiness aspect, and if so, it is important to discuss that as early as possible.
CoChairman Crandell said that once it is determined what student competency should look like, the next step is to determine how to assess to the point of placing a price tag. He is not sure that taking a multiple choice test is adequate, which is why he brought up what WestEd is doing; those items can be done in an electronic portfolio where they can be checked off when completed.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 11:48 a.m.
_______________________________
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
September 2, 2011
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office; video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
JLSC ON OUTCOME-BASED
EDUCATION FUNDING
August 24, 2011
2
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------