Alaska education commissioner defends school intervention

JUNEAU -- Alaska Education Commissioner Michael Hanley on Monday fended off criticism of his department's approach to intervention in struggling schools.

Hanley testified before the House Education Committee, which was hearing Rep. Alan Dick's bill, HB256, which could fundamentally change when and how the state interacts with school districts that fail to meet state requirements.

Hanley discounted claims against his department that ranged from a supposed institutional bias against Western Alaska to "using a hammer" to fix struggling schools instead of working with the community.

Both of those concerns and others discussed during the committee hearing stem from the state's intervention in the Yupiit School District, which included the appointment of a trustee who is allowed to modify curriculum and recommend structural changes to the superintendent.

Direct management of the district, however, is not a right afforded to the trustee. Help provided by teacher coaches is also limited to about a week a month.

Hanley said assigning a trustee is somewhat like sending an auditor to confirm that a business is honest in its financial statements: tense and awkward but sometimes necessary. Hanley then noted what he said were a number of troubling statistics about the district's performance, including that 77 percent of third graders are in the 1 to 10 percentile range for reading, and Yupiit students did not even receive eighth to 10th grade course work until recently.

Yupiit's lengthy history of operating underperforming schools was at the center of a court case that prompted the state to revamp its intervention efforts, Hanley said.

Both Hanley and assistant attorney general Neil Slotnick have testified that the current intervention process, which was enacted by a Senate bill passed in 2008, is a direct response to Moore v. Alaska.

That 2004 case showed that the state failed to meet its constitutional requirement of providing education by not having effective oversight methods in place; it also resulted in a proposed $18 million settlement between the state and rural schools.

"This bill creates a lot of uncertainty," Slotnick said of HB256. "If the Legislature isn't careful, it could make the state noncompliant with the (Alaska) Constitution."

The Moore decision explicitly said the state must track schools and intervene in those districts that are not up to par, Slotnick said.

Barb Angaiak, president of the National Education Association in Alaska, said she understands the intent behind HB256 but also said she is concerned by the effect a complete repeal would have if careful new standards are not set.

"Community members (in Yupiit) have not had enough feedback on what's going on," said Angaiak, a former middle school math teacher in Bethel. "I'm just not sure repealing department's ability to intervene is the right approach ... it's important that the state insures schools are complying with what should be happening."

The process the state uses to intervene in districts, Hanley said, starts and ends with the school's performance. Proficiency trends are determined by standardized tests and other measures of student progress, and he said that that alone is proof the state is not guilty of bias against Western Alaska or anyone else.

"It's not subjective at all," Hanley said.

Even though he defended many of the department's actions, Hanley acknowledged the process needs to improve and that mistakes should be learned from.

"We have not been as proactive as we should be; we have been very reactive," he said. "We have a responsibility, moral and legal ... what the best model is, I don't know but I think we're stepping in the right direction."

Dick has said his bill is a work in progress and that he supports some form of state intervention, but a new process has not yet been described in detail.