2003 Education

Public schools, colleges, universities

[printfriendly]

January 8, 2003
January 9, 2003
January 13, 2003
January 14, 2003
January 20, 2003
January 21, 2003
January 22, 2003
January 23, 2003
January 27, 2003
January 28, 2003
January 29, 2003
January 30, 2003

February 3, 2003
February 4, 2003
February 5, 2003
February 6, 2003
February 6, 2003 – Joint Meeting
February 7, 2003
February 10, 2003
February 11, 2003
February 11, 2003 – Joint Meeting
February 12, 2003
February 13, 2003
February 14, 2003
February 18, 2003
February 19, 2003
February 20, 2003
February 21, 2003
February 24, 2003
February 25, 2003
February 26, 2003
February 27, 2003
February 28, 2003

March 3, 2003
March 4, 2003
March 5, 2003
March 6, 2003
March 7, 2003
March 10, 2003
March 11, 2003
March 12, 2003
March 13, 2003
March 14, 2003
March 17, 2003
March 19, 2003 – Subcommittee
March 20, 2003
March 21, 2003 – Subcommittee
March 25, 2003
March 26, 2003
March 27, 2003 – Subcommittee
March 31, 2003

April 2, 2003
April 3, 2003
April 9, 2003
April 16, 2003

DATE: January 8, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Representative Jones
GUESTS: See Committee Sign-in Sheet
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:02 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
Chairman Tilman welcomed the committee members and guests.
Committee members introduced themselves and indicated which District
they represent and mentioned why they wanted to serve on the Education
Committee.
The following guests introduced themselves and indicated which agency
or organization they represent: Dr. Cliff Green, Exec. Director, Idaho
School Boards Association (ISBA); John Watts, Lobbyist for ISBA; Steve
Meade, Attorney for ISBA; Vikki Reynolds, Administrative Assistant, Idaho
Association of School Administrators (IASA); Dr. Mike Friend, Executive
Director, IASA; Dr. Bob Haley, Legislative Liaison, State Department of
Education; Phil Homer, Legislative Adviser for IASA; Jason McKinley,
Legislative Liaison for the Idaho Education Association (IEA); Warren
Bean, Citizen; Jerry Helgeson, President, Meridian Education Association;
Bill Rudd, Outgoing Education Liaison, Governor’s Office; Randi
McDermott, Office of the State Board of Education, OBOE; Jeff Shinn,
Governor’s Budget Office; and Darrell Manning, Member, State Board of
Education.
Chairman Tilman stated that this committee is charged with looking at the
policies dealing with all public education issues, and he emphasized that
charter schools, alternative schools and professional technical schools
are all public schools. He briefly explained the role of the State Board of
Education and the State Department of Education. He briefed them on the
education budget process and let them know that the Superintendent and
her staff will be briefing the committee on the public education budget.
The committee will then make their recommendations to the Joint Finance
Committee. He touched on the standards, assessment and accountability
activities that are taking place within Idaho, and he stated that if we are
moving to a new system it is a good time to be looking at changing how
we do business. He answered questions and assured them he welcomes
their suggestions.
ADJOURN: The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:42 A.M.






DATE: January 9, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Representative Boe
GUESTS: Please refer to the Committee Sign-in Sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:02 A.M. with a quorum
being present. Representative Jones introduced himself and mentioned
he has served on this committee for 17 years. The Chairman asked the
guests who had not attended yesterday’s meeting to introduce
themselves. Those guests were: Jeremy Peirsol, ISU; Louis Pifher,
Meridian School Board; Dan Petersen, Professional Technical Education;
Blas Telleria, Boise Education Association; Lynn Humphrey, Scholarships
and Grants, Board of Education; and Julie Tensen, Education Outreach,
Rep. Mike Simpson’s Office.
MOTION: The minutes of January 8 were reviewed. Rep. Kulczyk made a motion to
accept the minutes as written. The motion carried by voice vote.
Chairman Tilman continued his overview of public education keying in on
higher education issues that the committee will be dealing with. He
stressed that the State Board of Education defines the mission for each of
the Universities and Community Colleges to ensure that citizens have
access to the education they need. He explained that the higher
education budget has been cut the past few years, which resulted in
higher student fees. The State Board will submit one higher education
budget request and once funds are appropriated, a formula is applied to
distribute the funds. Because of inequities in higher education funding, the
State Board commissioned a group to study how the funding formula was
being applied and make corrections.
Chairman Tilman touched on issues/programs for teachers. He said there
were concerns that new teachers were ill prepared and there is now a line
item in the public education budget for professional development for the
first three years of their career. Another program, Maximizing
Opportunities for Students and Teachers, Idaho’s MOST, looks at the
teacher certification/qualifications process making sure that universities
prepare teachers in specific areas such as technology, data analysis, and
special education. Idaho’s MOST has been funded through private grants.
A short discussion followed regarding opportunities for private funding
from various entities.
Representative Lake called the committee’s attention to the agency rules
they had received and explained that the rules review would take place
on Monday and Tuesday. A discussion followed on the three types of
rules (temporary, pending and fee) and the procedures used to accept or
reject rules.
ADJOURN: Prior to adjourning the meeting, Chairman Tilman introduced Mr. Darrell
Diede, Education Adviser to the Governor. Mr. Diede explained his
primary focus will be to advance the Governor’s agenda, but that he is
also available as an advisor. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 A.M.






DATE: January 13, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Representative Jones
GUESTS: Please see presenters below.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of January 9, 2003 were reviewed. Representative Nielsen
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion carried by
voice vote.
Chairman Tilman explained to the committee members that all agency
rules go through the procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedures
Act (APA) . Prior to this act, rules were adopted through various
procedures. With the enactment of the APA, a specific process is followed
to help keep the public informed.
Ms. Randi McDermott, State Board of Education, gave a brief overview
of the rules process. She pointed out that the administrative rules process
allows agencies to develop procedures for implementing statutes. Ms.
McDermott explained that rules are published twice prior to bringing them
before the legislature, and public meetings are held if the agency receives
a written request with 25 or more signatures. If the rule is controversial,
several hearings may be held. She informed the committee members that
the State Board gets the school districts involved early in the process, and
in fact, most of the rule changes are generated by the school districts
when procedures are not working. She briefed the committee on the
format being used for the rules and stated that none of the proposed rules
presented here today are changing education as we know it, but are
proposed for clarification, revision or housekeeping.
Docket No:

08-0203-0202

Ms. Randi McDermott, presented Docket No. 08-0203-0202 to the
committee. She explained the intent of this rule is twofold. It (1) removes
the requirement that nonpublic students participate in state testing at their
own expense and (2) designates the battery of tests related to Idaho
standards be called Idaho Standards Achievement Tests, with distinction
by grade level.


Ms. McDermott pointed out that last session the House Education
Committee requested the Board remove a reference to nonpublic
students participating in public school testing at their own expense.
A discussion followed and concerns surfaced about (1) the sentence
pertaining to nonpublic students under section 111.04 being removed
because the school districts will still have the authority to charge
nonpublic students for these tests; (2) the committee’s recommendations
last session were not completely followed; and (3) the rule being accepted
and then how, procedurally, it can be modified to ensure nonpublic
students are not charged for testing. Ms. McDermott explained that she
does not believe districts are charging for the tests if they are taken within
the test window. Chairman Tilman requested from a policy standpoint,
that the Board ensure that school districts are not charging nonpublic
students for these tests. He also clarified that the committee questioned
this rule last year but did not provide specific wording for the change. He
feels most nonpublic students will only take these tests within the testing
window because the tests are only valid if taken within the window. He
explained that procedurally, even if the rule is accepted this year, the
committee can send a letter to the Board requesting that they research
what districts are doing and come back next session with needed
changes.
Ms. McDermott continued reviewing the rule and explained that the
language in 111.06 was deleted because it was determined it was not
necessary, the name of the test is being changed to Idaho Standards
Achievement Test, and 111.07.d allows for more flexibility in setting the
dates for the testing. A question was asked about what grades require
proficiency levels. Ms. McDermott explained that grades K-8 are not
required to retake the exams where grades 9-12 are. Chairman Tilman
noted we need to have the Board come in and discuss proficiency level
requirements at various grades in detail.
Docket No:

08-0203-0204

Ms. Randi McDermott, presented Docket No. 08-0203-0204 to the
committee. She said the Language Arts standards were introduced in
1999 for grades 9-12 and for grades K-8 in 2001. A subcommittee of the
Board met to conduct a general review of the standards and make
adjustments. The changes are minor and include editing for wordiness
and clarity and making sure that standards content, knowledge, and skills
are aligned appropriately by grade level.
A question was asked about why they were removing the text under
669.02 regarding text books. Ms. McDermott said there are other existing
rules that pertain to text books, and the State Department of Education
has a committee that reviews text books and rates them as to how well
they meet the Idaho standards. It was asked if the Department is given
their authority by statute or rule, are we changing procedures, did the
committee also consider library reference material or electronic data, and
why are the skills being removed under 669.01. Ms. McDermott said she
would check to see if the Department’s authority is given by statute or rule
and if the committee considered other types of teaching aids other than
text books. She responded to a question about the removal of the
language under 669.01, saying it pertained to kindergarten students and it
was determined not to be appropriate for that grade level.



Docket No:

08-0203-0203



Ms. Randi McDermott, presented Docket No. 08-0203-0203 to the
committee. She said the Humanities standards were approved initially last
session. The House Education Committee did request that the Board
come back this year and remove general statements of opinion in the
preamble to the standards. A subcommittee comprised of State
Department officials and practicing teachers proposed additional changes
to ensure consistency and alignment by grade level, grammatical
correctness, and to remove a separate Humanities category entitled
World History, which was creating some confusion with World History
provisions provided in the Social Studies Standards.
Docket No:

08-0202-0203

Ms. Randi McDermott, presented Docket No. 08-0202-0203 to the
committee. She stated that the Board rules related to driver education
provide requirements and standards for both public and commercial driver
education and training in accordance with Idaho Code. The initial
proposed rule included recommendations for changes to rules regarding
public and commercial schools, but comments received in writing and
from two public hearings revealed that commercial school owners and
instructors are quite apprehensive about moving forward with proposed
changes. Therefore, this rule incorporates by reference only the new
Idaho Standards for Public School Driver Education. The rule text also
corrects the reference to commercial school rules, which will maintain the
same requirements that they have had in place since 1996 until further
changes can be agreed upon.
Several questions were asked about winter driving instructions, about the
definition of commercial driving schools, about persons up to age 21
being allowed to take drivers training, about whether some school districts
give credit for driver training, and how a state policeman can provide
suggested improvements. Ms. Beth Weaver, Department of Education,
explained that there are three text books used for driver training and each
one has a section on winter driving. Commercial driving schools are those
“for profit” schools that are under contract. Regarding persons up to age
21 enrolling in public driver education, Ms. Weaver explained that they
could apply and would be considered. She said the average cost for
training is $220, driver licensing in each county provides about $110 per
person, and school districts can make up the difference with fees. She
also stated that about a dozen school districts give credit for driver
training. Regarding the question about a state policeman suggesting
changes, the Chairman recommended they meet with the Department.
Docket No:

08-0202-0201

Ms. Randi McDermott, presented Docket No. 08-0202-0201 to the
committee, explaining that this rule deals with teacher technology skills.
These rule changes provide that technology competency must be
demonstrated prior to obtaining an Idaho teaching certificate. Competency
must only be shown one time, and all individuals who have proven
competency since 1997 when the accreditation requirement was
established will not be required to show competency again. Additionally,
the Superintendent of Public Instruction is allowed to establish a system
of waivers to this particular requirement. Since most of the current Idaho
teaching force has already met this requirement (90%), it was determined
the audience most impacted will be new teachers coming in from out-of-state. They are allowed an interim certificate for three years giving them
time to meet this new requirement. Only one external comment was
received on this rule suggesting that teachers with National Board
Certification not be required to show technology competency since
technology is used extensively in the national certification process.
Ms. McDermott explained the three methods used to test proficiency and
said teacher candidates can decide which method they prefer. A brief
discussion followed and it was determined that we may need to revisit
what skills teachers need and what changes at the college level have
been made to ensure competency. Also the line item in the budget for
technology is not used to meet this requirement.
Docket No:

08-0202-0202

Ms. Randi McDermott, presented Docket No. 08-0202-0202 to the
committee, explaining that this rule deals with interim certification. The
current rule provides for an interim certification for out-of-state certificate
holders for up to five years. These rule changes provide that the State
Department may issue a non-renewable three-year certificate to
applicants that hold a valid out-of-state certificate. It is felt this rule allows
adequate time for individuals to meet Idaho unique certification
requirements. The rule also corrects unnecessary language. When asked
if this rule will deter teachers from coming to Idaho, Mr. Keith Potter,
Department of Education, stated he did not feel that it would because now
they are dealing with different dates, i.e. the original certificate expiration
date. Mr. Potter explained they had not received comments on this rule
change, but had considered legislative input. He also explained that those
teachers coming out of an Idaho school must meet all of the
requirements. A brief discussion followed about provisions for a
professionally trained person to teach in a classroom. Mr. Potter
explained that a Letter of Authorization may be obtained to allow this
which is good for three years. He also mentioned that the Federal
requirements under the “No Child Left Behind” act seem to focus on
knowledge of content. Apparently Idaho’s MOST project is studying this.
Representative Boe thanked Ms. McDermott for simplifying the rules
process for the committee.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:50 A.M.






DATE: January 14, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/EXCUSED: All members were present.
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:02 A.M. with a quorum
being present. He reviewed the agenda for the remainder of the week,
calling the members attention to the workshop scheduled for Wednesday,
January 15 at 9:00 A.M. and the field trip scheduled for Thursday,
January 16 at 9:00 A.M. Representative Jones suggested that the
committee schedule an update on the facilities lawsuit.
MOTION: The minutes of January 13 were reviewed. Representative Rydalch
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion carried by
voice vote.
Ms. Sue Payne, Deputy Administrator for Field Services, Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation, State Board of Education was asked by the
Chairman to give a brief overview of her Division prior to presenting her
agency’s rules. Ms. Payne stated that there is a lot of state and federal
cooperation in the vocational rehabilitation program, and as well as
assisting disabled persons to become employed they also work with other
agencies to provide a variety of services to the disabled. Idaho has 70
well qualified counselors and 38 offices throughout the state that all offer
the same services. Funding for this program comes from federal sources
(80%) and state sources (20%) and these are matching funds.
In response to questions from the committee, Ms. Payne explained they
served 11,000 clients last year and out of about 8,000 open cases they
were able to place 1,711 people. They monitor those placed for 90 days,
and it is estimated the cost of placement is $6,000 per person. When
asked if her department is leveraging with the mental health courts, Ms.
Payne said this is a relatively new source for them, but they are involved
with and monitoring the mental health court in Idaho Falls.
DOCKET NO.

47-0101-0201

Ms. Sue Payne presented Docket No. 47-0101-0201 to the committee.
She explained that the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation is proposing
changes to their administrative rules to comply with new federal
guidelines and to compact the rules into one chapter. The changes are
necessary in order to streamline and reduce duplication of the
Rehabilitation Act and federal regulations. Ms. Payne stated that a 21-day
comment period was held and the rule changes were available in all of
their regional offices throughout the state. No comments were received. A
concern was voiced that changing the wording in Section 100 from
“Administrative Review” to “Informal Dispute Resolution” would change
the process being followed. Ms. Payne assured the committee that the
process would remain the same.
DOCKET NOS.

47-0102-0201 &

47-0103-0201

Ms. Sue Payne presented Docket No. 47-0102-0201 and Docket No. 47-0103-0201 by explaining that both of these chapters are being repealed.
The necessary language has been incorporated into Docket No. 47-0101-0201. There were no questions from the committee.
Dr. Jana Jones, Bureau Chief, Special Education, State Department of
Education, was asked by the Chairman to give an overview of her Bureau
prior to presenting her agency’s rule changes. Dr. Jones said they provide
services in the public schools to children with disabilities. They serve
about 29,000 children and youth, ages 3-21, and receive over $34 million
dollars in federal funding. Prior to being placed in the Special Education
program, they evaluate the children and prepare an individual education
plan (IEP). The children’s handicaps may be minor or the children may
have multiple handicaps and health problems. Special Education works in
collaboration with the Dept. of Health and Welfare on the Infant Toddler
program, which is the only early childhood program in the state.
She said the original intent of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) was to provide federal funds for 40% of special education
requirements. The national average right now is about 15% and Idaho
receives about 19%. Dr. Jones pointed out that through the efforts of
Representative Boe last year there are now two appropriation bills before
Congress to fund the requirements of the IDEA by 40% within six years.
The committee asked several questions about the level of disabled
students in the regular classroom, the disruptions caused by some of
these students, and whether there is a limit on costs a school district must
incur to provide services. Dr. Jones explained that the federal requirement
mandates that states provide these students with a free, appropriate
education in a “least restrictive” environment. Dr. Jones emphasized that
the IDEA and other regulations prohibit using cost as a factor in
determining what is best for the student and they cannot use the excuse
that they don’t have the services in their building. Regarding disruptions to
the education of other students, this should be considered when placing
the students. Handicapped students were kept in self-contained
classrooms and given a separate curriculum prior to the mid-1980s. Now
each school district puts together a team that determines locally what is
“least restrictive” for each student, but the parents have the final say.
General education teachers and parents need to be a part of this team.
Great improvements have been made in the services provided for these
students. The Universities are doing a good job of preparing the general
education teachers in special education. It was pointed out by
Representative Trail and Dr. Jones that there is a lot of collaboration
among the districts to share specialists and reduce costs. When asked
whether the Department tracks their clients to determine if they have
access to the proper services, Dr. Jones said they do use data
extensively and can identify children by district and know the extent of
their disability. They will extend the tracking to include when they enter
and exit public schools and will also work with the juvenile system.
A question was asked about the number of special education teachers in
Idaho, and Dr. Jones explained it is a challenge to retain special
education teachers because of burnout, case load, paper work and parent
complaints. There are about 80 special education teachers who have
“Letters of Authorization” and numerous special education teachers in the
general education classrooms. When asked about the line item for “Least
Restrictive” training, it was explained that this funding has been used for
substitute teachers and training for general education teachers and para-professionals through JFAC intent language.
Questions were asked about the impacts to special education student
from the Idaho standards and assessments and the No Child Left Behind
Act. She said all students must participate in the assessments and we
need to ensure that all kids tested have had access to the curriculum
being assessed. Dr. Jones stated that we want every student to show
growth and progress, and we need to have expectations of growth, but we
also need to look for alternative routes if students cannot meet the
requirements. The impacts brought about by the No Child Left Behind Act
are not fully understood, but the fear is that this will just be another
unfunded mandate. She mentioned that issuing vouchers under the NCLB
act for full coverage of special education in a private school could be a
problem in rural schools. She is hopeful this act will result in paper
reduction for special education teachers.
DOCKET NO.

08-0203-0201

Dr. Jana Jones presented Docket No. 08-0203-0201 to the committee.
She pointed out that to receive federal funds to support the education of
students with disabilities the Department submits the “Idaho Special
Education Plan”
to demonstrate state compliance with the IDEA
requirements. The US Department of Education required changes in state
rules as a condition of approval of the 2001 state plan. She explained the
changes being made to Section 109.04.c and 109.04.d.4 are changes
necessary to be in compliance with the IDEA, but changes that do not
impact current practices nor do they impact the school districts.
Questions were asked about how school boards become aware of the
rule changes and if local districts can have their own special education
plans. Dr. Jones said that the Special Education manual is adopted by the
Board. Special Education Directors will appraise the Board of changes. If
districts have their own plans, these plans must be reviewed and
approved by the Bureau of Special Education. The Bureau files an annual
report, they have a 5-year monitoring cycle, and they do extensive data
review to monitor the program.
MOTION: Representative Boe recommended in light of the two appropriation bills
before Congress to federally fund special education at 40%, that this
committee send a letter to Idaho’s Congressional Delegation and to
pertinent committees. Representative Rydalch, with Representative
Boe’s concurrence, moved that the Chairman draft a letter to be sent to
Idaho’s Congressional Delegation. There was a brief discussion about
sending the letter to the appropriate committees and Representative
Jones said there were several National Conferences, i.e. the National
Conference of School Boards who would be good allies in this effort.
There being no further debate, the motion carried by voice vote.
ADJOURN: After reminding the committee of the workshop tomorrow on Idaho’s
education formula, Chairman Tilman adjourned the meeting at 10:35 A.M.






DATE: January 20, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/EXCUSED: All members were present.
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:04 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of January 14, 2003 were reviewed. Representative
Cannon
made a motion to accept the minutes as printed. The motion
carried by voice vote.
Chairman Tilman pointed out that committee members had in their folders
a copy of a letter (from the Speaker of the House and the President Pro
Tem of the Senate) establishing that an RS becomes a public document
once the Chairman places it before the committee regardless of the
subsequent committee action.
Chairman Tilman explained that the committee would be looking at
several FY 2003 supplemental requests for Education, and he
differentiated between the supplemental requests and the FY 2004 public
education request that they would deal with later.
Dr. Bert Stoneberg, State Department of Education, addressed the
committee explaining that he is Idaho’s National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) Coordinator and has been in this position
since July. Dr. Stoneberg explained that because of the requirements
mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act and the fact that NAEP deals
with Title I, the Federal government has stepped up and provided funding
for this position. The National Center for Education Statistics contracts out
the statistical and testing services for this program. He provided a
handout (Attachment I) which explains that NAEP assesses students in
grades 4 and 8 in reading and mathematics and the assessments are
administered between January 27 and March 7. The handout also
outlines the school staff’s responsibilities, the school coordinator’s
responsibilities, and the NAEP Coordinator’s responsibilities.
Dr. Stoneberg stated that a contractor, Westat, administers the
assessment, and he is responsible for releasing and integrating the
results and promoting an understanding of NAEP. Netstat is the
organization responsible for the random selection of students for the
assessments. They test half the students in reading and half the students
in math. This is a voluntary assessment and generally takes about 90
minutes from start to finish.
A discussion followed and numerous questions and concerns surfaced.

In response to questions about why NAEP only tests 4th and 8th grade
students and whether NCLB will change this, Dr. Stoneberg explained
that most of the Title I funds are spent at the elementary level and this
may not change because Congress selected the NAEP assessment to
comply with NCLB because 45 out of the 50 states are already using it.
Chairman Tilman expressed concerns about how the NAEP Coordinator
position was funded, how this position fits into the whole assessment
picture, the involvement of the State Board with this position ­ basically,
no one has talked to this policy committee about this. Dr. Stoneberg
explained that there are five parts to Idaho’s assessment strategy: ISAT
(fall and spring); Idaho Reading Indicator, Direct Math Assessment, Direct
Writing Assessment and NAEP. He stated that his NAEP position is
federally funded, and as far as the assessment picture, it is his
understanding that the State Board is responsible for policies pertaining to
assessment and the Department is responsible for implementation. He
said he works closely with Sally Tiel, who is responsible for making sure
the programs are going forward.

Several questions were asked about whether NAEP is the only Federally
required test, does the state have a say in which students are selected for
the test, how much time is taken out of class, what the measurement of
error is, whether NAEP is comprehensive enough to do away with all the
other assessments, and are state results from other assessments
provided to NAEP. Dr. Stoneberg responded “yes” that NAEP is the only
Federally required test and “no” the state does not have a say in which
students take the test. He did say that if a school has fewer than 121
students all students may take the test. He estimates the time of the
assessment to be less than 90 minutes and the measure of error less
than two points. He also explained that the other state assessments
provide data on each district, each school and each student in Idaho
where NAEP compares data nationally. NAEP cannot replace all other
tests because all students do not take the test and each test has its
primary function, i.e. ISAT tests basic math skills where the Direct Math
test evaluates problem solving skills.

Concerns were voiced about Federal funding going away after three
years and whether the costs of administering the tests is also Federally
funded. Dr. Stoneberg stated he feels the Federal money for this position
will continue and that all costs of administering the tests are Federally
funded except for the School Coordinator’s time.

A final question was asked about the “opting out” provision for the NAEP
assessments and whether they “opt in” another student if a parent
chooses not to have their child take the exam. Dr. Stoneberg explained
that under Federal law parents have the option to “opt out” but under
State Board Rule they do not. Because Westat employees are Federal
employees they can remove the student at the parent’s request and the
statistics have a built in provision to account for this.

Ms. Marybeth Flachbart, Reading Coordinator, State Department of
Education, addressed the supplemental request for the Reading First
Program. She called the committee’s attention to the handout with a
puzzle on the front (Attachment 2), explaining she came up with this idea
to describe all the pieces of Literacy in Idaho. She was quick to point out
that Idaho has earned the Reading First grant and was one of 20 states to
receive a grant. She explained that Reading First is one of the programs
on the left side of the puzzle which helps determine readiness and the
programs on the right deal with privately funded pre-school programs.
She stated that she personally feels Reading First is a prevention
program because it identifies deficiencies early on and statistics show that
the chances are one in eight that if a child is not reading at grade level by
3rd grade they will never read at grade level.
Ms. Flachbart pointed out that Idaho has received National attention
because the Idaho Reading Initiative is designed to identify students who
are at risk. She stated Idaho is the only state to assess K-3 reading and
share the data. She used Attachment 2 to: (1) give the committee a brief
overview of the history of the Idaho Reading Initiative; (2) outline the
professional development provided for Idaho teachers; (3) explain
intervention measures; and (4) identify what Reading First is, how
resources will be allocated, what research shows, and what Reading First
will do.
In response to questions about what happens in 2006 if 85% of students
aren’t reading at grade level, benchmark results, and whether this
program is taking responsibility away from teachers, and why the
reduction in funding over a three year period, Ms. Flachbart stated that
there would be sanctions against school districts and teachers if they do
not meet the 85% goal, but she felt very confident this goal would be met.
It was determined that sanctions are not laid out in the current statutes.
Ms. Flachbart said good teachers will use assessment along the way and
the data is showing good results since 2000. She explained that this
program should support teachers in their efforts. She said so much of this
research is brand new, but that most good teachers are already
assessing students along the way. She pointed out that reducing the
funding each year was designed to make sure the money goes to the
school district with the greatest need and that they will not receive the
money if they are not meeting the benchmarks in first grade. She closed
by saying that in the school districts that are successful, it is a
combination of a variety of efforts from community efforts to innovative
teachers and administrators. She said practice is the key in reading and
schools must be proactive.
Ms. Sue Payne, Vocational Rehabilitation, State Board of Education,
explained that the State Independent Living Supplemental involves
subleasing a portion of its office space to a non-profit organization and
requires spending authority for the revenues it will receive. They are
asking for spending authority for money that comes in as rent so they can
accommodate handicapped employees. She said it is simply a business
transaction. There were no questions from the committee.
Ms. Harriet Shaklee, University of Idaho Extension Program, presented
an overview of the Parents as Teachers program in Idaho. She provided
the committee with a State Report on this program that uses data from 31
PAT programs in Idaho (Attachment 3). She talked about how important
the early childhood years are and that parents are the first and most
important teacher. She showed a video which explained that this program
was launched in Idaho in 1998 and now serves more than 1,300 families
that have children younger than 6. Programs at 13 of its 37 locations are
included in a U of I Parents as Teachers demonstration project. Parents
as Teachers provides universal access, is free, and is adaptable with
home visits being the heart of the program. This program provides
screening for health problems and has a positive impact on communities
because students enter school with a higher skill level. This program
connects parents with other organizations and services and is valuable in
small, rural communities.
Mr. Shawn Wardle, parent, shared his enthusiasm about the program
and about the successes of his three-year old. He talked about the
convenience of having the Parent Educator come to their home and
mentioned some of the exercises used to help his child learn verbal skills.
Ms. Shaklee was asked about funding for this program and community
involvement and she explained that funding comes from the Albertson’s
Foundation, Federal grants, Governor’s Initiative and the Idaho Trust
Fund. She said local communities are contributing small amounts. A
discussion followed about the screening tools they use and why all
students are not screened before entering kindergarten. Ms. Shaklee said
they use the basic developmental screening devices, and it was pointed
out that Twin Falls does screen children and makes a recommendation to
the parents. She went on to say that they get parents involved in the
program through educating parents about the program, County Fairs, and
word of mouth.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman
Tilman adjourned the meeting at 11:20 A.M.






DATE: January 21, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Please refer to presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in
sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:03 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of January 20, 2003 were reviewed. Representative
Kulczyk
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion
carried by voice vote.
Mr. Blake Hall, President, State Board of Education, reminded the
committee members that the State Board would be holding an open forum
in the Gold Room starting at 1:00 P.M. and encouraged them to attend.
Mr. Hall then introduced the other Board members who were present: Mr.
Jim Hammond, Vice President from Post Falls; Mr. Paul Agidius, member
from Moscow; Mr Laird Stone, member from Twin Falls, Mr. Darrell
Manning, member from Boise; Ms. Karen McGee, past president and
member from Pocatello; and Dr. Marilyn Howard, Superintendent of
Public Instruction and ex-officio member. Mr. Hall explained that Rod
Lewis, Secretary from Nampa, was unable to attend today’s meeting and
he also recognized the many hours that Randi McDermott, Gary Stivers
and Randy Thompson devote to supporting the efforts of the Board.
Mr. Hall stated that the Board members are very concerned about
accountability for dollars spent and in assisting teachers with discharging
their duties. He also said they will be looking at the Agency Rules to
ensure they are still applicable and that they are not creating unnecessary
paperwork.
Ms. Karen McGee, State Board of Education member, gave a brief
history of where we have been and where we are going with the
assessment effort in Idaho. She explained that Idaho’s standards were
written by Idaho teachers in cooperation with representative from Idaho
businesses. An assessment committee was formed and there were five
teachers involved. They traveled throughout the state gathering
information about what was needed. The Idaho Standards Achievement
Test (ISAT), which uses levels testing, resulted from that effort. The ISAT
is given in the fall and spring to grades 2-10 and the results are
immediate so teachers know where students are and if they are
progressing. Ms. McGee stated that levels testing gives power to teachers
and allows them not only to help struggling students but to move top
students into accelerated programs. Attachment 1 outlines the five distinct
assessments being used in Idaho and at what grades students are
assessed.
Ms. McGee pointed out that when No Child Left Behind was enacted that
Idaho was aligned with the requirements because of the standards and
assessment activities in Idaho. Idaho has received $31 million from the
Federal government to help improve Idaho schools and meet the
requirements of NCLB. She explained that the State Department of
Education was very instrumental in implementing the assessments and
talked about the partnering efforts between the Department and the
Board. She talked briefly about accountability, stating that accountability
is a positive word for teachers to hear and that the good, defensible data
resulting from the various assessments is designed to help schools.
Chairman Tilman asked if the Board or Dr. Howard could provide an
overview of how the funding from NCLB and the supplemental grant
money fits with what we are doing in Idaho. He requested that someone
walk the committee through the FY 2003 supplemental requests and also
the FY 2004 budget request, explaining how this funding moves us
towards meeting the NCLB requirements ­ help us understand from the
Board and the Department what your vision is. He explained this is a
critical piece of information for the new members.
A question and answer period followed.

When asked how the Department and Board are dealing with
remediation, Ms. McGee said they would be looking at the entire system
this spring. She mentioned that Idaho has received $3 million for the
Reading First program which should facilitate remediation and also school
districts who have been using level testing can immediately identify
students who need help.

Several members of the committee are educators and they fully support
these efforts, but voiced their concerns about the amount of time it takes
for teachers to analyze the individual scores and develop plans. They
were also worried about having to follow the standards and not being able
to be creative in their classrooms. Ms. McGee explained that the
assessment committee feels they shouldn’t tie assessment to
accountability for the first three years. Because there are standards for all
subjects, she did not feel that teacher’s creativity would be suppressed
but only enhanced. She mentioned the new Information System that
Albertson’s has committed to fund throughout the state and explained this
should bring data uniformity into place, allowing teachers to have this data
management tool at their fingertips.

A concern was voiced about all of the testing taking place in the schools
and whether the ISAT can replace some of these. Ms. McGee assured
them that the Board and the Department will be continually looking at the
entire package to see if there is duplication.

A question was asked about accountability of school trustees since we
are holding the teachers and administrators accountable. Ms. McGee said
the accountability has just met with Cliff Green, Executive Director for the
Idaho School Boards Association, to talk about this. She said trustees are
volunteers in their districts, but she feels they can be very effective in
setting policy and helping the Department and Board get rid of
cumbersome, unnecessary regulations.

When asked if the amount of money coming to Idaho from NCLB is
enough to get the job done, Ms. McGee said personally she feels it is
enough if we target the money properly. She said one area the Board
members plan to look at is transportation.

It was asked if the Board has a date to complete an accountability plan?
Ms. McGee said the Board’s goal is to have an accountability plan ready
for the Legislators next year.

Time and cost of professional development for teachers were key
concerns voiced, and it was asked if these programs could take place in
the summer and if our institutes of higher education are doing their job. If
so, why are we continuing to fund professional development, especially
for new teachers? What are districts doing to articulate their
requirements/expectations for new teachers to the colleges and
universities? Ms. McGee said it is possible to hold some professional
development courses in the summer, but some of the training requires
student to be present. Regarding teachers not being prepared when
entering the classroom, Mr. Jim Hammond explained that through Idaho’s
Most program they have defined a new performance model for teachers.
Several universities are working with districts in their area. Because of
high teacher turnover in the first five years, Mr. Hammond said he feels
new teachers still need proper induction and need to be able to work with
a master teacher. The question was asked if we are tracking teacher
turnover and if we are making a difference in this area. Mr. Hammond
said he will be presenting an update on Idaho’s Most in the next few
weeks and will try and address these questions indepth.

Chairman Tilman asked for the Board about the statutory requirements for
the IRI that give the State Board the responsibility to assess whether
teachers are receiving the proper skills to teach reading. He also asked if
the intent of the Board is to try and negotiate waivers for certain
requirements under the NCLB, if Idaho is meeting the requirements in a
different manner. Mr. Hall has formed a sub-group under the Board to
look into the NCLB requirements, and they will address the issue of
waivers. The Board members will check into the statutory requirements
for IRI.
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman publically thanked the Board members for moving Idaho
in the right direction and for making sure children are educated at the
proper level. There being no further business to come before the
committee, Chairman Tilman adjourned the meeting at 10:25 A.M.






DATE: January 22, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Representative Cannon introduced Karen Clark and Hazel Sutton,
Teachers from Blackfoot. Participants from Pocatello-Chubbuck School
District were Linda Powell, Cheryl Charlton, Pete Black, Evelyn Robinson,
Brenda Scheer, and Janelle Arvas. Mary Wallace and Susan Scott from
WRC Media and Compass Learning were also in attendance.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting or order at 9:00 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of January 21, 2003 were reviewed. Vice Chairman Lake
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion carried by
voice vote.
Ms. Linda Powell, Superintendent of Schools, Pocatello/Chubbuck —
District #25, presented an overview of Compass, an intervention software.
She said that when she began her job in 2000 she found that test scores
were declining. They had begun looking at data, but the district was
going in many different directions. She determined the real gap was in
intervention. The district worked with the Albertson’s Foundation and
formed a committee to look at technology tools to help get everyone on
the same track. The district’s goal is now to increase student achievement
by utilizing specialized software with uniform technology ­ the Compass
product and services were selected to accomplish this. She pointed out
that the software is customized to Idaho Standards and the ISAT and
provides instructional software for grades K – Adult in reading/language
arts, math, science and social studies. Compass products provide a
management reporting system linked to ISAT test result data and they
provide for diagnostic/prescriptive assessment that measures progress
and facilitates individualized learning. She stated that Compass is an
intervention tool that improves student achievement.
Ms. Cheryl Carlton, Chair of Compass Implementation Committee and
Principal at Ellis & Tendoy Elementaries, presented a segment on
Compass at the State/District Level. Ms. Carlton said the Implementation
Committee looked for a product that fit the 3D School Improvement
Process Model (Data, Design, Deliver) and would improve student
achievement. She explained that a 3rd grade class may have students at
many levels and the Compass tools allow the teacher to teach at each
level. She pointed out the many features of Compass and how it targets
multiple stakeholders (Attachment 1). She emphasized that Compass can
be customized and changed as requirements change and it integrates
with district curriculum. Reports are available to teachers and
administrators on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis. She
mentioned that many intervention tools target low achievers, but Compass
allows the teacher to challenge the high achievers.
Ms. Evelyn Robinson, Principal at Lewis & Clark Elementary, explained
how Compass is used at the Principal Level. She began by holding up a
196 page handwritten profile that she used to gather data, but said when
it came to intervention she didn’t have the tools she needed. She said it is
crucial to know what the Compass program is capable of providing. She
used several charts showing pretest and posttest percentages on a
school-wide basis, and at grades 1-3 and grades 4-6 and explained it was
easy to hide poor performing students when looking at school-wide
results. Attachment 2 illustrates a 5th grade reading assessment that
shows out of 22 students only 11 were actually reading at 5th grade level
and students were at 7 different levels in that class. Attachment 2 also
gives an example of individual student growth. She stressed that
Compass happens in the classroom. About 95% of their teachers are
working with Compass.
Ms. Brenda Scheer, 6th Grade Teacher at Tendoy Elementary and Ms.
Janelle Arvas, 3rd Grade Teacher at Tendoy Elementary
explained how
Compass is linked to ISAT and how they link Compass to Classroom
instruction (see Attachment 3). Points they made were how overwhelming
the data is when looking at the level of students the teacher may have in
the classroom and how Compass has allowed them to create paths for
the student. Ms. Scheer mentioned how crucial student accountability is
to this process. Ms. Arvas talked about the wide variety of reports and
showed how they can compare pre-test and post-test data and then tailor
the instruction to the individual students needs. Ms. Arvas also pointed
out the benefits they have found in using Compass (Attachment 3).
An informative discussion followed and many questions were asked. A
key concern was the time element for teachers to use the system. It was
explained that initially it may take more of a teacher’s time but saves a
great deal of time overall. Superintendent Powell mentioned that the best
gift the Legislature could give teachers this year would be more
professional development time, but without extending the length of their
contract. The cost for the software which included future upgrades and
support was about $1.2 million.
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman congratulated the administrators and teachers on their
work and thanked them for an excellent presentation. There being no
further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:25 A.M.






DATE: January 23, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:05 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of January 22, 2003 were reviewed. Representative
Kulczyk
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion
carried by voice vote.
Dr. Marilyn Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State
Department of Education, responded to Chairman Tilman’s request for
additional information on the FY 2003 public education supplemental
budget requests.
Dr. Howard stated the supplementals relate to the Departments needs
and Federal grant monies received. The NAEP Coordinator supplemental
will authorize a limited service position, funded by a grant from the U.S.
Department of Education, to coordinate Idaho’s efforts under the National
Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). The Department is
requesting permission from the Legislature to allow the Federal dollars
from this grant to be spent for this purpose. She explained this FTP will be
eliminated if the Federal funds supporting it are withdrawn within the first
three years, and they are currently using FTP from a vacant position for
Dr. Stoneberg, NAEP Coordinator. She discussed the value of the NAEP
testing and the differences in this testing and Idaho’s assessments. NAEP
has been accepted by the State Board as one of Idaho’s assessment
tools.
Chairman Tilman asked how this position fits in the big picture and if there
have been discussions with the Board about where this position should
reside. He emphasized that we need to make sure we are building on
Idaho needs and what’s needed for Idaho children. Dr. Howard explained
that the Federal regulations allocate the funding to the State Department
of Education from the U.S. Department of Education, and that she will be
accountable for the funds. Ms. Karen McGee, State Board member, was
asked if the Board has had conversations with Dr. Howard regarding this
position. Ms. McGee said the Legislature has asked the Board to step up
to the plate, and they will continue to look at their role. They will be sitting
down with the Department to discuss the supplementals and the various
pieces of accountability that exist throughout the process of assessment.
Dr. Howard addressed the supplemental for an increase in Federal
spending authority that would allow the Department to pass through
additional Federal funds to school districts for school lunches, migrant
education, drug free schools, and class size reduction. She explained
these are enhancements to existing programs in the district and the
request for increased spending authority is driven by an 11% increase in
federal grants for education.
Mr. Tom Farley, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Federal Programs, responded
to the question about how much Federal money is earmarked for
Comprehensive School Reform. He stated that the Department has
monitoring authority for $73 million of Federal funding that flows out to the
school districts. The Department can keep 1% of the grant money for
administration costs. He said there is $1 million targeted for
Comprehensive School Reform and Idaho has 16 schools in this category
and 7 schools have completed their reform efforts. He emphasized that
the money must be used to enhance what the school must do and only be
used to support scientific based programs.
The Reading First supplemental request was addressed by Dr. Howard.
She stated that this request will provide spending authority for a six-year
Reading First grant for professional development activities in schools, and
to hire four limited service positions within the department. She
emphasized how fortunate Idaho is to have someone like Marybeth
Flachbart heading up this program, and said the intent is to build a
network of highly skilled people in the state to help teachers. The
positions would be located in Boise, Pocatello and northern Idaho. When
asked how they came up with this plan, Dr. Howard stated that it was
through their experience with the IRI and the many requests they get for
help. Idaho’s plan uses a model supported by the U.S. Department of
Education. Dr. Howard pointed out that schools will have to apply for
grant money and they will be required to give the Texas test and
restructure their school day to dedicate the morning to reading. When
asked about adding another layer of testing and when will we know if we
are successful, Dr. Howard explained that the IRI has not passed the
scrutiny of the National requirements because it does not deal with
vocabulary. She said Idaho may have to revisit the IRI testing.
Chairman Tilman asked Dr. Howard if she had talked to the State Board
about how this position will fit in the overall picture. She stated she meets
monthly with the Board, but didn’t discuss the nuts and bolts of these
grants. She indicated the Department seeks Federal grants to help
advance Idaho’s goals in character education, reading and technology.
Ms. McGee then responded saying the Board had been remiss in
gathering information on the supplementals, and they need to have
discussions on the supplements because of the changing needs for
testing. They also want to ensure an independent look at the data.
Dr. Howard briefed the committee on the FY 2004 budget request.
Because Mr. Tim Hill, Bureau Chief of Finance, had recently conducted a
workshop explaining the State Appropriation and Total Revenue, Dr.
Howard began her briefing with Transportation, Category 2b.
(Attachment 1). She explained that for the past 2-3 years the Department
has been working with districts to rework and clarify the allowable
transportation costs. They believe the changes may result in savings, but
it is too early to tell. Districts are reimbursed 85% of the actual
transportation costs based on the previous year’s costs and these funds
are to be used solely to transport students to and from school and
educational field trips, not athletic events or senior sneaks. She
suggested that Rodney McKnight would be available to discuss this in
detail.
Dr. Howard moved on to Category 2g, Salary Based Apportionment,
for which she is requesting a 3.9% increase for FY 2004. She pointed out
that the Department has encouraged districts to hire counselors,
curriculum directors, and technology personnel, but the funding formula
has not been changed. The implementation of standards and special
education requirements have resulted in the need for additional teachers
and aids.



Mr. Tim Hill, Bureau Chief for Finance and Transportation, State
Department of Education, was called upon to explain the trend data they
analyzed to come up with the percentage of increase (Attachment 2). This
attachment depicts the past 8 years of salary data for Instructional,
Administrative and Classified positions and shows the difference in actual
salaries vs. salary-based apportionment. He stated that in 1997 the
districts were using about 13% of their discretionary funds for salaries and
now that has gone up to 17%. Districts (50 out of the 114) have about $62
million dollars coming in from supplemental levies for maintenance and
operations. The Department is trying to determine if the formula is
providing an adequate level of funding, but not trying to take funding up to
the full level, just cover technology and special education positions.

Representative Lake commented on the decline in enrollment and the fact
that districts had not adjusted their staff accordingly. He also stated that
teachers have been very successful with negotiating better contracts.
Representative Andersen asked if the trend data includes the extra
curricular activities pay. Mr. Hill said base salaries and extra pay are
separated, but he would look into this. Dr. Howard stressed the increase
in the base salary was meant to go beyond salary to try and support
people in the classroom.
Dr. Howard discussed Category 2h, Governor’s Initiative – Teacher
Incentive Award
, stating this is the last year of the authorized five years
for the $2,000 incentives for teachers to become national certified.
Chairman Tilman mentioned a recent study indicating there is no
evidence that national certification makes a difference. Dr. Howard said
the Department has not tracked or analyzed the classroom results of the
Idaho national certified teachers, but Idaho’s Most is looking at the whole
issue of teacher qualifications. Representative Andersen pointed out that
some districts have negotiated additional pay for national certified
teachers.
Category 2j, Early Retirement Payout, was discussed briefly and the
question was asked if this is a good policy in light of a teacher shortage.
Dr. Howard said this was put in place to try and balance the distribution
formula. She said other states are also addressing this and some allow
teachers to retire, but come back and teach without paying into
retirement.
The increase for Technology Grants, Category 2l, was discussed and
Dr. Howard pointed out that they had anticipated an increase in Federal
funding last year that did not materialize. She stressed how important
funding technology is to implementing the standards and assessment
because the districts are being asked to train personnel and manage and
analyze data. She praised the Idaho Legislature for making sure Idaho
has had the means to put a technology infrastructure in place.
Dr. Howard stated the Idaho Reading Initiative, Category 2m, would
remain the same, and they will be looking at this initiative. She explained
there is no money requested for Category 2o, Classroom Supplies,
because of lack of funding, but it is hoped districts will have enough
discretionary funds to cover. A discussion followed and several legislators
stated that teachers in their districts knew nothing about having their own
classroom supplies account and how frustrating it was to keep funding an
item with no feedback. Representative Sayler said he was given a
purchase order for $175 last year to by classroom supplies. Mr. Hill
explained the money had to go through the district to avoid tax
implications. When addressing Category 2p, Idaho Digital Learning
Academy
, Dr. Howard explained that this academy was authorized
through statute last year and received start-up funding from Albertson’s
Foundation. She said the academy does not disadvantage districts
because student are actually enrolled in their district and take course
online. She stressed the academy has great potential and is right in line
with what Universities are doing.
Dr. Howard briefly described Categories q-t under Professional
Development
, stressing the importance of each. No additional funding is
being requested for these items. Mr. Hill said they are taking a top down
approach with support units and explained he uses a middle range to
predict the support units each year. Preliminary results this year indicate
he is within 25 units. Mr. Hill mentioned there was a $4.6 million shortfall
in discretionary funding last year and that this shortfall would be shared
by the districts.
Dr. Howard thanked the committee for inviting her and commended her
staff on their hard work and support. Chairman Tilman asked Ms. McGee
if the Board had reviewed the public education budget, and she said they
had voted 7 to 1 for a maintenance and operations budget and didn’t
specify priorities.
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman thanked the Department and the Board and adjourned
the meeting at 11:40 A.M.






DATE: January 27, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:04 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of January 23, 2003 were reviewed. Representative
Bradford
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion
carried by voice vote.
A final review of the agency rules was conducted. Vice Chairman Lake
reported that the Senate Education Committee has accepted all of the
rules as presented. There were no questions or comments from the
committee.
MOTION: Vice Chairman Lake made a motion to accept the following agencies
rules as presented:
Idaho State Board of Education Rules ­ Docket
Nos. 08-0202-0201, 08-0202-0202, 08-0202-0203, 08-0203-0201, 08-0203-0202, 08-0203-0203, 08-0203-0204 and the Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation Rules ­ Docket Nos. 47-0101-0201, 47-0102-0201, 47-0103-0201.
Representative Nielsen asked for clarification
about rejecting a rule after it was authorized, and Chairman Tilman stated
that the Legislature does have that authority. Representatives Cannon,
Block, and Eberle debated in favor of the motion, stating their
Superintendents had no objections to the rules as written. There being
no further debate on the motion, the motion carried by voice vote.
Chairman Tilman explained that a letter will go to the Speaker indicating
that this committee has accepted the rules as written, and one concurrent
resolution will be prepared to approve the rules for all agencies. If rules
are rejected by a committee, separate resolutions will be prepared.
Representative Garrett thanked Randi McDermott for providing the
handout that addressed the committee’s concerns regarding the rules.
Chairman Tilman also thanked Randi for the format used this year.
Mr. Keith Hasselquist, Chief Fiscal Officer, State Board of Education,
was called upon to present the State Board of Education’s budget request
for FY 2004. Mr. Hasselquist began by giving some background on how
the budget was developed and stated that a base plus budget building
process was used ­ the Board provided agencies and institutions with a
maintenance of current operations (MCO) only budget. He pointed out
that the Board is responsible for 14 different appropriations and called the
committee’s attention to Page 1-43 which shows the organization chart for
the State Board of Education (Attachment 1). A question was asked about
the relationship between the achievement standards and Idaho’s Most,
and it was explained that standards and accountability are under the
direction of the Board, but implementation is in the public schools budget
under the State Department of Education. Regarding Idaho’s Most, it was
explained that this has been funded by Federal dollars to look at teacher
qualifications, and the recommendations will be implemented through the
universities.
Mr. Hasselquist pointed out that the Governor is responsible for managing
the budget once it is approved and any hold backs must be acted upon by
the Legislature. Mr. Hasselquist explained that the format being used for
each budget was identical, and he defined the decision unit as building
blocks used to identify increases being proposed throughout the state.
When asked the difference between the agency request and that of the
Governor he stated that the Governor is proposing that the state pick up
the increase in the cost of state employees’ benefits (about 1%).
Inflationary increases were not recommended except for Colleges and
Universities. Attachment 2 outlines the Historical Summary and the
Comparative Summary for each of the 14 agencies under the Board of
Education. Additional information can be found in the “Legislative
Services Budget Book”
provided to each Legislator and copies located in
the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Hasselquist briefed the committee on each of the budget requests
found in Attachment 2.

Agricultural Research and Extension Service, Pages 1-3 and 1-4 ­ the
most significant change in this budget was the decrease in state dollars
for full-time positions. Federal funding received does allow them some
flexibility in the number of positions cut.

College and Universities, Pages 1-11 and 1-12 ­ Mr. Hasselquist went
through the various components of this budget and explained that the
Governor is recommending a 2.4% inflationary increase and discussed
the nonstandard adjustments for enrollment workload adjustment and
other external adjustments which include several formula-driven
components. Also, based on the State Board action, the Governor’s
recommendation includes a 10% increase in student fees. It was
explained that matriculation and non-resident fees are the only fees
calculated in the general funds. An additional 1% increase is included for
employee compensation. It was pointed out that only 42% of college and
university funding comes from state appropriations.

Community Colleges, Pages 1-25 and 1-26 ­ the two community
colleges divide the appropriated funds in half. The tuition at the
community colleges amounts to about $1,550 per year vs. $3,000 at the
Universities. Community colleges receive property taxes from bordering
counties and the other counties pay a fee of $500 per student.

School of the Deaf & Blind, Pages 1-33 and 1-34 ­ their superintendent
is aggressively pushing to improve the school. Their biggest challenge is
to get teacher’s salaries at the same level of public schools.

Office of the Board of Education Budget, Pages 1-39 and 1-40 ­ Mr.
Hasselquist explained that a $1.5 million was received in FY 2003 for the
state assessment contract with NWEA, and the $3 million increase for
standards will be ongoing as they meet the needs of NCLB.

Health Education, Pages 1-45 and 1-46 ­ Mr. Hasselquist mentioned
that part of the investment Idaho is making in these programs is to bring
medical doctors back to Idaho. The increases seen here reflect the costs
for the increased seats that were approved last year by the Legislature.

Historical Society and the State Library, Pages 1-53, 1-54, 1-59 and 1-60 ­ these budgets reflect only the MCO increase. The Governor is
recommended an increase to fund the Lewis & Clark Trail Committee.

Professional-Technical Education, Pages 1-65 and 1-66 ­ this budget
encompasses both high school and post secondary professional technical
programs. Increases are being requested for secondary enrollment
workload adjustments and increased enrollment. At the postsecondary
level increases are requested for Capacity Building and 27.2 new
positions.

Educational Public Broadcasting System, Pages 1-77 and 1-88 ­ funds
requested are to support the infrastructure of the digital system, to
complete one more link, and to enhance service in some local areas.

Public School Support Budget, Pages 1-83 and 1-84, the State Board
supported maintaining an MCO budget, but did accept the Governor’s
request for a $2 million increase for assessment. When asked if the $2
million additional for assessment would go to the Board, it was stated that
the Board did not include this in their budget.

Special Programs, Pages 1-97 and 1-98 ­ this request deals with
increases in scholarships for various programs and involves an increase
recommended by the Governor for need based scholarships.

Superintendent of Public Instruction, Pages 1-107 and 1-108 ­ these
funds are appropriated to the Superintendent’s office and the Board does
not review this request. When asked why the Board does not review, Mr.
Hasselquist explained that the Superintendent is an elected official.

Vocational Rehabilitation, Pages 1-115 and 1-116 ­ this budget request
is for Epilepsy Services, Independent Living Council, Renal Disease
Services, and Vocational Rehabilitation. An increase was requested by
the agency but not recommended by the Governor.

Representative Eberle and Chairman Tilman complimented Mr.
Hasselquist for delivering a very information laden budget in a very clear
and well organized manner.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman
Tilman adjourned the meeting at 11:15 A.M.






DATE: January 28, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Vice Chairman Lake called the meeting to order at 9:03 A.M. with a
quorum being present.
MOTION: The minutes of January 27, 2003 were reviewed. Representative
Rydalch
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion
carried by voice vote.
Mr. Jason Hancock, Budget Analyst, Legislative Services Budget &
Policy Analysis, provided the committee with an FY 2004 Public Schools
Budget Setting Worksheet and a Comparison Sheet of the Public School
Budget Proposals (Attachment 1). Mr. Hancock explained that the
worksheet is structured so the committee can use the far right column to
formulate policy recommendations to present to JFAC. He stated that in
the first portion of the worksheet, Statutory Programs, the formula used is
determined in Idaho Code. The second portion, Other Programs, may be
in code, but the amount of funding is discretionary. He used the analogy
of the public schools budget being like a river with many diversions and
canals and the only thing left for the fish would be the discretionary funds.
He pointed out that public schools do have other funds available to them
through their local maintenance and operations budgets.
To form a frame of reference for the FY 2004 Base, Mr. Hancock had the
committee look at the FY 2003 appropriation. He explained that the
difference between the FY 2003 appropriation ($985,513,000) and the FY
2004 base ($957,549,700) is that the one-time items funded in FY 2003
were pulled out of the FY 2004 base.
Mr. Hancock explained the difference between the Superintendent’s
request for Salary-Based Apportionment & Benefits and the Governor’s
recommendation was that the Governor recommended only funding the
additional support units and the increases in salary based on education
and experience, but not an increase in the base teacher salary. In regards
to the decrease for Item 9, Early Retirement, he said the Department had
received about 300 applications for early retirement but only 235
teachers/administrators followed through, therefore only $4.5 million was
needed. They expect this trend will continue if funding for this item
continues. The decrease in Item 10, Bond Levy Equalization, was the
result of fewer districts passing bonds. He pointed out that many statutory
programs are estimates and if there are decreases, angel money/savings
will be moved to discretionary.
Mr. Hancock pointed out the decrease in discretionary funds is due to a
reduction in state dedicated funds for endowment, decrease in land and
timber receipts and $4.6 million less carryover “angel” money
materialized.
A discussion followed and Mr. Hancock addressed the following:

Federal Funding Received for Various Programs ­ Representative Trail
asked about these funds, and Mr. Hancock stated that the legislature
does not appropriate federal funds through the public schools budget, but
the Department maintains and distributes federal funds. The Governor’s
recommendation is for $4 million for Achievement Standards
Implementation ­ $2 million from the general fund and $2 from Federal
funds distributed as part of the public schools budget, not through the
Department. Representative Jones pointed out that it is not clear on how
federal funds for NCLB will be distributed. Mr. Hancock said he has not
read the act and does not know if statutorily the funds must go to the
Department. He said because the public education budget is managed by
the Department, putting the federal funds for NCLB in their budget may
not be a problem.

Property Tax Replacement ­ It was explained that by law the state is
required to fund 1mill and that the districts are not limited in the amount a
levy can generate but by the percent of levy. If the assessed property
value exceeds the percent set, the district receives less support from the
state.

Different Budget Requests ­ Representative Eberle asked if the
Department and the Governor’s office had met to try and work out the
differences in the requests. Mr. Hancock explained that the Department’s
budget is determined by a coalition of the IEA, ISBA, IASA, PTA and he
and Jeff Shinn from the Governor’s office sit in on this. The Governor’s
budget recommendation is formulated by the Department of Financial
Management.

Transportation Costs ­ It was pointed out that Transportation includes
salaries, bus purchases and valid costs of transporting students for the
purpose of education. Representatives Barraclough and Eberle pointed
out that several districts have saved money by purchasing basic buses
with no frills and by several districts going together on the contracts.

Increase in Salary Based Apportionment ­ it was asked if enrollment is
decreasing or fairly flat, why the increase. Mr. Hancock contributed this to
the one-year provision that if enrollment is down in a district the district
will still receive 99% of their apportionment and to increased enrollment in
the urban areas. He felt that charter schools have also driven up the
support units.

Dr. Mike Rush, Administrator, Idaho Division of Professional-Technical
Education, presented (1) the vision and philosophy for Professional-Technical Education, (2) the setting and performance, (3) strategies and
innovations for FY 2003, (4) budget request for FY 2004, and (5) the
impact of a FY 2003 level appropriation in FY 2004 (Attachment 2). Dr.
Rush stated their mission is Idaho’s youth and adults, technical skills,
knowledge, and attitudes, and successful performance in a highly
effective workplace. He outlined briefly the four Professional-Technical
Budget Programs: state leadership and technical assistance, general
programs, post-secondary programs, and under-prepared
adults/displaced homemakers (Attachment 2). He emphasized the
change in required job skills and the relationship in unemployment and
education and how these play a part in the program growth they are
seeing in the Professional-Technical programs.
Dr. Rush closed by outlining the FY 2004 budget request for the
Professional-Technical programs and the impact of FY 2003 level
appropriations in FY 2004 (Attachment 2). He explained that even with the
Governor’s recommendation they would not be able to open the approved
schools in Kimberly and Blackfoot. He talked about how beneficial
capacity building was in determining what programs are successful and
making the best use of the dollars. He said they also require programs to
meet five rigid criteria or they are shut down. When complimented on their
management of programs, Dr. Rush said we must tell people what
services they are funding and stressed stimulating students and holding
students accountable.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee, Vice
Chairman Lake adjourned the meeting at 11:11 A.M.






DATE: January 29, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representative Jones
GUESTS: Representative Bradford introduced Mr. Marden Phelps from Montpelier.
For other guests, please see presenters highlighted below and the
committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:04 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of January 28, 2003 were reviewed. Representative
Cannon
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion
carried by voice vote.
PRESENTATION: Mr. Jeff Shinn, Financial Management Analyst, Division of Financial
Management (DFM), presented the Governor’s recommendations for
public school support and the professional-technical education budget
(Attachment 1). He began by telling the committee that the DFM is part of
the Office of the Governor. Analysts are assigned to all agencies and
one of their primary duty is to develop the executive budget. He
explained that the executive budget detail and summary are both
available on their website (www2.state.id.us/gov/index.htm).
Mr. Shinn stated that he would not be going through each of the
components of the Governor’s recommendation since the committee has
already had several presentations on the public schools budget. He
explained that the Governor is recommending $2 million less than the
Superintendent for Item 16, Technology. For Item 19, School Facility
Improvements, the Governor recommended $1.5 million, but this amount
may be reduced based on the number of schools that passed bonds by
September 15, 2002. For Item 17, Achievement Standards, the Governor
has recommended $4 million ($2 million from the general fund and $2
million from federal funds). The money for Achievement Standards will
be used by the Department for writing and rewriting curriculum to align
with the state standards. It was clarified that the Office of the State Board
of Education budget contains a $3 million request for standards and the
Governor supports this recommendation.
Mr. Shinn called the committee’s attention to Page 2, Attachment 1, that
shows a graph reflecting all funds going to public schools based on the
executive recommendation for FY 2004. It was explained that the $159.6
million of federal funds goes through the Department and is then
distributed to the districts based on a formula or specific criteria attached
to the funds. Mr. Shinn was not sure if all of the federal funds going to
the districts were specifically earmarked/directed. Mr. Shinn clarified that
the $9.28 million for professional-technical comes from the professional-technical general programs’ budget and goes to high schools with
professional-technical programs.
COMMITTEE

INFORMATION

REQUESTS:

Representative Rydalch asked for a list of federal mandates that are
not being funded. Representative Lake asked for a historical chart
showing ten years of growth in K-12 funding by fund source
(federal, taxes, general and endowment).
Mr. Shinn said he would
work with the Department and JFAC to prepare responses.
Mr. Shinn continued with the chart on Page 3, Attachment 1, that shows
state funds only for public school support based on the executive
recommendation. He stated that half the lottery receipts go to public
schools and half go into the permanent building fund. He explained that
$4.5 million is being replaced by general funds in the executive
recommendation. On Page 6, Attachment 1, Mr. Shinn pointed out that
the chart depicts all funds for professional-technical education and
explained in recent years there has been a shift from federal funds to
state funds for these programs.
A brief discussion followed and several points were clarified:

The executive budget mirrors the public schools budget for the
statutory items, except that the Governor is not recommending a 2%
increase in base salaries nor is he recommending and increase for
classified personnel. He is only recommending the index increases
mandated by Idaho Code.

The State Board of Education budget was done outside the executive
request, and Mr. Shinn stated he did not know how it differed from the
executive budget.

Idaho does not have a statewide mandated salary scale. The
appropriations are sent to the districts, and salary decisions/negotiations
take place locally.

Mr. Tim Hill, Division of Finance and Transportation, Department of
Education, pointed out three other differences between the executive
budget and the public schools budget request: the Governor did not
recommend funding the Idaho Digital Academy, the public schools
budget requested $500,000 less for school facility improvements, and
the Governor recommended less money for discretionary.
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman reminded the committee of the joint meeting with the
Senate Education Committee tomorrow at 9:40 A.M. in the Gold Room.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:50 A.M.






DATE: January 30, 2003
TIME: 9:40 A.M.
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Guests from J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation were Craig Olson,
Wayne Rush, Leiah Rodekuhr, Lisa Reed, Sharron Jarvis, and Bob
Haley, Consultant for the foundation’s CHIPS districts. Other special
guests present were students from the Sandpoint Charter School.
Chairman Tilman called the Joint House and Senate Education
Committee meeting to order at 9:45 A.M. with a quorum being present.
Chairman Tilman introduced Mr. Craig Olson, J.A. and Kathryn Albertson
Foundation, and thanked him and the foundation for all the efforts they
have been involved in to help Idaho children. Chairman Tilman said from
an education policy standpoint, he sees the Statewide Idaho Student
Information Management and Reporting System (ISIMS) as just another
piece of the pie in the overall big picture.
PRESENTATION: Mr. Craig Olson, J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation, briefed the
committees on the ISIMS proposal. (Copies of this proposal will be kept
in the House Education Committee Secretary’s Office, Room 411A, and
with the minutes in the Legislative Library.) Mr. Olson pointed out that
the Albertson Foundation is willing to invest $35 million dollars in this
system over a 6-year period if the Governor, the Legislature, the State
Board of Education, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, all
educators and all stakeholders are willing to make the commitment
necessary to ensure student data standardization happens. He
described the system design recommendations and outlined the
commitments that the foundation would require from each entity and
stressed that the offer will expire at the end of the 2003 legislative
session, unless acted upon. Mr. Olson said they will require a lead
agency to take the responsibility for this project, and an ISIMS
Stakeholders Committee will provide input and direction for the project.
A brief question and answer period followed the presentation and Mr.
Olson responded to questions about the foundation’s recommendation
for a lead agency, privacy issues, report capability, upgrades, band-widths, ongoing costs, connectivity with Compass software, and how this
system will help students. Mr. Olson addressed the questions as follows:



Lead Agency ­ The Albertson Foundation is neutral as far as a lead
agency, but believes the agency must have access to the data that
needs to be standardized. From a policy standpoint, the state must
determine which agency should have the lead for this system.

Security ­ The data will be encrypted and the access will be
determined by the lead agency. It was explained that with the system
design proposed, a security breach would only have to be solved one
time, not at every district.

Report Capability and Paperwork Reduction ­ It was pointed out that
the system will house data in a manner that will allow reports to be
generated for NCLB and other programs at the lead agency rather than
each district having to generate the reports. These capabilities should
eliminate much of the paperwork being done manually at the district or
building level.

System Upgrades ­ It is expected that upgrades will be required each
year, but long-term contracts will include software upgrades.

Adequate Bandwidths in Idaho ­ It was explained that in areas such as
Stanley where insufficient bandwidths exist, servers could be installed
and the lead agency would maintain and support these servers.

Ongoing Costs ­ It is estimated that ongoing costs will be from $5.7 to
$7 million per year once the $35 million grant has expired. Training can
be done using a train-the-trainer approach and through the Universities.

Use of Compass Software ­ It was explained that Compass
capabilities are an extension of this system, and the Pocatello school
district is one of the working models for ISIMS and they also use
Compass. It was emphasized that the basic system must be in place
first.

Helping Students ­ It was explained ISIMS would enable the state to
gather consistent data on every student in the state.

Representative Lake asked Mr. Olson about existing agreements with
the SBOE and the Governor. Mr. Olson said they are just trying, by the
end of the session, to have all necessary legislation in place and all
stakeholders involved or the offer will expire.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committees,
Chairman Tilman adjourned the meeting at 10:50 A.M.






DATE: February 3, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Rep. Naccarato
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in
sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:03 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of January 29 and January 30, 2003 were reviewed.
Representative Lake made a motion to accept the minutes of January
29, 2003 as written. The motion carried by voice vote. Representative
Sayler
made a motion to accept the minutes of January 30, 2003 as
written. Representative Andersen pointed out that the meeting place
should read the “Gold Room” not “Room 406”. The correction was so
noted, and the motion to accepted the minutes of January 30 with the
noted correction carried by voice vote.
PRESENTATION: Dr. Michael Burke, President, North Idaho College, informed the
committee that his entire career has been in higher education at the
community college level. He said he spent 47 years in Texas prior to
coming to Idaho five years ago.
Dr. Burke explained that North Idaho College was founded in 1933,
classes were held on the third floor of the City Hall, and it was originally
funded by public contributions. He pointed out that the college delivers
courses to various sites throughout Idaho’s five northern counties
through off-site facilities, the Internet and an extensive network of
interactive video classrooms. NIC is accredited, and he mentioned they
have just gone through a “self-study” process preparing for their next 10-year accreditation. Dr. Burke described community colleges as a unique
American invention that provide (1) an affordable, accessible education;
(2) a student centered environment and access to non-traditional
students; (3) teaching excellence and (4) a lifelong learning opportunity.
Dr. Burke pointed out that NIC has experienced a 20% enrollment
increase since 1998, and mentioned that part of this growth was
stimulated by the Promise Scholarships. He explained their greatest
challenges are growth and the economy and said they are constrained
by being on the river and height restrictions. NIC has moved the GED
students and other programs off campus and their Health and Sciences
program is full. He was quick to point out that 100 percent of NIC nursing
graduates passed the national nursing certification exam in 2002. Dr.
Burke said that NIC will survive the tough times, but he feels in the long-term that keeping the excellent, high quality product will be a challenge.
Dr. Burke mentioned a study conducted by Dr. Christopherson,
CCBenefits, Inc., that indicates that North Idaho College accounts for
$106.4 million of all annual earnings in Kootenai County and also
contributes to the intellectual wealth of the communities served.
In response to a question about out-of-state tuition, Dr. Burke said the
rates are set by the trustees, and they try and keep these competitive.
He said they do have an agreement with Washington (Western Under-graduate Exchange) and they do recruit many students from Montana. In
response to a concern about ratio of full-time to part-time faculty, Dr.
Burke explained that NIC has a real commitment to full-time faculty, and
they are probably below average in use of part-time faculty ­ the key is
balancing the load. In regards to limiting enrollment, Dr. Burke said they
are actually marketing the college, especially to the adult workforce.
PRESENTATION: Ms. Jane McClaran, Budget Analyst, Division of Financial Management,
presented the Governor’s FY 2004 budget recommendation for higher
education. She explained that the college/universities, community
colleges, Ag research & extension, and health and special programs
were excluded from the Governor’s declared 3.5% general fund holdback
for FY 2003.



Ms. McClaran stated that the agency request is about 1% less than the
Governor’s (Attachment 1), and she outlined the general differences
between the agency request and the Governor’s recommendation in
higher education for FY 2004.

The Governor did not recommend general inflationary adjustments
(with the exception of the college/university budget), nor did he
recommend a medical inflationary adjustment for some of the medical
programs.

The Governor did not recommend funding the change in employee
compensation (CEC); however, he did recommend funding to be applied
toward the employee portion of the health and dental insurance cost
increases.

The Governor also recommends $1,026,800 in additional ongoing
general funds for need-based scholarships found under special
programs administered by OSBE, and he recommends bonding for $67.2
million in deferred public building fund capital projects ­ of this amount,
$61.1 million are for education.

Ms. McClaran explained that the State Board of Education indicated the
number one issue for the four-year institutions is funding equity. Because
the institutions were asked to submit a maintenance only budget, the
funding equity amount of $11,537,200 was not included in the budget
submission, but they did not want to lose sight of issue. This amount
would be distributed to the four institutions over a five-year period should
funds become available. She also explained the contract increases in the
medical programs and total seats as 11 seats for WOI, 18 seats for
WWAMI, 8 seats for IDEP, and 8 seats for the University of Utah. She
mentioned that Oregon has dropped out of the veterinary medical
program, but Idaho’s fees will not increase this year.
Ms. McClaren referred to page 1-19, Attachment 1, that shows the FY
2003 All Funds Budgets (appropriated + unappropriated revenue). She
explained that matriculation and out of state fees are the only
appropriated fees. When asked about the average matriculation fee per
student, Ms. Randi McDermott, State Board of Education, stated that
resident fees are $2,900 and nonresident fees are $6,000 but it wasn’t
clear how much of the fee is the taxpayer’s portion. Representative
Jones stated that Ag Research took a harder hit from early retirement
than the rest of UI and said he was surprised the Governor did not
provide an inflationary increase given the state of rural Idaho. Apparently
UI has enough money to fill 50 positions out of 109 in the next two years.
A brief discussion followed and Representative Lake expressed concern
because even though there was a 10% base cut in 2002, the
college/universities are still receiving more money overall. Apparently of
the 178 positions reported cut only 12 were involuntary ­ the rest were
due to retirement and vacancies. Ms. McClaren stated that the
college/universities receive a lump sum appropriation and it is a common
practice to roll funding for vacancies into other programs.
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman requested that Ms. McClaren provide a report showing
the last 5-years of funding for the college/universities and the sources of
funding. There being no further business to come before the committee,
the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:10 A.M.






DATE: February 4, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee’s sign-in
sheet. Students, teachers, parents, school district representatives and
others were in attendance to support the funding of the IDLA.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:02 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of February 3, 2003 were reviewed. Representative
Rydalch
made a motion to accept the minutes with the word “budge”
changed to “budget” on Page 2, last paragraph, line 4. The correction
was noted and the motion carried by voice vote.
PRESENTATION: Mr. Bicker Therien, Director, Idaho Digital Learning Academy, began
the presentation with a history on how the Academy was created through
the passage of House Bill 534 during last year’s legislative session.
Although the Academy was created, it was not funded, and private
funding was sought. In June 2002 the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson
Foundation granted $1 million to the State Department of Education for
the accelerated implementation of the IDLA. Another grant of $3,000 was
secured from the INEEL for content development.
Once private funding was secured, a board of directors was elected
under the direction of the IASA and Dr. Mike Friend. The board is made
up of 3 superintendents, 2 principals and two citizen members. Dr. Nick
Hallett was elected as chair and Dr. Gregory Cox was elected vice chair.
Donna Vakili was hired as a professional development and curriculum
coordinator. The next step was selecting a platform provider, and after
careful consideration and negotiation, Blackboard Learning was chosen
as the IDLA platform provider. By October 28, 2002 teachers had been
recruited, hired and trained, content development had begun, and a four-course pilot program had begun for 85 students.
Mr. Therien outlined the vision and goals of IDLA, what the $1 million
dollars bought and the Spring 2003 Statistics (Attachment 1, Pages 2-4).
He explained the IDLA has students from Yellow Pine and Stanley as
well as Boise and Meridian and 7% of the students are on IEP’s and
many are academically gifted seeking curricular enhancements.
Ms. Donna Vakili, Professional Development and Curriculum
Coordinator, IDLA, stated that her background was in online teaching
and development. She outlined the teachers’ background and explained
they had 140 applicants for the 49 positions. She explained (1) how the
curriculum was developed by teams and meets the Idaho State
Achievement Standards; (2) why students take IDLA courses; (3) what is
an IDLA “online course”; and (4) what students do in IDLA courses
(Attachment 1, Pages 5-7). Ms. Vakili logged into the IDLA website and
demonstrated what the students see, how students interact with the
content and the instructor, and the types of multimedia that are
integrated into the various courses (Attachment 1, Pages 8-10).
Mr. Wes Stoddard, Teacher, IDLA, explained when he was approached
to participate in the IDLA that he was not particularly interested because
he likes the one-on-one interaction with students on a daily basis. He
now realizes that student-to-student and student-to-teacher interaction
does take place through the IDLA courses and students actually have
more time to think about questions and formulate their answers. He can
list his expectations for the course right up front and give examples of
what he wants students to accomplish. He described the virtual
classroom where math and science teachers can meet students online
and explain how to solve a problem. He also gave examples of some of
the student-to-student responses and debates. He stated that one of the
benefits of this type of learning experience is having active participation
in a supportive, safe environment where every student counts ­ it is self-regulating and challenging.
Mr. Therien closed the presentation by outlining the district’s
responsibilities, how the IDLA supports No Child Left Behind and
summarized the benefits (Attachment 1, Pages 16 and 17). He ended by
stating that the groundwork has been laid and now the $600,000
requested by the State Department of Education to continue.
Duncan Poling, Student at Borah High School, explained he is taking a
Health course through the IDLA and feels he has more time to think
about how to answer questions.
Catherine Jambura, student, is taking two courses through IDLA as well
as taking 7 regular classes. She doesn’t find taking the additional classes
to be difficult.
Mr. Therien addressed several key issues brought up by the committee:

Rapid Growth and Funding: If growth is too rapid, a formula may be
used to allocate seats to districts. If IDLA is funded through ADA it would
take away the advantage to the districts, make it competitive, and create
a paperwork nightmare. Quality education for the students is their goal
and using the IDLA to make money with online training for teachers and
others may take away from this goal. It is felt that the $600,000 budget
request will serve about 1,600 students.

Class Size and Teacher Salaries: Class size is capped at 25 because
most of the teachers are part-time teachers who may teach full-time in
public schools. Salaries are based on number of students and with a
class of 18-25 students a teacher is paid $2,600 for a semester credit
plus $200 for a Masters Degree and $200 for Online Learning
experience. For specialized classes where enrollment is limited, the
teacher earns $225 per student for a course.

IDLA Structure: IDLA is a legal entity that functions under the State
Department of Education but all financial transactions are handled
through Blaine County. Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, IASA,
explained that the statute creating the IDLA required the establishment of
a host district for accreditation purposes. The dollars flow through the
State Department of Education and the fiscal agent is Blaine County
District. The Board of Trustees has established the pay rates and hires
the teachers.

WRITTEN
TESTIMONY

SUBMITTED

Mr. Dean Jones, Administrator of Instruction for the Boise School
District, presented written testimony in support of the IDLA (See
Attachment 2).
PRESENTATION: Mr. Ross Borden, Budget Analyst, Budget and Policy Analysis,
Legislative Services, briefed the committee on the seven components of
the higher education budget requests (Attachment 3). He provided a
historical perspective for FY 2001, 2002 and 2003 showing the percent
increases/decreases. He explained the bottom two lines for each
component represent a hypothetical permanent base reduction of 8.2%
or 5.0%. Chairman Tilman asked if each of these components would be
presented as a separate appropriation and Mr. Borden said they would.
Mr. Borden pointed out that Item 15, Enrollment Workload Adjustment,
under the College & Universities budget was a formula applied to
allocate funds for growth. On Item 16 the Governor’s recommendation
reflects a 10% increase in fees, but fee hikes are generally approved in
April by the School Board so their request does not include the fee hike.
He explained the major increase in the State Board’s budget in FY 2002
is the result of assessment and accountability. He gave a clear picture of
the increases in Health Education with the chart showing the increased
seats over a four-year period (Attachment 3). Under Special Programs
he explained that Items 3 and 4 deal with Promise Scholarships and Item
15 in the Governor’s request is for need-based scholarships. When
asked whether we are double dipping by asking for the 2.4% increase for
inflationary costs and an increase for utilities, Mr. Borden said no
because utilities have increased more than the 2.4%.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chairman Tilman adjourned the meeting at 11:00 A.M.






DATE: February 5, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members are present.
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in
sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:05 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of February 4, 2003 were reviewed. Representative
Nielsen
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion
carried by voice vote.
PRESENTATION: Dr. Dene Thomas, President, Lewis-Clark State College (LCSC),
presented her annual report to the committee (Attachment 1). She
indicated that LCSC was founded in 1893 as a “normal” school, and
their emphasis on quality teaching is still paramount in all of their
mission areas. The normal faculty course-load is four courses, and they
function today as a “state university” with their three-fold missions of (1)
academic programs (2 & 4-year baccalaureate); (2) professional-technical programs (1-4 years); and (3) community programs (no local
funding).
Dr. Thomas described LCSC’s students as economically needy, non-traditional students with 80% receiving financial aid. She explained the
other 20% of the students are part-time students who work full time. She
emphasized that LCSC is a very important part of the economy. LCSC
has grown from 2,000 to 3,000 students since 1985. They serve a large
non-credit population and have about 500 students participating in the
GED program. Other community services are AmeriCorps for teachers’
aides, family education programs, education programs for inmates and
their families, senior nutrition programs, adult literacy programs, and
youth sports programs.
Dr. Thomas explained that with the FY 2003 budget cuts, administration
took the biggest cuts. She indicated that sports programs have been
cut, and she is serving as the athletic director to help meet their debt
payments. She said her goal is to keep LCSC financially sound while
providing students an excellent education. She pointed out that
education and health care are Idaho needs and LCSC is adjusting to
meet those needs. She explained that if the multipurpose activity center
is funded it will provide 8 larger classrooms and class size can be
increased to 40-50. She pointed out that under the proposed FY 2004
budget they may have to cut two outreach centers. She stressed that
LCSC operates efficiently and effectively, and their strategic plan allows
them to target cuts and put more money into education and health care
and to maintain their core functions.
PRESENTATION: Dr. Richard Bowen, President, Idaho State University (ISU), presented
ISU’s annual report to the committee. Dr. Bowen stated that ISU is the
state institution for health and sciences and they are responsible for
curriculum development and delivery statewide. He briefed the
committee on ISU’s campus profile (Attachment 2), explaining that 90%
of their students are white, non-Hispanic and 2% are International
students, and 93% of the students are from Idaho. Other statistics he
pointed out were that (1) 90% of ISU’s graduates became employed
with 79% being employed in a field relating to their major; (2) ISU
employs 3,500 people; and (3) ISU is top in the nation for graduates
passing the CPA the first time around.
Dr. Bowen provided the committee with a portrait of ISU from 1993-2002 and asked them to spend some time studying this document
(Attachment 3). He briefly touched on ISU’s transfer policy and pointed
out that credit hour changes have not increased dramatically in 1993.
He stated that ISU provided $79,416,704 in financial aids to students in
FY 2002, and two-thirds of the students still borrow money with an
average annual debt of about $5,116. Dr. Bowen asked the committee
to support the Governor’s budget recommendation and support funding
for new construction.
Dr. Bowen then fielded questions from the committee and responded to
the following:

Equity Issue: Dr. Bowen said the recommendation by the Board to
address the equity issue on an ongoing basis means that inequities are
not getting worse, and they have realized a marginal increase (2%). His
hope is that future funding will be such that historical inequities will be
addressed.

Student Fee Increases: Dr. Bowen said student fees have increased
by 100% and he attributes this to a massive shift in public policy and to
the fact that states who have higher student fees receive more federal
funding.

Criticism for New Engineering Program: Dr. Bowen said he has
received criticism for starting a new program in tight times, but attributes
that to those who feel if you invest in something new you are taking
away from them. He said he felt the program would be self-supporting in
two years and would enhance ISU’s engineering program.

Weighted Credit Hours: Dr. Bowen explained that there are a number
of considerations in the way the formula is computed such as level of
course (freshman, graduate, doctorate) and also the field of study. A
graduate course in biology is funded at 6.5% more than a freshman
English class. Some of the changes were made because of inequities.

Saturating the Market: Dr. Bowen said there may be too many
graduates in some areas but there are extreme shortages in other areas
and it is basically up to the student to chose wisely.

Budget Sources: ISU is funded 34% by the state and 18% by student
fees and the remainder comes from grants, contracts, food services,
dorms fees. Budgets have increased because of more federal funds, but
the funds come with restrictions that do not allow them to be used to
hire staff.

Budget Cuts: Dr. Bowen said they may have to return to a small,
viable institution and restrict enrollment. He was asked if classes could
be used as profit centers to pay for instructors, and it was explained that
only 1/3 of student costs are reimbursed through the workload
adjustment. He stressed his priority is to concentrate on full time
enrollment because it results in more funding.

Dean Larry Harris, College of Education, Idaho State University,
presented an update on ISU’s teacher education programs and
requirements (Attachment 4). Dr. Harris explained that as heirs of the
Albion Normal School, ISU’s College of Education actually began in
1893. As the undergraduate teacher education programs were outlined,
he emphasized that the secondary education program required an
academic major/minor in a discipline. When asked if the disciplines
were aligned with certifications he said “yes”.
Dr. Harris pointed out that ISU requires a 2.75 grade point average, but
many of the students maintain a 3.25 average. He stressed that
students must spend 20 hours in the field (public school) their
sophomore year, a recommendation is required from the cooperating
teacher, and an entrance interview is required for admission to student
teaching. All requirements under Item 3 are required before student
teaching begins and Items 3d, 3e, and 3f have been added because of
state requirements.
Dr. Harris pointed out how ISU is preparing students to meet the state’s
reading and technology requirements for certification, and he pointed
out that ISU requires students to pass the technology portfolio
assessment where BSU uses the technology exams and UI uses
performance evaluations. Idaho’s Most accepts all three. ISU also
provides an alternate route to certification and a person with a BS
degree can be certified in one year ­ they have 75 people in the
program from a variety of careers. Dr. Harris discussed the two teacher
work samples that document the learning gains of students in the
student teacher’s classes and the new requirement for students to pass
the Praxis II tests of content in both their major and minor. ISU hopes to
follow their graduates into the field and track how their students perform
on the ISAT.
Dr. Harris addressed the following questions:

When asked if ISU will include use of the ISAT and ISIMS as part of
the course offerings, Dr. Harris said “yes”. The teacher work samples
require the students to collect and analyze data and it may be possible
to include use of the ISAT and ISIMS.

When asked how they plan on accomplishing the new initiatives with
existing staff, Dr. Harris said the faculty will continue to work “flat out” to
accomplish the initiatives, but with additional resources the initiatives
could be implemented quicker and better.



To the question about whether new teachers graduating from ISU will
require less mentoring, he said he feels a different type of mentoring will
be required to allow them to progress at a better rate.

In response to ESL for adults and young people, Dr. Harris pointed
out that ISU is involved in the “Grow Your Own” program and have
about 40 para-professionals in this program. ISU is also offering a minor
in ESL.

Regarding changes to evaluate students and prevent dropouts the
first year of teaching, Dr. Harris said the admission standards are much
higher and students are in the public schools much earlier in the
process. Students will be removed or provided remediation if they are
not performing. He said he doesn’t like the public schools to make
decisions that should have been made at the University.

ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chairman Tilman adjourned the meeting at 10:58 A.M.






DATE: February 6, 2003
TIME: 9:25 A.M.
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representative Bradford
GUESTS: Representatives from the Department of Education, the Board of
Education, IASA, ISBA, and the IEA were present.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:25 A.M. with a quorum
being present. Chairman Tilman explained to the committee that they
were being asked to look at the RS’s before them from a technical drafting
standpoint. He stated it is the policy of this committee to print the RS’s to
allow for a public hearing to debate the merits of the legislation.
RS12551C1 Representative Darrell Bolz presented RS12551C1 to the committee,
stating the purpose of this legislation is to allow school districts who
contract transportation services to be able to negotiate the current
contract for an additional five years without going through the bid process
for one time only. He stated it also provides the contractor a longer period
of time to amortize capital purchases, and there is no fiscal impact to the
General Fund.
MOTION: Representative Kulczyk made a motion to send RS12551C1 to print.
The motion carried by voice vote.
RS12720C1 Representative Darrell Bolz presented RS12720C1 to the committee
and stated this legislation was drafted to address school district concerns.
Lines 14-15 propose changing “with the district” to “in the profession” to
eliminate the requirement for a teacher with three years of experience to
go through a support program when transferring to a new school district.
On Page 2, Lines 2 and 3 and Page 2, Line 38 it specifies December 15
as the date the evaluation will be completed. This will eliminate a conflict
in dates and allow additional time to deal with any deficiencies.
MOTION: Representative Eberle made a motion to send RS12720C1 to print.
The motion carried by voice vote.
RS12675 Representative Jim Clark presented RS12675 to the committee.
Representative Clark explained that a condition occurred last year
regarding “Angel” money, and that this is money that results when support
unit estimates are higher than the actual support units. He explained that
there is no policy regarding the way “Angel” money is handled. Last year
when additional money was anticipated JFAC held the money based on
the recommendations from the Legislature. This legislation is to establish
a public school stabilization fund that will provide a mechanism to be used
to help stabilize the variability in public school support units and make
state support for school districts more predictable. Chairman Tilman
pointed out that this was a policy question brought to us last year from
JFAC.
MOTION: Representative Cannon made a motion to send RS12675 to print.
Representative Boe asked when this legislation would go into effect, and
Representative Clark explained that because it does not have an
emergency clause it would go into effect as of July 1. There being no
further questions or debate, a vote was called for and the motion
carried by voice vote. Representatives Andersen, Boe, Sayler and
Naccarato wished to be recorded as voting no.
RS12525C1 Representative Dennis Lake presented RS12525C1 to the committee.
He stated that this legislation will eliminate the early retirement incentive.
He explained when the legislation was passed in 1996 its intent was to
give teachers who were “no longer performing at their peak level” an
avenue to leave teaching early. Also the premise was that we could save
money when certified employees at the top end of the salary
apportionment schedule retired and new teachers are hired. As time has
elapsed this program has become very expensive. Representative Lake
said it was difficult to calculate the fiscal impact, but he estimates a net
savings of between $2-4 million. Representative Boe asked why there is
an emergency clause, and Representative Lake said it was a timing issue
because applicants give notification in April but are not paid until
September.
MOTION: Representative Kulczyk made a motion to send RS12525C1 to print.
The motion carried by voice vote, and Representatives Andersen,
Boe and Sayler asked to be recorded as voting no.
RS12558C1 Representative Joseph Cannon presented RS12558C1 to the
committee
. Representative Cannon explained that SB 1474 was passed
last year and was signed into law on March 21, 2002 to encourage school
districts to build facilities and to recognize that some districts are
disadvantaged. He went on to explain that this legislation deals with a
timing issue and is proposing that bonds passed after the Governor’s
signature, but before the September 15, 2002 date, be included. He
stated that there is only one school district in this situation and that school
district is Blackfoot. The second change would be made on Page 2, Line
3 so the Legislature will know which schools will participate prior to the
session. The fiscal impact to the General Fund would be $196,308.
MOTION: Representative Andersen made a motion to send RS12558C1 to
print.
The motion carried by voice vote.
RS12476C1 Representative Tom Trail presented RS12476C1 to the committee. He
explained that the purpose of this legislation is to amend the value index
that provides a subsidy to school districts passing bonds. He pointed out
that the school district’s free and reduced lunch rate will replace the
county unemployment rate data and the county per capita income in
determining the value index calculation. A second component of the index
will be the market value per support unit determined by the State
Department of Education that is used to equalize school funding for each
district. These changes ensure that all data used in calculating the value
index is school district specific. He said it is estimated that the fiscal
impact will be consistent with the original estimates for SB 1474.
MOTION: Representative Sayler made a motion to send RS12476C1 to print.
The motion carried by voice vote.
RS12561 Representative Tom Trail presented RS12561 to the committee, stating
that this legislation provides and enticement to Idaho teachers to remain
in Idaho by proposing re-payment of student loans by the Board of
Education for certified teachers who have graduated from an Idaho
institution of higher learning. He stated that the teachers must have taught
for two years and agree to teach for an additional two years. He said this
is a national problem and is something that needs to be addressed. He
also said he realizes that in this tight budget year that this legislation will
probably not go very far. Representative Kulczyk asked if it would be
better to wait until next year to present this legislation, and Representative
Trail said he had learned this is one approach to taking a look at an issue
and debating the issue.
MOTION: Representative Boe made a motion to send RS12561 to print. The
motion carried by voice vote, and Representatives Kulczyk,
Barraclough, Lake and Nielsen asked to be recorded as voting no.
MOTION: Representative Trail made a motion to have RS12620C1 held in
committee because of a changes being made. The motion carried by
voice vote.
The Chairman explained that RS12620C2 would be
scheduled for next week.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:00 A.M.






DATE: February 6, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representatives Jones and Bradford
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and committee sign-in sheets.
Chairman Schroeder called the Joint Senate and House Education
Committee meeting to order at 8:31 A.M. with a quorum being present.
PRESENTATION: Mrs. Julie Van Orden, President, Idaho Parent Teacher Association,
presented the Idaho PTA Legislative Priorities for 2002-2003
(Attachment 1). She explained that the PTA operates on national, state
and local levels, and their volunteers help children and public school
staff. She pointed out how the NCLB will require parent involvement and
said all Title I schools will have to have a “parent involvement policy”.
Mrs. Van Orden stated that the PTA serves on the State Department’s
Education Coalition.
Mrs. Christa Hansen, Parent from Meridian and District Representative
for Idaho PTA, stated that she had the privilege to serve on the
Education Coalition. She said that the coalition did an excellent job of
looking at what is best for children as they helped develop the
Superintendent’s FY 2004 budget request. She pointed out that the
Idaho PTA supports the Superintendent’s budget request because the
(1) increase in base salaries will allow teachers to continue their
education to meet the requirements of NCLB; (2) technology funding is
critical to student learning; (3) IDLA funding is important to students; and
(4) implementation funding is critical to ensure standards and
assessments are implemented in all districts.
Mrs. Norma Jeanne Willman, substitute teacher and member of IPTA,
gave an example of parent involvement at Chaparral. She talked about
all of the information that goes out to parents, and she explained that the
PTA advisory committee came up with the idea of folders for parents that
separated the information papers from the papers to be filled out. They
also sorted the forms for the teachers when they were returned to the
school. Another example of parent involvement mentioned was the 5-star
Math program at Snake River. It was explained that administrators,
teachers and parents have joined together to help students learn.


Mrs. Van Orden closed by asking the committee members to support the
Superintendent’s budget request, but said she does not believe that
throwing money at education is always the “fix all”. A brief discussion
followed, and the PTA members were urged to get involved in
disseminating information on early brain development to parents through
hospitals and doctors and to get involved with Parents as Teachers and
support their efforts. When asked about the RS requesting the state pick
up more of the funding for classified personnel, the she said the PTA
would support this increase. When asked the impacts if additional money
is not available and education has to be cut by $50 million, Mrs. Van
Orden said education would take a hard hit and programs would suffer.
ADJOURN: Chairman Schroeder adjourned the joint meeting of the Senate and
House Education Committees at 9:10 A.M. The House Education
Committee was asked to remain in the Gold Room and reconvene in five
minutes.






DATE: February 7, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representatives Jones, Trail, Bradford, and Eberle
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in
sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:03 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes for February 5 and two sets of minutes for February 6,
2003 were reviewed. Representative Cannon made a motion to accept
the minutes of February 5 and both sets of minutes for February 6 as
written. The motion carried by voice vote.
PRESENTATION: Dr. Charles Ruch, President, Boise State University (BSU), described
BSU as the urban or metropolitan university whose number one job is to
serve their service area which includes 40% of Idaho’s population. He
stated that BSU received $18.6 million less than they had planned for
and it has been very difficult to provide additional resources with a
growing demand. He indicated that BSU was able to recover $4.9
million through enrollment and fees.
Dr. Ruch indicated that BSU has taken the following steps to reduce
costs: (1) decrease course offerings, (2) reconfigure summer school to 4
days a week, (3) increase web based instruction, (4) reduce amenities,
and (5) eliminate 42 positions (22 faculty positions). The reduction in
faculty resulted in 70 sections being dropped while enrollment increased
4% in the fall and 4.5% this spring. They are looking at backing down
growth by tightening entrance requirements and evaluating categories
of students, i.e. those who will profit from instruction versus those who
have fallen behind. He emphasized that BSU will do everything they can
to keep access open. He also stressed that the budget presented is
truly a maintenance budget, the inflationary costs are real, and his
faculty and staff feel the health benefits are most important.
Dr. Ruch said through all of this, BSU has had a good year, and he
closed by presenting BSU’s 2002 highlights (Attachment 1). Dr. Ruch
was asked to respond to the following:

Higher Fees Result in More Federal Funding ­ Dr. Ruch explained
that there is a relationship between federal financial aid and fees.
Basically, the package for student fees is predicated on the type of
federal funding and the ability to offer loans at a higher rate.

Premiere BSU’s Engineering Program ­ Dr. Ruch said he recognizes
the importance of technology to the economy, but doesn’t necessarily
agree to centralizing the program because each university is offering a
specialty engineering program.

Positions Eliminated (Filled or Unfilled) ­ He said four were filled and
the others in some stage of recruiting which takes about a year. He
stated that positions resulting from retirement revert to the Provost to
reallocate. However, they are still 22 positions short.

Stabilization Fund ­ Dr. Ruch said BSU locates places where they
need money and they might be able to come up with extra dollars in the
short-term, but they have done all they can, and every service dollar not
received means less services.

Equity Issue ­ Dr. Ruch pointed out that under the old equity formula
the world was changing but the formula was not and it was not focused
on growth ­ BSU was the least funded with the most growth. He said he
feels the equity formula was very thoughtfully done, but needs to be
reviewed every 8-10 years.

Number of Athletes Graduating from a 5-year Program ­ Dr. Ruch
said he will get those figures.

Pay Cuts vs. Layoffs and the Education Value Factor ­ Dr. Ruch said
he has not met with his staff to discuss pay cuts rather than layoffs.
Regarding what a degree is worth (cost of education and job obtained),
he said CEO’s want good decision making skills, writing skills and
breadth of understanding while PR’s want job ready skills.

Admission Policy and Role as a Community College ­ Dr. Ruch said
there is no firewall between their baccalaureate and community college
functions and adults are a critical part of the mission.

NCLB Difference ­ He stated that students with a strong background
in math, science, English and foreign language would make a world of
difference.

Zero Based Budgeting and Financial Exigency ­ Dr. Ruch said they
have not gone to a zero based budget, and he explained he does not
feel that financial exigency is viable because of accreditation, recruiting
faculty and losing their AAA bond rating ­ they have an orderly way of
reducing costs.

PRESENTATION: Dean Joyce Garrett, College of Education, BSU, provided the
committee with information about the College of Education. She
explained they have five departments with a broad range of offerings
and four internal and external centers and highlighted several of their
programs (Attachment 2).
Dean Garrett outlined their involvement with CAPE (Collaborative
Assistance Program for Professional Educators) and how they partner
with a consortium of local districts and teacher associations,
representing 40% of Idaho’s school children. BSU has taken an active
role in Idaho’s assessment process and is part of Idaho’s Most.
Dean Garrett explained BSU’s field-based approach to prepare teachers
and explained that elementary teaching students spend six semesters in
the field, beginning their sophomore year, and secondary teaching
students spend 3 semesters in the field (Attachment 2). She explained
that course work is sequenced into blocks so each course builds upon
what was previously learned. The course work is aligned to the
standards, NCLB requirements and Title II. She explained that they are
realigning curriculum to include data collection and how to synthesize
data. She stated that BSU has one person onboard for the
comprehensive reading literacy program and another was just selected
­ both have extensive backgrounds and are experts in delivery and
research. BSU uses the technology competency exam to evaluate
students technology skills, and both the technology exam and the
comprehensive reading literacy exam must be passed before entering
the teacher preparation program. BSU also allows students to be
assessed somewhere else in technology to demonstrate competency.
Regarding the future, Dean Garrett, acknowledged there would be many
fiscal challenges, but felt that the new state and federal laws open
doors. She foresees BSU seeing more para-professionals, alternative
routes to certification and alternative delivery methods.
In response to questions from the committee, Dean Garrett, clarified the
following:

­ BSU requires students to pass the Praxis I and has raised the
required grade point. She said the same literacy assessment is required
statewide and this exam was developed by a statewide literacy team.

­ Dean Garrett asked Ms. Rickie Miller, professor at BSU, to explain
whether ISAT data is being used. Ms. Miller said they are addressing
this and will incorporate it when the data is actually available. They work
closely with the State Department of Education and this will be an
ongoing effort. Dr. Jackie Meyer, Principal at Meridian, explained that
as part of their total experience, student interns their senior year are
part of the fall and spring testing and they receive practical experience
in how teachers use the data.

­ Impacts of National Board Certification were addressed by Dr. Bob
Barr
and he feels Idaho’s efforts have had a remarkable impact. There
is an ongoing effort with various education associations to track
performance.

­ When questioned about having to provide large amounts of additional
funding to teach teachers how to teach reading, writing and math, Dean
Garrett said there are always ongoing professional development
changes and they have not always know how best to prepare teachers.
She described the College of Education’s efforts to work with the arts
and sciences department to ensure they understand teacher education,
and respectfully offered that the student population is changing.

­ Elementary student teachers have four different placements in the six
semester but usually are placed with the same teacher their senior year,
and secondary student teachers have three placements with three
teachers.

­ Dean Garrett and Dr. Ruch addressed the issue of remedial courses
and the fact that it takes most students at least five years to get a BA
degree by pointing out that if students took only two math courses in
high school and have been out of school for several years they will
generally have to take a remedial math course. They also said that the
fact it takes five years to get a degree doesn’t have to do with how
bright they are but the fact that they have families and work almost full
time while attending college. Chairman Tilman asked Dr. Ruch if it is
time for the state to require four years of math, science and English for
high school graduation from a policy standpoint, and he indicated it
would make their job easier.

­ It was pointed out that BSU doesn’t offer a program to prepare
administrators so they don’t have the opportunity to teach them how to
deal with data, etc. The State Board of Education has determined that
ISU and UI are to offer programs for administrators. When asked why
we would want to force successful teachers who want to become
administrators to leave the area to become administrators, the answer
was that UI offers these courses at the Boise Education Center. Dr.
Miller explained that Meridian school district offers training in these
areas.

ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman announced to the committee that the Open
House/dinner at Liberty Charter School would be rescheduled and he
provided the committee with an outline of next week’s activities. There
being no further business to come before the committee, he adjourned
the meeting at 11:00 A.M.






DATE: February 10, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in
sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:04 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of February 7, 2003 were reviewed. Representative
Cannon
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion
carried by voice vote.
PRESENTATION: Mr. Brent Reinke, Director, Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections
(IDJC), presented the FY 2003 Legislative Update to the committee. Mr.
Reinke highlighted the Functional Family Therapy (FFT) Program and
the Idaho Juvenile Offender System (Attachment 1, Page 1). He pointed
out that the FFT program returns the youth to the home to be part of the
family and focuses on the strengths of the families. He mentioned that
at the end of FY 2002, data for 90% of juveniles served by the juvenile
justice community was housed in the Juvenile Offender System. The
Department is working on making this data more readily available to all
law enforcement officials.
Mr. Reinke stated that the average cost-per-day of housing juvenile
offenders is $169.81. He provided an overview of the Juvenile Justice
System, pointing out that the IDJC has three regional facilities
(Lewiston, Nampa, and St. Anthony), and the regional facilities help
keep the juveniles closer to their home communities and families
(Attachment 1). Mr. Reinke stressed that 94% of juvenile services are
provided at the local level and there are 6,500 youth on county
probation and 414 youth are in state custody. He described the four
components of the IDJC’s program as prevention, intervention,
rehabilitation, and community transition, and pointed out that the
backbone is education. He explained that there are 44 counties involved
in juvenile corrections which has helped reduce the number of juveniles
in the system. In some areas there are county officials housed at the
school. He called their attention to the flow chart showing the complexity
of Idaho’s Juvenile Justice Process, and he explained how difficult it is
for parents to understand.
Mr. Reinke provided the following information in response to questions:

­ The involvement of the 44 counties allows them to work with children
locally at an earlier age, and $11 million goes to the 44 counties to
support this effort. Representative Bradford complimented Mr. Reinke
on the progress being made since he took over as Director.

­ The nine drug courts are helping and about 55% of the juveniles have
an addiction problem.

­ The Custody Review Board was created through S 1460 to better
handle the 19 to 20 year olds and to determine if they need further
treatment. This process involves parents, victims, county and state
officials and does a much better job of managing adult offenders.

­ Splitting out the programs and having county involvement has been
an amazing challenge, but the Magistrate Court holds parents
accountable, brings people to the table, and allows them to get services
to the local communities ­ they are resource brokers in the community.
It has been a challenge because there are county employees who are
supervised by the court. As far as being able to bring resources to the
table, i.e. safe and drug free schools funding, Mr. Reinke said they have
not done this.

PRESENTATION: Dr. Glenda Rohrback, Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections,
briefed the committee on the IDJC Education Program. She described
the demographics of the students and said that only 2% in custody
scored above the 40 percentile on individualized achievement tests and
40% were eligible for special education services (Attachment 2). She
estimates that, including students being served by contract providers,
49% suffer from disabling conditions and there has been a huge
increase in non-literate students. She pointed out that student
achievement showed the lowest gains and this may be because pre-test
scores were higher and they are also dealing with more difficult and
needy students. She explained that on GED scores a marginal score is
40-45%, and 30 students met state graduation requirements last year.
In response to committee questions, Dr. Rohrback provided the
following information:

­ There was about 11.6 months lapse between the pre- and post-tests.
Students receive 6 hours of instruction year round and there are 12
students per teacher. There classes are more like those in a one-room
school and students are grouped by treatment needs ­ very time
consuming and students all have individual plans for instruction.

­ An increase of Special Education students may be because these kids
lack interaction with those in authority. When they go to court they act
out more and lack social and decision making skills. Many of the
parents have the same needs as the students.

­ Most non-English speaking students are not well educated in their
native language.

­ Teachers are Idaho certified in at least one subject area.

­ They are looking at use of distance learning. They have received
$132,000 for technology upgrades this year and they are planning to
link their facilities.

PRESENTATION: Dr. Mary Ann Ranells, Deputy Superintendent, State Department of
Education, presented a report on the Idaho State Achievement
Standards. She presented a historical overview of the standards
movement in Idaho, explaining it began in 1994 when the Legislature
defined a thorough system of public schools and directed the State
Board of Education to write new rules governing public schools. In 2000
the Legislature approved the 9-12 achievement standards. The K-8
standards were approved in 2001 and $8 million was appropriated for
the first phase of achievement standards implementation for grades K-12. The State Department of Education, working with a legislative
oversight committee, created a detailed plan and process to hold school
districts accountable for progress and expenditures.
Six stages of implementation were identified: (1) Orientation; (2)
Alignment; (3) Data Analysis and Interpretation); (4) Design and
Implementation; (5) Monitoring and Feedback; and (6) Evaluation and
Renewal. The FY 2003 budget request was for $4 million to fund Stages
3 and 4 and the FY 2004 budget request is also for $4 million for stages
5 and 6. Dr. Ranells explained that other states created the standards
and assessment but did not support classroom implementation. She
stated that the standards have provided a consistent framework of what
we are asking students to do and teams of teachers are gathering to
determine what an “A” actually means.
Dr. Ranells reported that Idaho has made great progress and that 93%
of the districts have completed stages 1 and 2. Most have made good
progress on stages 3 and 4 and are now looking ahead at how they will
design intervention and meet the requirements of Stages 5 and 6. She
noted that the attitudes are positive, and she pointed out that the State
Department has undergone a major reorganization in the last 18 months
to bring all the departments together and focused on this effort. She
talked about the collaborative efforts with the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson
Foundation, the ISBA, the IEA and the Colleges and Universities. She
provided the committee with a copy of the data that was compiled in
December showing the progress for each district. A copy of the report
will be maintained in Room 411A and is also available through the State
Department of Education. She pointed out that training modules are
developed for all of the stages, they are planning three Curriculum
Leadership Summits for this year, and six academies will be held
primarily for principals to help with data gathering and analysis.
Dr. Ranells was asked about those districts not doing so well, and she
cited the biggest drawbacks as being lack of time (teachers are involved
in athletic activities as well as classroom teaching) and not all districts
have a Curriculum Director. She mentioned Bruneau/Grand View and
Westside as small districts doing very well. When asked about the
consequences of not meeting the deadlines and the need to expand the
FY 2005 date, Dr. Ranells said the Accountability Plan is in its 6th draft
and there have been some delays in getting the cut scores approved
because the Board doesn’t meet until March. She said for this reason,
they may want to reconsider whether to begin this year holding the
sophomore class accountable when they graduate in FY 2005.
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman adjourned the meeting at 10:55 A.M.






DATE: February 11, 2003
TIME: 9:05 A.M.
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Please refer to committee sign-in sheets.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:05 A.M. with a quorum
of being present.
MOTION: The minutes of February 10, 2003 were reviewed. Representative
Kulczyk
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion
carried by voice vote.
PRESENTATION: Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director, Idaho School Boards Association
(ISBA), stated he is part of a subcommittee looking at the Federal and
State educational change initiatives to determine how these issues will
impact how we do business. He mentioned how important it is that we
educate parents, teachers, administrators, students and all who are
impacted by the changes resulting from achievement standards,
accountability, Idaho’s MOST and NCLB.
Mr. Jim Shackelford, Executive Director, Idaho Education Association,
emphasized the overpowering changes that Idaho’s public schools are
facing and said he had never seen a time when tensions are so high. He
said there are a lot of uncoordinated education efforts going on in the
state and different interpretations about what is expected. Because of
this, the State Board voted to form a subcommittee made up of four
Board members (Superintendent Howard, Karen McGee, Jim Hammond
and Rod Lewis) and representatives from the ISBA, the IASA, and the
IEA to look at all the pieces of the puzzle and to provide the information
needed to develop funding and strategies.



Mr. Shackelford provided a brief historical picture of education in our
nation. He stated that for the first 200 years education was a local issue
with very few Federal funds. When the 1% initiative passed it shifted
funding from local control to the state. In the mid-80’s the Secretary of
Education declared the US a Nation at Risk because of low expectations,
inefficient use of teaching time, and teacher recruitment. In 1997, Idaho’s
reform began with the development of standards, assessment and
accountability. He cited funding for the achievement standards and the
contributions made by the Albertson Foundation as contributing factors in
helping Idaho schools be successful. He said Idaho clearly understood
what work needed to be done and they were working on it when along
came NCLB which has been interpreted as tearing apart local control.
Now they must look at the NCLB requirements and determine how they
fit with what Idaho is doing and if not, how they can. Idaho’s MOST will
also be presenting several ideas on teacher training and certification,
and teachers are expected to use technology and gather and analyze
data. Although these are thrilling and exhilarating time, educators are
overwhelmed with all of this

Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, Idaho Association of School
Administrators (IASA), described the stakeholder’s meetings as being
less formal work sessions that are open. The one ground rule they set
was not to evaluate the initiative, but just accept it as an initiative and
see if alignment exits. He said the Idaho School Board has a broad
strategic plan and the State Department determines how initiatives will
be implemented, but in the field they may hear about just one initiative at
a time without understanding how it all fits.



Dr. Friend used the handout (Attachment 1) to outline the six component
of the puzzle and tie them to the expected outcome: “All Schools in
Idaho Meet Accreditation Requirement to Help Ensure All Students in
Idaho Meet and/or Exceed the Idaho Achievement Standards”. He
stressed that schools are not afraid of accountability and it is recognized
that the teacher is the one who makes a difference. He said it is felt that
the Idaho State Information Management System to support data based
decision making will pull all of the pieces together.

Dr. Friend used the Education Change Initiatives handout to illustrate the
implications of the various Federal and State components/requirements
(Attachment 2). He said when they mapped out the NCLB and the Idaho
Standards requirements they felt pretty good about what Idaho has done.
The assessments are just now being put in place, but it looks like they
are pretty well aligned. There is a question about the accountability
requirements and whether they will mesh. The Board’s Accountability
Plan is now in its 6th draft. He mentioned that states have 12 years to
meet the AYP standards and explained that Idaho will establish
guidelines for the Unsafe Schools Choice Option. On the backside of the
handout he pointed out that if a waiver is requested for any NCLB
provision, parents must be provided information about the waiver
request. He said Idaho has completed standards for professional
development, but they do not have a firm definition of “Competent,
Caring & Highly Qualified Personnel”. Because they are already hiring
teachers for FY 2004/2005 this is a timing issue if Letters of
Authorization go away in FY 2005/2006. He closed by saying he hopes
this diagram helps to show the complexity of what’s expected.
Chairman Tilman asked about accreditation being the cornerstone of this
effort, and if it will be updated and relative. Mr. Friend said the State
Department of Education is piloting School Improvement Models and
have reported to the State Board. Dr. Green was asked if the ISBA has
been a part of the model and if they have received input from local
trustees and he said “yes”.
Dr. Green closed the presentation by stressing that the education
community has a great deal on their plate, but administrators, staff and
trustees remain committed to improving student achievement. He pointed
out that states are being asked to be 100% accountable while only
receiving 7% Federal funding to meet the requirements. He talked about
the Albertson Foundation commitment to the ISIMS and said a key
component of this system will be the integration of the State Department
financial system. He said this effort will require a strong partnership and
education leadership is committed to succeeding, but asked them to
listen to the growing concerns.
Chairman Tilman said the benefit of these initiatives is they have forced
us to look beyond just one year to the next. He challenged the school
board trustees to look at the way they are doing business and ask
themselves (1) are they using technology adequately, (2) are they
operating cost effectively at the local area; (3) are they considering
consolidating schools or administration, (4) are they considering other
cost savings. He pointed out that suggested changes are not coming
from the practitioners, and said he also took exception to Mr. Schwartz’s
comment about trustee’s not working for taxpayers, and stressed this
points out a big difference in focus and attitude between Legislators and
the school boards. Dr. Green was asked if the coalition is looking at how
they do business, and he replied that they do this on a daily basis and at
most of the school board meetings. He said they are always willing to
look at bettering education. Dr. Green was then asked if there are ways
we can save money, how do we get cost saving changes brought to the
Legislative level, and he said they are always willing to sit down with the
Legislature. Dr. Green was also asked how they expect the budget to be
balanced when we have unfunded Federal mandates and they are
supporting the Governor’s budget with no tax increases. Dr. Green
responded that they have two choices ­ reduce other agency spending
or increase taxes.
Dr. Friend was asked if it is part of the plan, once Idaho has a plan in
place and we are getting the job done, to seek waivers. He said they will,
but it is difficult now because they don’t know how the criteria will be
weighed. Chairman Tilman stressed the importance of having
conversations about waivers now. Janet Orndorff, ISBA Vice President,
said she had recently been in Washington, D.C. with many board
members and they all shared their concerns about money, time and
flexibility. She said that Washington was receptive to their concerns.
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman said he realizes this is a work in progress, but we must
assure that “children in Idaho succeed.” There being no further business
to come before the House Education Committee, Chairman Tilman
adjourned the joint meeting at 10:07 A.M.






DATE: February 11, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Please refer to committee sign-in sheets.
Chairman Tilman called the Joint Senate and House Education
Committee Meeting to order at 8:32 A.M. with a quorum of both
committees being present.
PRESENTATION: Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director, Idaho School Boards Association
(ISBA), introduced Terry Schwartz, ISBA President; Wanda Quinn, Vice
President; Janet Orndorff, President-elect and Samantha Swartz,
student. Dr. Green briefed the committees on who the ISBA is and what
their responsibilities are. He stated that the local school boards are an
essential and enduring part of the American institution of representative
government. He indicated that local school boards are the educational
policy makers for the public schools in the local communities and are
directly accountable to the people. In Idaho there are 550 publicly
elected trustees for 114 school districts. The trustees are 63% male,
37% female ­ 61% of the trustees are 45 to 65 ­ 52% have graduated
and/or have received post-high school training ­ most volunteer 20 hours
per month.
Dr. Green stated the Mission of the ISBA is to provide leadership and
services to local school boards for the benefit of students and for the
advocacy of public education. They believe public school education best
meets the needs of our state and nation when all local school boards
recognize and meet their full legal, civil, social, economic, moral, and
ethical responsibilities. They also believe that local school boards should
be provided local control by the state to exercise educational leadership
in their local communities through citizen governance of public schools.
Mr. Terry Schwartz, President, ISBA and trustee for District 111, said he
would like to establish the trustees as educated, concerned and
knowledgeable citizens who take their charge most seriously. He
mentioned that the ISBA’s voice may not have been unified and cohesive
enough in the past to bring forth Legislative issues, but they are working
to change this. He outlined three key Legislative issues: (1) consolidation
of election dates; (2) the budget; and (3) tax increases. He stated that
trustees do not represent taxpayers ­ they represent their local citizens,
and they must represent all children. The ISBA supports the Governor’s
budget recommendation, but they do not support a tax increase. He
stressed they must remember who they represent.
Ms. Samantha Schwartz, student from Arco, addressed the committee,
stating the students of Idaho are the ones most affected by budget cuts ­
they are the reality of the decisions made. She explained that Arco is a
very small, rural community and because of declining enrollment,
courses are being cut. She said for elective programs like debate they
must depend on the local businesses to provide funding for these
activities to continue. She pointed out that she lives 13 miles from town
and it takes her about 50 minutes by bus to reach school. She feels if the
transportation reimbursement rate is cut to 75%, it will result in
consolidation of bus routes to serve the 70-mile radius around Arco. She
emphasized that if teaching staff is cut further, there won’t be enough
courses for the students. She is already taking a Junior Honors English
this year to fill her schedule. She said the music program and welding
will definitely be cut. She closed with an old German quote, “Better an
empty purse than an empty head.”
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the Joint Senate and
House Education Committees, Chairman Tilman adjourned the joint
meeting at 8:56 A.M.






DATE: February 12, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Representative Cannon introduced Wendy Scott and Macy Winter,
Teachers from Blackfoot.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:03 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: Two sets of minutes for February 11, 2003 were reviewed.
Representative Rydalch made a motion to accept both sets of minutes
as written. The motion carried by voice vote.
PRESENTATION: Dr. Bob Hoover, President, University of Idaho (UI), presented a report
on “Progress and Possibilities” for the University of Idaho. Dr. Hoover
described UI as Idaho’s graduate and research university that was
established as the Idaho land-grant institution in 1889. UI’s statewide
mission includes teaching, research and outreach. UI has outreach
centers in Boise, Coeur d’Alene and Idaho Falls and they also provide
research and extension in 42 Idaho counties.
Dr. Hoover used Attachment 1 to outline UI’s institutional priorities: (1)
grow enrollment and quality of undergraduate programs; (2) grow
research and graduate education programs; (3) extend outreach in
mission areas; (4) collaborate with other higher education institutions; (5)
increase private fund-raising, contracts & grants; (6) build infrastructure
to support all this; and (7) emerge as a nationally ranked public
university. He said they developed a strategic plan with a lot of meaning,
and the plan was adopted in 1998. The strategic plan outlined three role
and mission goals: (1) residential campus of choice in Idaho and the
West; (2) globally competitive center for selected high-quality graduate,
professional and research programs; and (3) expand capacity and
delivery of outreach programs with the objective of being ranked in the
top 50 public universities.
Dr. Hoover provided statistics for student enrollment, degrees awarded,
quality of the freshman class and UI scholars, and he also discussed the
makeup of funding for student financial aid (Attachment 1). He pointed
out that the makeup of students at UI differs from BSU and ISU because
UI does not have a community college mission. He emphasized that
because of budget cuts they have fewer instructors, but their fall
enrollment increased 5.8% and the FTE increased by 4.4 percent. They
have about 2,200 students enrolled away from Moscow. He also talked
about the quality of students UI attracts and the fact UI gives $3,000
scholarships for four years to those students who maintain a 3.5 or
above grade point. They are able to match military/defense scholarships
to help recruit students in engineering and science. He explained that UI,
ISU and BSU together brought in about $200 million in total financial aid
funding in FY 2002.
Dr. Hoover explained that UI is a nationally competitive research
university and in FY 2002 they received $88 million for research which
equates to $110 million for the Idaho economy. He described how
defense grant dollars are being used for a business in Post Falls that is
doing research on a chip that detects anthrax, small pox, etc. He
indicated that federal research funding will grow in the next few years for
both NSF and DOE (office of science). Dr. Hoover pointed out that they
had a very successful fund raising campaign and their goal was to raise
$100 million in 6 years and they closed the campaign after 4-1/2 years
with $129 million. He said the money was used for scholarships and
buildings. He mentioned that UI is ranked 48th by Kiplinger and was
ranked 12th for “most wired” universities by Yahoo.
Dr. Hoover said after generating $3.4 million in new student fee revenue
and reducing UI units by $8.7 million for FY 2003 they still face $8.5
million in issues not addressed by the state. Dr. Hoover outlined their
solution strategy, reorganization and position management to cope with
budget reductions. He said they will have fewer faculty and are
increasing student/faculty ratio. Dr. Hoover said UI supports the
Governor’s budget recommendation because it will allow them to
maintain much of the momentum that has been developed over the past
seven years, and he said it is critical to fully fund the MCO items.
Dr. Hoover provided the following responses to the committee’s
questions:

Loss of Top Scientists ­ UI has lost scientist and this is a real problem
because there are not enough science majors. Top universities are hiring
assistant professors.

Need Based Scholarships and Promise Scholarships ­ Dr. Hoover
explained that we are making progress in keeping the best students
through the Promise and other scholarships. He said Idaho’s incomes
are some of the lowest, and there is a need to make scholarships
available to first generation and minority students so we don’t lose kids
who are qualified to attend college.

International Students Remaining in US ­ Dr. Hoover stated that
International students pay full tuition, not all of them leave, and we want
to encourage them to attend American universities to expose them to
democracy.

Voluntary Pay Cuts and Long-Term Economy ­ Dr. Hoover said if the
economy continues to decline faculty cuts will be involuntary and some
faculty members already donate 5% of their salary to scholarships. He
said deans and vice presidents are probably most vulnerable in a poor
economy, but UI maintains they must recruit and compete with the best
schools.

Taking Advantage of Lab Science & Engineering Experts ­ Dr. Hoover
pointed out that the Intermountain Northwest Regional Alliance (INRA),
an 8-university consortium of which INEEL is a part, has changed in the
last 18 months. He said that UI invested $4 million in the subsurface
science center and offers full masters and doctoral degrees in
subsurface science, and they hope to increase to $6 million.

Low Graduation Rates ­ Dr. Hoover explained that graduation rates
reflect the fact that students transfer two and three times and when they
transfer they are considered dropouts. He talked about some universities
offering incentives to students to graduate in 4-5 years and if they don’t
then fees will be increased.

Decrease in Science and Engineer Majors ­ It was pointed out that
because of the rearrangement of the US economy many students are
coming back to these fields. He said both of these majors require a great
deal of math and the biggest discriminatory factor for high school
students is lack of math.

Representative Jones complimented Dr. Hoover by saying that he was
the best thing to happen in Idaho higher education. He pointed out that
Dr. Hoover is very active in higher education at all Idaho institutions, and
he has agreed to stay in the state and lead us out of tough times. Dr.
Hoover responded by giving his colleagues in Idaho a great deal of credit
and stating they are among the most talented.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chairman Tilman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 A.M.






DATE: February 13, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:03 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of February 12, 2003 were reviewed. Representative Lake
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion carried by
voice vote.
RS12620C2 Representative Tom Trail presented RS12620C2, explaining that this
legislation proposes an increase in the fees paid for certification required
to hold professional positions in Idaho public schools and places a limit on
the portion of fees collected that may be used by the Department to
defray costs to the office of certification. He stated that there is no
increase to the General Fund, and pointed out that the Idaho’s MOST
funding will no longer be available.
MOTION: Representative Cannon made a motion to send RS12620C2 to print.
The motion carried by voice vote.
RS12768 Representative Dennis Lake presented RS12768 to the committee. He
explained that this legislation does exactly what the Statement of Purpose
states ­ it removes the requirement that school boards pay teachers while
they are engaged in teacher association activities. Representative Eberle
asked if school boards can still pay for this if they want, and
Representative Lake said “yes” ­ this only removes the state requirement.
MOTION: Representative Andersen moved to send RS 12768 to print with
committee amendments attached (Attachment 1).
SUBSTITUTE

MOTION:

Representative Kulczyk made a substitute motion to send RS 12768
to print with no amendments.
A debate followed on the substitute
motion, and Representative Lake spoke in favor of the substitute motion,
stating he sees no need for the amendment. Representative Andersen
debated against the substitute motion, because he feels the impacts of
the current law need to be considered, and he stated the substitute
motion retains the status quo. Representative Eberle spoke against the
substitute motion, stating he sees no damage in adding the amendment.
Representative Boe asked about the organizational meetings and if
professional training occurs. Representative Andersen responded by
explaining they are currently asked to attend conferences on NCLB, and
he wants to see these opportunities continued. He also clarified that some
of these activities are paid for by the Idaho Education Association.
Representative Cannon spoke in support of the substitute motion
because he felt it is better to print the RS and allow for a hearing.
Representative Trail asked if there are any ramifications to higher
education, and Representative Lake said “no”. Representative Rydalch
spoke in favor of the substitute motion, stating she does not feel the state
should be involved in local negotiations, and she also pointed out that in
private industry when asked to attend an activity, you do not ask if you will
be reimbursed — you just do as your boss requests.
VOTE: There being no further debate on the substitute motion, a vote was called
for. The substitute motion to send RS12768 to print carried by voice
vote. Representatives Trail, Andersen, Naccarato and Boe asked to
be recorded as voting no.
RS12782C1 Chairman Tilman informed the committee that RS12782C1 needs to be
returned to the sponsor.
MOTION: Representative Lake made a motion to return RS12782C1 to the
sponsor.
The motion carried by voice vote.
RS12828 Representative Kathie Garrett presented RS12828 to the committee.
She stated that this legislation will change the name of the Idaho
Association of School Trustees to the Idaho School Boards Association to
correctly identify the entity required to sit on the Professional Standards
Commission. Representative Kulczyk asked if there are other areas of
Idaho Code that will require the same change, and Representative Garrett
stated she was not aware of other areas in this particular section of Idaho
Code that needs to be changed.
MOTION: Representative Naccarato made a motion to send RS12828 to print.
The motion carried by voice vote.
BUDGET
DISCUSSION
Chairman Tilman stated he wanted this to be an open discussion to allow
them to ask questions and to present their ideas. He said from a policy
standpoint the committee needs to do their part to assist JFAC, and that
through legislation they can bring policy issues/changes before the
committee for an open debate.
Some of the key ideas, questions and concerns brought forth were:

Representative Cannon said he doesn’t want to recommend anything
that will hurt teachers, but on the other hand he feels we can seize this
opportunity to send a message to administrators asking them to
participate in trying to trim back. When asked how he defines “hurting
teachers” he said he doesn’t want to see them receive less pay next year.

Representative Boe voiced a concern about the Governor not
recommending funding for the IDLA. She stated how important this effort
is for rural Idaho and it would be a shame not to fund this effort. She
suggested recommending at least a minimum amount of funding.
Chairman Tilman indicated that school districts receive funding for some
of the courses the IDLA is offering and it may be possible to make some
policy changes to help fund these courses.

Representative Jones pointed out that “Other Programs” is an area
where the committee’s recommendations can make a difference, although
some of these items are tied to statute, lawsuits and other requirements.
Chairman Tilman reminded the committee that proposals can be brought
forth to change statute.

Representative Andersen said from his perspective it looks like we need
to delve into the policies before recommending the funding.

Representative Nielsen asked if Items 7 and 9 under “Program
Distributions” are based on basic statutory requirements, and Chairman
Tilman explained that the Superintendent’s budget request has a built in
2% increase in the base salary, and he suggested the members contact
the budget analysts from the Governor’s office, JFAC and the Department
for more information.

Representative Trail stated it would help to see a summary on Federal
funding received to fulfill obligations. Chairman Tilman said discussion are
going on among the various entities about Federal funding and how it can
be used.

Representative Garrett recommended looking at teacher incentives in
light of the teacher enhancements being proposed through NCLB.
Chairman Tilman mentioned looking at early retirement, mentoring, and
other programs to ensure these programs are still legitimate needs.

Representative Block mentioned that the input she is receiving from her
administrators and teachers is to cut programs rather than across the
board cuts.

Representative Rydalch mentioned that ISIMS was not a line item, but
felt this needed to be considered. Chairman Tilman agreed that this is an
intricate piece in looking forward, and the Albertson Foundation is
requiring certain commitments this year or the offer will go away.

Representative Kulczyk voiced a concern about the substantial cut in
classroom supplies while teachers in his district are saying they don’t
have paper and pencils. Chairman Tilman responded by saying that the
legislature has tried funding school supplies in various ways, but it doesn’t
appear to be working ­ the money is pooled at the district and doesn’t
always get to the classroom. Representative Trail mentioned the $250
credit given to teachers because President Bush recognized this problem.

Representative Barraclough pointed out that to get through FY03, the
state may be required to cut agencies by another 3% and education by
2% which would reduce the base for FY04. He suggested they talk to
state employees about not receiving raises and Health and Welfare about
their budget cuts. He also expressed a concern that the worksheet for the
FY04 budget does not reflect the Federal funding, county taxes and
revenue from bonds, and that the total education budget is more like
$1.57 billion with that funding added in.

Representative Eberle said we have a system that was designed 100
years ago and has been patched over the years until now it is an octopus.
He suggested we need to look at how we do business and explore use of
technology, distant learning, etc.

Representative Lake asked Chairman Tilman if he needs a
recommendation from the committee by Monday to take before JFAC,
and the Chairman said he would just be outlining the policies that the
committee will be looking at. Representative Lake said he felt this
committee would be derelict in their duties if they do not give the
Chairman guidelines as a committee or as individuals, and they will have
to decide if they hold/cut budgets or increase taxes.

Representative Garrett reminded the committee that they also need to
consider the discretionary funds and whether these should be cut.
Representative Jones pointed out that these funds are used by the
districts for health insurance, salaries, transportation, electricity and to fix
buildings.

Representative Boe stated it is true that we have increased support
units, staff and also demands ­ achievement standards, assessment,
technology, IDEA requirements. She mentioned that the Joint Legislative
Oversight Committee is reviewing many of these issues and will be doing
audits.

Representative Sayler used a metaphor to describe in his mind what
educators are faced with — a train is leaving Chicago headed for Kansas
City. It is then decided that the train really needs to go to Denver
(achievement standards) and so the climb is steeper and the load
increases. The decisions to be made are to return to Kansas City, add
fuel (money) and continue on, or not add fuel and slow down the process.
He said the people back home don’t want to go back to Kansas City, but
to add fuel. He said he definitely realizes the need to be efficient on the
journey.
Chairman Tilman said he knows that no one here wants to do anything
that will not help the children, and JFAC will be looking at policies to help
them set the budget. JFAC will first have to make decisions about
balancing the FY03 budget, and that proposal will be voted for on the
floor. The policy discussions about the FY04 budget will then take place,
and every agency’s budget will come before them on the floor. He said he
anticipates a lot of going back and forth, and they need to keep in mind
this is a consensus process between the Legislature and the Governor.
He expressed his appreciation for their attentiveness through all of these
discussions.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman
Tilman adjourned the meeting at 10:45 A.M.






DATE: February 14, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representatives Jones, Rydalch, Eberle
GUESTS: Members of the Potlatch Dance and three Superintendents from Blackfoot
School District. Please see presenters highlighted below and the
committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:03 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of February 13, 2003 were reviewed. Representative Bauer
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion carried by
voice vote.
RS12865 Representative Shirley Ringo was present to introduce RS12865.
Chairman Tilman explained that this committee is a privileged committee
and they have been asked to print this RS and refer it to the Judiciary,
Rules & Administration Committee. Representative Ringo said she could
go through the RS or someone could stop her at anytime and make a
motion.
MOTION: Representative Cannon made a motion to send RS12865 to print and
refer the RS to the Judiciary, Rules & Administration Committee
. The
motion carried by voice vote.
RS12884 Representative Dennis Lake presented RS12884 to the committee
because Representative Eberle is ill and was unable to attend the
meeting. Representative Lake explained that the legislation allows for an
inflationary increase to $25,000 from $15,000 for the purchase of property
by the school district board of trustees.
MOTION: Representative Lake moved to send RS12884 to print.
SUBSTITUTE

MOTION:

Representative Boe made a substitute motion to amend RS12884 by
adding to Line 27 “Idaho bidders may be given preference if their bid
is not over 5%”.
Representative Boe began the debate by citing that in
Pocatello the lowest bidders are often from Utah, and this change would
allow the bids to be awarded to Idaho companies. Representative Trail
said that the Department of Lands added provisions to give agencies the
authority for a 5% preferential to Idaho companies. Representative Lake
debated against the substitute motion because he feels this provision is
already covered in Idaho Code, and he feels it is unfair to amend the RS
when the sponsor is not here to defend the legislation.
AMENDED
SUBSTITUTE
MOTION:
Representative Kulczyk offered an amended substitute motion to
hold RS12884 time certain in committee until Tuesday, February 18.

Representative Boe spoke in support of the amended substitute motion
because it is much less cumbersome and would allow a check of existing
code. There being no further debate on the amended substitute
motion, a roll call vote was taken. The motion failed on an 8 to 7 vote
(Attachment 1, Roll Call Sheet).
A vote was called for on the substitute motion to send RS12884 to
print with an amendment to Line 27. The motion failed.
Representative Kulczyk asked why the amount was being raised, and
Representative Naccarato responded that most bids are over $15,000,
and the bid process is very expensive. A vote was called for on the
original motion to send RS12884 to print, and the motion carried by
voice vote.
RS12919 Chairman Tilman introduced RS12919, stating this RS clarifies
legislative intent and the appeal process for Idaho public charter schools.
He said the amendments will make the process more workable.
MOTION: Representative Nielsen made a motion to send RS12919 to print.
Representative Boe asked about attendance areas, and Chairman Tilman
explained those are spelled out in the individual charters. The motion
carried by voice vote.
RS12929 Dr. Bob Haley, Legislative Liaison, State Department of Education,
presented RS12929 to the committee. Dr. Haley explained that this
legislation addresses a federal mandate from the NCLB Act & the
National Defense Act requiring high schools to supply military recruiters
with names, addresses, and telephone numbers of students. He stressed
that parents do have the right to opt out. He stated the first section of the
legislation deals with what you can’t do. Dr. Haley pointed out that the
State Board worked with General Manning to put this language together.
Representative Boe asked if there was a reason for leaving out the
language stating that parents have the right to opt out on Page 2. Dr.
Haley said the federal legislation makes this very clear, and the directory
has been published with this information for quite some time.
Representative Kulczyk voiced a concern that if language is not in state
statute that it might not be enforced.
MOTION: Representative Lake made a motion to send RS12929 to print. The
motion carried by voice vote.
BUDGET
DISCUSSION
Chairman Tilman opened the budget discussion, explaining to the
committee that he had to be at the Governor’s office for a meeting and
that Representative Lake would chair the discussion. Representative
Nielsen said he would like to discuss several elements of the budget
starting with the steps for teacher salaries. Mr. Tim Hill was asked to take
the podium and respond to questions.
Mr. Tim Hill, Bureau Chief for Finance and Transportation, State
Department of Education, provided the following responses:

Beginning teachers salaries are set by statute at $25,000 of which the
state funds $24,100 and the districts are required to fund the remainder.
Idaho has 1260 FTE out of 1300 that fall in this category. It is estimated it
would cost the state an additional $1 million to fund the entire $25,000.
Representative Barraclough asked whether the average teacher salary in
Idaho is around $38,000, and Mr. Hill said that the salaries are published
by district by the Idaho School Boards Association and the Department.

When Representative Boe asked what the impact would be if we funded
the IDLA with $500,000 from the bond levy equalization fund, Mr. Hill said
first we have to assume the fund will get the full $1.5 million. If the number
of bonds passed exceeds the estimates, S1474 would not be funded, and
the Legislature would have to fund a supplemental.

Representative Lake asked if most districts start with the minimum
salary of $25,000 and churn through the steps for all other teachers ­ Mr.
Hill said many do not.

Representative Kulczyk asked about putting sideboards on school
supply money, and it was explained that last April districts were informed
of the Legislation passed, and a separate payment was issued to each
school district for their portion for supplies. Once the money is received, it
is the district’s responsibility to distribute. If given directly to teachers it
would result in tax implications.

Representative Nielsen asked if the LEP funding is mandated by statute,
and Mr. Hill said there is no statutory requirement, but there is a lawsuit
which requires this funding. Idaho has seen increases in the number of
students, but also the schools are better able to identify the students
needing help ­ about $238 per student goes out to the district in a
separate payment.

When Representative Lake asked about the idea of substituting federal
funds in lieu of state funds, Mr. Hill explained the federal funding is not
real flexible. He feels it could jeopardize what federal funds we receive.

Mr. Hill explained the Governor’s recommendation for salary based
apportionment does not recommend a 2% increase in the base salary nor
does it recommend increasing the staff allowance from .375 to .385, but
the Superintendent’s request does. He stressed that the Governor’s
request for salary based apportionment cannot be changed without
changing the statute.

The number of IDLA students was discussed and it was pointed out that
there are approximately 600 students taking 1,000 courses, and if the
student is already taking 4 hours of courses at the district, the school
district does not receive additional funding. Dr. Bob Haley said he has
been involved in the IDLA since the beginning and indicated if funding for
IDLA goes to the district it would require a whole tracking system. Another
alternative would be to take $48 per support unit off the top. Regarding
cost of courses through IDLA, it is estimated the cost is about 1/3 of the
state average.

Representative Garrett asked about the number of teachers receiving
beginning teacher support, and Mr. Hill said there are 1200 1st year
teachers, 1230 2nd year and 945 3rd year which calculates out to about
$590 per FTE.

A lengthy discussion followed on support units and whether there is a
better way to calculate the units other than using ADA. A concern was
voiced about charter schools driving up the cost of support units and it
was asked whether districts get reimbursed for private or home school
students who are dual enrolled. Mr. Hill explained that dual enrolled
students are weighted based on the hours they attend the public schools.
Representative Sayler requested exact expenditures per student for FY02
and FY03, and the figures provided for FY02 were $5,569 per pupil of
state funding and about $7,600 when funding from bonds and levies are
added in. Figures for FY03 are not available. Representative Cannon
challenged the three superintendents from his district who were in the
meeting to go back home and provide information on where the money is
going for the increase from $4,900 to $6,100 per student. It was also
clarified that the increase for charter schools can only be attributed when
students are moving from a larger school to a charter school, and it is not
clear how many home schooled children are now attending the charter
schools. It was pointed out by Representative Garrett that the parents of
home schooled children have been paying taxes all along.
Representative Boe suggested the committee make a recommendation to
JFAC to fund the IDLA using $200,000 from discretionary funds, $200,000
from technology, and $100,000 from the bond levy equalization fund.
Representative Trail said the state still has an unfunded mandate for HB
315 for critical building needs, and any excess money from the bond levy
equalization fund could be used for this. Representative Barraclough said
it is frustrating to keep earmarking funds for the districts when just this last
year we are starting to see some accountability. Representative Andersen
said he has worked on school budgets, and feels school boards provide
thorough accounting of the dollars spent.
MOTION: Representative Boe made a motion to fund the IDLA for $600,000
and use $200, 000 from discretionary funds, $200,000 from
technology, and $200,000 from the bond levy equalization fund.

Representative Nielsen debated against the motion, saying he
appreciates the motion, but feels school districts can find the money.
Representative Kulczyk debated against the motion, stating there was no
appropriation in FY03, and he feels they will come up with the money.
Representative Tilman asked Dr. Friend if the IDLA has applied for grants
this year, and he said he does not believe the Board has done so.
Representative Boe said the teachers are excited about this opportunity
and the infrastructure is already in place. There being no further debate,
Vice Chairman Lake called for a vote. The motion failed.
Representative Sayler said he would like to recommend endorsement of
the amount proposed by the Governor, but have it go through the
Superintendent’s request. This would fund the IDLA and give a ballpark
figure of $965 million. Vice Chairman Lake recommended that
Representative Sayler talk directly with the Chairman. Representative
Garrett said this all reminds her of a steam engine with lots of steam, and
a lot of people are out there shoveling coal.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee, Vice
Chairman Lake adjourned the meeting at 10:56 A.M.






DATE: February 18, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 8:32 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of February 14, 2003 were reviewed. Representative
Cannon
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion
carried by voice vote.
RS12855C1 Representative Sharon Block asked that RS12855C1 be returned to the
sponsor for further work.
MOTION: Representative Boe made a motion to return RS12855C1 to the sponsor
for additional work. The motion carried by voice vote.
HB 184 Representative Darrell Bolz introduced HB 184, explaining this
legislation comes from several school districts. The legislation will allow
school districts, who contract transportation services, to be able to
negotiate the current contract for an additional five years without going
through the bid process, for one time only. Districts can renegotiate with
the current contractor if services are adequate, saving districts attorney
fees and the cost of a lengthy bid process. The legislation also provides
the contractor a longer period of time to amortize capital purchases.
Representative Bolz explained the emergency clause was added because
there are 10 districts whose transportation contracts expire in June 2003.
PRO Mr. Chuck Randolph, Associate Superintendent, Caldwell, spoke in
support of HB 184 because he believes in buying in Idaho when possible.
He explained how difficult it is to make sure that all bidders are bidding on
exactly the same criteria, and stated that Caldwell has a requirement that
the contractor must have a bus lot and a barn located in the district
boundary. Mr. Randolph pointed out the cost of attorney fees and salaried
and volunteer hours involved in analyzing transportation bids that may
take up to two years. He said that limiting the contracts to five years does
not provide a good schedule of depreciation, and stressed that if the
district is not satisfied with the service provided, they still have the option
to go back through the bid process. Mr. Randolph stated that the
legislation still allows for competitive bids at least on a 10-year basis.
Most small Idaho contractors service one school district and if they lose
the bid, it usually means they will not stay in business.
DISCUSSION Representative Kulczyk expressed a concern about a $1.5 million dollar
contract not being rebid more often, and asked if they couldn’t accomplish
the same thing by lengthening the contract to 7 years or so. Mr. Randolph
responded that he likes the option of “bailing out” after five years if service
is poor. Chairman Tilman asked if there aren’t already provisions in the
contract allowing them to “bail out”, and Mr. Randolph said for blatant or
financial failure to comply, but not for marginal service. He went on to
explain that most bids come in fairly close on per-route bids and
inflationary costs, but the hidden costs, such as extending routes, create
a problem ­ the ability to renegotiate in five years is easier because the
baseline is already set. When Representative Cannon asked how many
bus owners are in his district, Mr. Randolph said there is one contractor
and three partners. Chairman Tilman asked if we are creating a process
in which no one can compete, and Mr. Randolph said they work closely
with Mr. McKnight of the Department to make sure the requirements are
appropriate ­ they are not here to stop competitiveness, but to renew the
contracts one time. Representative Rydalch asked if they hold a pre-bid
conference before issuing the RFP and he said “yes” and that all answers
to questions are furnished to each bidder.
PRO Mr. Rodney McKnight, State Department of Education, testified in favor
of HB 184. He said Idaho has 23 school districts using contracts and 15
contractors, and there are about 12 contractors on a list they can use. He
said probably 6 contractors operate at higher costs than the state
average. When asked if he represents the Department in his support, he
said the legislation has been discussed with Mr. Tim Hill and Dr. Bob
West and they are in support. He said they feel it may show savings in
amortization.
DISCUSSION Mr. McKnight indicated that about 30% of the 15 contractors are from out-of-state. When asked about a large contractor buying out a contractor to
take advantage of the existing contract, Mr. McKnight said this is possible,
but he still feels not having to renegotiate the bid saves time and costs.
He said that generally the contractors operate more effectively than the
district run systems.
MOTION: Representative Andersen made a motion to send HB 184 to the floor
with a “DO PASS” recommendation.
He began debate by saying some
of the issues brought forth could use some review, but there are limited
contracts involved. Representative Cannon opposed the motion because
he believes the competitive bid process is good, and the bid process may
need to be simplified. Representative Lake opposed the motion because
he feels 10 years is a long time without review.
SUBSTITUTE
MOTION:
Representative Kulczyk made a substitute motion to hold HB 184 in
committee.
He said turning out a $1.5 million dollar contract without
competition is wrong. Representative Rydalch spoke in opposition to the
substitute motion because the districts can choose to bid or not to bid and
this legislation could provide a savings to the district. Representative
Naccarato spoke against the substitute motion, stating he had learned a
hard lesson recently about “shall” and may” and Line 15 states districts
may renew a contract if it is satisfactory. Representative Nielsen asked
about renewing contracts and Mr. McKnight said it is his interpretation
that districts can renegotiate anytime within five years. There being no
further debate on the substitute motion, a roll call vote was taken and
the substitute motion to hold HB 184 in committee failed by 10
“nays” to 8 “ayes” (Attachment 1, Roll Call Sheet).
Chairman Tilman asked if anyone wished to debate the original motion to
send HB 184 to the floor with a “DO PASS” recommendation.
Representative Nielsen debated against the original motion because he
feels five years is too long to renew the contract. Representative
Andersen urged support for the motion because school boards are
allowed to make the decision based on the best information.
Representative Jones debated in favor of the motion, saying this provides
a reasonable option for not more than five years. Representative Kulczyk
debated against the motion because the bid process is not that difficult
and because of the dollar amount of the bids. Representative Rydalch
debated in support of the motion because it allows for competition and
local control ­ the competitive process is alive and well.
A roll call vote was called for on the original motion to send HB 184
to the floor with a “DO PASS” recommendation. The motion carried
by an 11-7 vote (Attachment 1, Roll Call Sheet).
HB 185 Representative Darrell Bolz introduced HB 185. He stated that this
legislation will accomplish two things: (1) allow teachers who have
teaching experience of more than three years from one school district and
then move to another school district to be exempted from the support
program, and (2) make congruent the dates required for teacher
evaluation, by changing the date to December 15. He explained that they
are changing the wording from first three years “in the district” to “in the
profession” which would not require teachers who have been in the
profession for at least three years to take part in the support program
which could save the districts time and money. He pointed out that
moving the date to December 15 would give districts more time to work on
corrective actions, if needed.
DISCUSSION Representative Barraclough asked if he had been a teacher in
Afghanistan would he qualify. According to Idaho Code, “yes” he would
qualify. Representative Garrett asked for a definition of a support
program, and it was explained that there are four aspects: administrative,
professional development, mentoring and peer assistance.
PRO Mr. Tim Rosandick, Assistant Superintendent, Caldwell School District,
spoke in favor of HB 185. He commended the Legislature for recognizing
that new teachers need support and for funding this need. He said HB
185 allows districts to provide services to those who need it most. He
explained that in FY03 Caldwell district has 107 teachers who are eligible
for support, and 47% were teachers who had less than three years of
service. If dollars were spent only on new teachers in their first three
years it would mean $1,000 per person rather than $500. He stressed that
if this legislation passes, it does not mean they will not provide support to
all teachers.
PRO Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director, Idaho School Boards Association,
spoke in support of HB 185. He said he agrees with Mr Rosandick in that
this legislation will target new teachers and focus funds. He assured the
committee that services will be provided to all teachers.
CON Mr. Blas Telleria, President, Boise Education Association, spoke against
HB 185. He stated that even Michael Jordan needs a coach. He explained
that most teachers coming into a new district are given Category 2
contracts and are therefore eligible for the support program. He feels this
support is critical for new teachers coming into a district and said they
have 1500 LEP students in Boise District.
PRO Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, Idaho Association of School
Administrators, spoke in favor of HB 185. He said he worked on the
legislative task force that developed Idaho Code 33-514, and he believes
this legislation allows districts to focus resources on beginning teachers.
He said they will not stop evaluating teachers ­ that’s just part of their
supervisory duties.
CON Mr. Jason McKinley, Idaho Education Association (IEA), spoke in
opposition to HB 185 in its current form. He explained that before 2001
teachers were assured of two evaluations, and now they are assured of
two evaluations, administrative support, professional development,
mentoring and peer assistance. He said the IEA could support HB 185 if it
offered at least one year of mentoring to new teachers coming into a
district and the option of extending the mentoring.
DISCUSSION Chairman Tilman clarified for the committee that the original intent of the
support program and funding was to provide services to those coming into
the teaching profession, not to experienced teachers. Representative Bolz
closed the debate urging the committee to vote yes. Representative
Garrett asked Mr. Hill if the numbers he provided last week included
teachers new to a district, and he stated that all Category 1, 2, and 3
teachers were included. Mr. Rosendick explained that the Department
requires a comprehensive plan on how districts will meet the requirements
for all four components and they must submit a budget on how the funds
are spent. Representative Rydalch asked if this program is working, and
Mr. Rosendick stressed this program is needed in Idaho and helps when
recruiting teachers. He also said they report the disposition of employees
to the Department. Representative Lake asked Dr. Green who gets the
money, and Dr. Green said it goes in a lump sum to the districts . Dr.
Friend explained that the funds go into categories and a stipend is issued.
Representative Lake said one teacher recently told him the money was
given to the coaches, and they stopped by once or twice. When asked if
the changes made by the Colleges and Universities were helping to
improve the quality of teachers and lessen the need for support, Mr.
Rosendick stated that they have raised the bar, but he doesn’t believe this
lessen the need for support.
MOTION: Representative Nielsen made a motion to send HB 185 to the floor
with a “DO PASS” recommendation
.
SUBSTITUTE
MOTION:
Representative Andersen made a substitute motion to send HB 185
to General Orders with committee amendments attached.
He said the
amendment would address the concerns about experience level and
would include Category 2 teachers with more than three years experience
who are new to the district. Representative Eberle debated against the
substitute motion because the amendments complicate the legislation.
Representative Bolz was asked if he had seen the amendments, and he
said he had, but prefers the legislation as written. There being no further
debate on the substitute motion to send HB 185 to General Orders
with committee amendments attached, a vote was called for. The
substitute motion failed by voice vote.
The Chairman asked for debate on the original motion to send HB 185 to
the floor with a “DO PASS” recommendation. Representative Barraclough
said it bothers him we are not reducing the funding because many of the
teachers he talked to say they are not receiving support. Chairman Tilman
said he plans to ask for an assessment of this program. Representative
Andersen asked, if we are going to assess the program, should we
change the policy now? Representative Sayler spoke in opposition to the
motion because some teachers transferring to the district may need
professional development. Representative Block spoke in favor of the
motion, saying that if teachers need to find out about district policy or
need assistance, they can go next door and ask. The original motion to
send HB 185 to the floor with a “DO PASS” recommendation carried
by voice vote. Representatives Boe, Andersen, Trail and Sayler
wished to be recorded as voting no.
HB 188 Vice Chairman Lake was asked to chair the meeting while Chairman
Tilman presented a bill in the Rev & Tax Committee. Because the House
was to go into session in less than 10 minutes, Vice Chairman Lake
asked that HB 188 be placed on the agenda for Wednesday, February 19,
2003.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee, Vice
Chairman Lake adjourned the meeting at 10:32 A.M.






DATE: February 19, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representative Rydalch
GUESTS: Please see the presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in
sheet.
MOTION: Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 8:32 A.M. with a quorum
being present. The minutes of February 18, 2003 were reviewed.
Representative Lake made a motion to accept the minutes as written.
The motion carried by voice vote.
RS13014 Representative Nielsen introduced RS13014, stating the purpose of this
legislation is to allow the Board of Trustees to exclude materials that do
not support the definition of a thorough system of public schools, and to
conform literature used. Representative Eberle stated he feels debate on
both sides of an issue is valuable.
MOTION: Representative Kulczyk made a motion to send RS13014 to print.
SUBSTITUTE
MOTION:
Representative Boe made a substitute motion to hold RS13014 in
committee. The substitute motion failed. The original motion to send
RS13014 to print passed by voice vote.
RS12782C2 Representative Tilman introduced RS12782C2, explaining that this
legislation requires School Board of Trustees in the same county to work
jointly to employ a County Superintendent.
MOTION: Representative Cannon made a motion to send RS12782C2 to print.
The motion carried by voice vote.
RS13001 Representative Tilman introduced RS13001, explaining that this
legislation requires consolidation of small, inefficient districts. He stated
printing this legislation will allow for a policy debate and public input.
MOTION: Representative Kulczyk made a motion to send RS13001 to print.
Representative Boe asked if there is a definition of “inefficient” and
Chairman Tilman said not in the bill. The motion passed by voice vote.
RS13003 Representative Tilman introduced RS13003, stating that this legislation
reduces reimbursement rates for school administrative staff, and it
examines distribution on a per classroom basis and the “use or lose”
clause.
MOTION: Representative Lake made a motion to send RS13003 to print. The
motion carried by voice vote.
HB 188 Representative Cannon presented HB 188 to the committee, stating he
feels strongly about this legislation ­ it is a fairness and equity issue. He
pointed out that SB 1474 was enacted to provide more equity and to
facilitate getting school facilities built. He explained the purpose of this
legislation is to expand the window of opportunity for schools passing
bonds between March 1 and September 15, 2002. He said the Governor’s
intent in setting the date to September was not to impact the FY 03
budget, and he feels that intent will be filled. He stressed Idaho is not
shutting down, and in the spirit of fairness, he asked for their support.
DISCUSSION: Representative Cannon clarified the following:

­ The language on Page 2 that changes the application deadline to
January 1 addresses an accounting issue, makes it possible to determine
how many schools have applied for bonds, and facilitates the Legislature
with including this item as a set figure.

— Six districts are receiving interest payments and if Blackfoot is added
the amount will be $890,000. The state estimated $1.5 million, but the
appropriation will be based on the requests submitted. The fiscal impact
of HB 188 is $196,308 per year for twenty years.

­ Blackfoot was cognizant of the SB 1474, but made the decision to go
ahead with their election because they felt the votes were there, and they
didn’t want to risk not passing the bond to build the auditorium and the
gym. Blackfoot began this process in 1999.

­ Regarding opening the gate and being flooded with other requests if this
legislation passes, Representative Cannon said in his mind this issue is
about when the Governor signed SB 1474.

MOTION: Representative Jones made a motion to send HB 188 to the floor with a
“DO PASS” recommendation. He stated this is a question of fairness in
allowing one school to participate, and the school should not be penalized
for holding their bond election early.
SUBSTITUTE
MOTION:
Representative Kulczyk offered a substitute motion to hold HB 188 in
committee. Representative Nielsen debated for the substitute motion,
stating that Blackfoot chose to spend more money. Representative Trail
debated against the substitute motion because he feels it is good public
policy to award the constituents for passing the bond. Representative
Bauer debated against the substitute motion because in small areas if you
wait you sometimes lose the vote. Chairman Tilman reminded the
committee that they are also responsible for determining where the
money will come from to fund this legislation. Representative Block
debated for the substitute motion because she has three small schools in
her district who passed bonds in recent years, and they will not receive
any help on their interest payments. Representative Sayler debated
against the substitute motion and for the original motion because the
intent of SB 1474 was to address fairness and equity. A roll call vote
was taken on the substitute motion to hold HB 188 in committee. The
substitute motion failed on a 6 to 11 vote. A roll call vote was taken
on the original motion to send HB 188 to the floor with a “DO PASS”
Recommendation, and the motion passed by a 10 to 6 vote
(Attachment 1, Roll Call Sheet).
HB 187 Representative Lake introduced HB 187 and explained that this legislation
will repeal the early retirement incentive. He pointed out that the original
intent of the1996 legislation was to revitalize the teaching team by giving
teachers who were “no longer performing at their peak level” and did not
want to become technologically prepared, an avenue to leave the
teaching profession early. The intent was to finance the incentives by
replacing the teachers at the upper end of the pay scale with beginning
teachers or those with less experience. Representative Lake provided
Attachment 2 showing the number of participants from 1997 to 2003.
Some problems he pointed out with this system are:

­ Administrators are retiring early, they receive an average of $33,000,
and then some of them leave the state to pursue positions in other states.
About $760,000 was spent in FY02 for this purpose.

­ This incentive is encouraging the better qualified teachers to leave the
profession. It’s like we give them a “golden handshake” and then asking
them to leave.

­ When new or beginning teachers are hired often they are eligible for
mentoring and other assistance which drives up the cost and makes it
difficult to calculate a savings.

DISCUSSION A discussion followed on HB 187 and key points made were:

­ Several patrons in members’ districts have already made retirement
plans for this year, and if the emergency clause is enacted they will not
receive the incentive. Representative Lake said he is sympathetic, but this
program was not intended to be an entitlement. In fact, if the emergency
clause is removed many more may chose to apply.

­ This legislation does not harm teachers because they can chose to
retire or stay in the system. The Superintendent of Schools stated last
year in her presentation to JFAC that this program is a low priority for the
Department.

­ It is unknown how many teachers and administrators have applied for
early retirement this year.

­ This incentive has been used to reduce staff due to declining
enrollment, and this legislation would eliminate that opportunity.

CON Mr. Jason McKinley, Government Relations, Idaho Education
Association, said their 12,000 membership urge the committee to hold HB
187. Mr. McKinley cited four benefits of the early retirement program as
(1) teachers appreciate it; (2) teachers have the option to use after 10
years of teaching; (3) 70% of teachers are female and this gives them a
chance to raise their families; and (4) it saves money. Mr. McKinley
provided the committee with a spreadsheet he believes shows an overall
savings to the state by keeping this program (Attachment 3). He pointed
out that according to his figures, after five years the state could recognize
a $5.6 million savings. He requested that if the early retirement incentives
are repealed that this be phased in over time so there is not an impact on
districts’ discretionary funds used to fund additional staff and pay higher
salaries.
DISCUSSION Mr. McKinley was asked if the salary based apportionment could be
reduced each year by the amount of savings, and he indicated he
believes it could. He was not aware that anyone from the Department had
recommended this. When he was asked if this incentive is encouraging
good teachers to leave, he stated that this gives teachers a valuable
option, but many continue beyond the rule of 90. The question was asked
if this incentive is counter to dealing with the teacher and administration
shortages, and he responded that it may have some impact, but health
insurance is a significant issue. He also suggested teacher retention is
the real issue.
CON Mr. Jerry Helgeson, President, Meridian Education Association, spoke in
opposition of HB 187 and said he is representing 8 teachers who plan on
going through the system. He said the debate has centered around those
leaving to make more money, but pointed out two other issues: (1) health
issues and (2) new state and federal requirements from standards ­ some
have reached the point they are ready to have younger teachers take
over. He urged them to phase out the incentives starting next year.
Dr. Bob Haley, Legislative Liaison, State Department of Education, stated
he was not present to debate for or against the legislation, but to provide
information. He said he was involved in the original legislation, and
clarified that the Department has not sent out applications this year ­ this
is usually done in April after the legislative session. He explained it is very
difficult one on one to determine the true cost and true savings of this
program. Assumptions have to be made about whether they would retire
or stay for another 1-3 years. He provided the committee with the
Department’s estimates (Attachment 4). He clarified that salary based
reductions are already being taken out through the formula. A discussion
followed and Dr. Haley said there has not been a tracking system in
place. When asked if the Department has taken a position on this and if
they believe it is a good policy, Dr. Haley said they decided it was a lower
priority last year and is still a low priority.
PRO Mr. Neil Colwell, IACI, spoke in support of HB 187. He said he feels the
intent was good early on and explained that businesses will use early
retirement short term to help them reorganize or cut costs. He felt the
analysis of costs were false. He said IACI will be more involved in the
future to determine how we can best educate children at a reasonable
price. He said this will be the easiest money to save in the budget.
CON Mr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, Idaho Association of School
Administrators, spoke against HB 187, indicating the original purpose for
the legislation was to allow a way out for teachers not wanting to become
technologically prepared and to stabilize the salary index. He stated that
the Idaho statistical report indicates an aging population and pointed out
that administrators are not disproportionately using the incentive. He said
the IASA is concerned because there is no data indicating how high the
index would be today if the 1,100 teachers/administrators had not taken
early retirement. He also indicated that Dr. Green, ISBA, was unable to
attend but wanted the committee to know the ISBA also opposes this
legislation. No reasons were given for their opposition. When asked why
the IASA believes, from a policy standpoint, early retirement is a good
policy, Dr. Friend said he believes in five years after the technology
certification is taken care of the complection will change.
Representative Naccarato asked if there is data showing the average age
of the teachers/administrators who have taken early retirement, and Dr.
Haley said he would get that information. Representative Lake closed the
debate by saying he feels this legislation has lived out its purpose, and it
is wrong to pay teachers double for experience and then ask them to
leave. He said it is at the discretion of administration to “thin out the
heard”. Chairman Tilman asked Dr. Haley if he is aware of any other
Idaho agency offering early retirement, and he said he was not.
MOTION: Representative Naccarato made a motion to hold HB 187 until tomorrow
so Dr. Haley could provide the data on average age of applicants, and the
ISBA could provide their reasons for opposing the legislation. A roll call
vote was taken, and the motion failed on a 7 to 9 vote (Attachment 5,
Roll Call Sheet).
SUBSTITUTE
MOTION:
Representative Lake offered a substitute motion to send HB 187 to the
floor with a “DO PASS” recommendation. Representative Sayler debated
against the substitute motion, stating he feels the rules will be changed
and some teachers planning on retirement will be forced to get re-certified. He said this will impose an economic penalty and is like a
“splash of cold water” or “slap” to those who have worked hard and are
planning to leave. Representative Nielsen debated in favor of the
substitute motion because there is not a cost savings, and he would hate
to lose older, experienced teachers.
AMENDED
SUBSTITUTE
MOTION:
Representative Cannon offered an amended substitute motion to send

HB 187 to General Orders with a committee amendment to remove the
emergency clause. He pointed out he represents a school superintendent
who has made commitments to teachers considering early retirement, and
he is concerned about the loss of integrity. Representative Lake debated
against the amended substitute motion, pointing out that early retirements
could cost $10 million and reduce discretionary funds. Representative
Naccarato spoke in support of the amended substitute motion because it
allows those who have medical conditions to retire. The amended
substitute motion to send HB 187 to General Orders failed by voice
vote.

A roll call vote was taken on the substitute motion to send HB 187 to
the floor with a “DO PASS” recommendation. The motion passed by
an 11 to 5 vote (Attachment 5, Roll Call Sheet).
ADJOURN: The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 A.M.






DATE: February 20, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representatives Jones, Rydalch, Kulczyk and Naccarato
GUESTS: Please see presenter highlighted below and committee sign-in sheet.
Vice Chairman Lake called the meeting to order at 8:34 A.M. with a
quorum being present.
MOTION: The minutes of February 19, 2003 were reviewed. Representative Boe
made motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion carried by
voice vote.
President Gerald Meyerhoeffer, College of Southern Idaho (CSI),
presented the college’s annual report (Attachment 1). He pointed out that
CSI is very fortunate because they have around 240 acres of property that
was gifted to the college by two families. CSI serves an 8-county region
and their mission is to:

Serve a Diverse Student Population

Provide a Center for the Region’s Educational Needs, Economy and
Cultural Events

Collaborate with Universities

Promote Community Economic Development

President Meyerhoeffer stated that 80% of the regional nursing staff has
graduated from CSI, and these graduates pass their exams at a higher
level and stay longer in the profession. He mentioned a program with
Utah State where they can track transfer students to determine how they
fare, which helps CSI evaluate their programs. He said their technical
programs are the fastest growing. CSI serves the under-prepared and
low-literacy students, and 25% of all students take a remedial class and
56% of freshman students require remedial courses. He indicated that the
cooperative programs with the other universities in the state allow
students to complete their 4-year degrees while staying in the Magic
Valley.
President Meyerhoeffer pointed out CSI’s efforts to promote community
economic development, keying in on their successful efforts to bring Dell
Corporation to Twin Falls. He said Twin was chosen because of a joint
effort with the local community, the State, and the Governor, but one key
factor was that CSI offered training facilities.
President Meyerhoeffer pointed out that they are the fastest growing
school in Idaho with approximately 7,000 students. One out of every five
students enrolling in higher education in Idaho attends CSI. He explained
the revenue sources for academic instruction on Page 12, and stated that
counties outside of Twin Falls and Jerome contribute $500 per semester
towards their students tuition. He said CSI is able to educate students
very economically, and most students graduate with very little student
debt. They have grown 52% in the last five years while experiencing a $2
million budget cut.



He talked about the Governor’s budget recommendation, and emphasized
how important the increase for health benefits is and the importance in
additional dollars for growth.

President Meyerhoeffer provided the following responses to questions.

CSI’s Relationship with Dell ­ CSI furnishes two classrooms for Dell’s
training, which is done by Dell’s employees. Students who successfully
complete the training are then reimbursed. Dell contributes to CSI as well
as to the community. CSI is also linked to Micron for training purposes.

Promise Scholarships ­ These scholarships contributed about a 15%
increase in students in the fall a year ago. About 30% of their students
use student loans, and those students end up with about $5,000 of debt in
two years.

Additional Reductions this Year ­ Student fees increased by 10% last
year which helped them survive last year’s reductions. If an additional cut
is taken this year, physical plant activities will be delayed and student fees
may have to be raised. Real areas of concern are with Federal mandates
where program costs keep increasing.

MOTION: Representative Cannon made a motion that his statement on Page 5 of
the minutes for February 19, be changed to more accurately reflect what
he said. Change “he represents a constituent . . .” to “he represents a
school superintendent who has made commitments to teachers
considering early retirement”. The motion carried by voice vote and the
minutes will be amended.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee, Vice
Chairman Lake adjourned the meeting at 9:10 A.M.






DATE: February 21, 2003
TIME: 8:30
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
GUESTS: See attached sheet
MINUTES: Rep Andersen moved to approve the minutes of February 20, 2003. By
voice vote the motion passed.
HB 186 Rep. Jim Clark presented HB 186 which establishes new policy for the
State. Funding for schools centers around “support units.” A similar bill
did not make it through last year. This bill establishes a policy for
handling “Angel Money.” Page 3, Lines 24-53 is the explanation as to
how it works.



Rep. Clark used a chart to explain that section of the code. He explained
that “‘Angel Money’ falls out of the sky from God” when school districts
aren’t sure how much they are going to get. In some districts this money,
or part of it, is distributed to the teachers by contract. Last session JFAC
decided to do away with “Angel Money” and move it into funding for the
next year. Changing contracts with the teachers in the middle of the year
was not well received. This bill sets new policy and establishes the Public
School Stabilization Fund. The yearly appropriation for schools is based
on estimated “Support Units.” If less Support Units are needed, and there
is money is left over, that money will go to the Public School Stabilization
Fund up to 3%. Over 3%, the money goes into the General Fund. (Line
26). The chart (Attachment 1) shows the history of Estimated Support
Units, and the Actual Support Units from 1990 to 2001. When school
districts have had less support units than estimated, they had to take
money from operations funds to make up the difference.

Rep. Lake said that this would work fine if we overestimate in the first
year and have money in the fund. What happens if we have no money in
the fund? Rep. Clark said it will always be difficult at the beginning. If
there is no money in the fund, it will have to come out of operating
budgets as in the past. However for 2003, it is coming out even. They will
be OK if the bill goes into effect July 1. Rep. Andersen asked what would
prevent the Fund being raided in the future if there is a down turn. Rep.
Clark
said it would be in code, and to raid the Fund, the law would have
to be changed. In answer to other questions, Rep. Clark said that with no
bill, the money will not continue to go to the districts as in the past, but
JFAC will have control over the money, and everybody will go after it. He
also said that if the Fund goes into the red, no money will be taken from
the General Fund. This bill will help stabilize small districts as well as
large districts. It is a very fair bill.
Jason McKinley, Director of Government Relations for the Idaho
Education Association, spoke. His group opposed the bill for the following
reasons:

1. The overall money isn’t large, but it still helps school districts.

2. The bill takes away local control over the extra money which is used
for extras–equipment, or bonuses to the staff.

3. They realize that money will be tight, and districts will need every dollar
they can get.



In response to questions, Mr. McKinley said he thinks only 12 to 15
districts have a clause that distributes “Angel Money” to the teachers.
The $871 bonus Meridian school teachers received was in contract. The
Supt. of Meridian Schools says it was the right thing to do. When asked,
Mr. McKinley said he would speculate that school districts would get less,
rather than more, money over the long term. For example, when things
were good, PERSI dropped the school’s participation for several years. In
that case, these savings would not have stayed in the district.

Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director of the Idaho Association of School
Administrators, spoke in support of this bill. Two years ago there was a
discussion of the system to build support units. They will start in April
working on the 2005 enrollment. That is a long way in the future. He
believes they will get to the place where the under estimation of support
units will be an issue. When there were excess dollars flowing to districts,
they were used for a variety of issues. Last year, public policy changed.
This year the hoped “Angel Money” was moved into the 2004 budget.
That money hasn’t materialized. Districts base their budgets on their
estimated support units. This bill addresses the years ahead. All districts,
large or small, could benefit from this bill. He assumes there will always
be a projected impact from the growth of support units (students moved to
an area that requires more support–elementary to junior high, regular to
special education).



In response to questions, Mr. Friend said this bill treats every district
alike. It treats everybody in an equitable way. In response to how this bill
affects local control, Mr. Friend says when the money flowed in, local
control decided how it was spent. When a district runs short, it is totally
up to the district to decide how they are going to make it up. In response
to Chairman Tilman’s question, Mr. Friend said that as it is now, JFAC
will decide how all of the money is to be spent. In answer to questions,
Mr. Friend said he would prefer to overestimate support units, and if
underestimated, districts have not been bailed out in the past.

Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director of the Idaho School Board
Association, spoke in support of HB 186. They are pragmatic about this.
As to the issue of whether this bill will result in more or less money for the
districts, if JFAC moves the money elsewhere, they won’t have it anyway.
Control will not be an issue. He said 3% is better than 0%. This provides
a back up. Mr. Green commended Tim Hill for his accurate estimates in
the past. When contracts are let in early spring, and districts find out in
the fall they will get less money than they budgeted, it is a real problem.

In response to questions, he agreed with the number of 12 to 15 districts
who give part or all of “Angel Money” and other excess monies to the
teachers. He also said that districts wouldn’t rely on this Fund, but use
their own reserves as they need a cash reserve to pay bills. Some
reserve may be required by their bonds.

Mr. Tim Hill, Bureau Chief of Finance & Transportation for the State
Department of Education, spoke. If the budget is long or short, it falls on
his shoulders. He gave a hand-out. (See Attachment 2.) His goal is to
forecast the funds as accurately as possible so districts can make their
budgets. They begin budgeting two years out. This year they will be
falling short. State paid employee benefits are also a part of units.
However, there are many other variances. He has the spending
authority, but he will be short 4.6 million on the distribution factor. This bill
does not keep the distribution factor from falling short, but it will help. He
is short for each support unit right now and the amount usually gets worse
as the year finishes up. He expressed one concern with the bill­he will not
be able to give the numbers on the date specified. It will be July 15
before he will have the numbers.



Mr. Friend spoke again in answer to questions. He said school districts
will have no ability to tap this fund. It will only be after the calculation is
done at the end of the year. Districts won’t be able to get this money
before.

MOTION Rep. Eberle moved to send HB 186 to the floor with a DO Pass.

By unanimous voice vote the motion passed. Rep. Clark will carry
the bill.

HB 190 Rep. Trail started out by commenting that HB 190 is probably “before its
time.” He commented that teacher retention is an on-going problem and
may be the biggest school woe of the future. He said that one-third of new
teachers leave by the end of three years, and one-half of new teachers
have left by the end of their fifth year. Of the 250,000 who leave teaching
every year, retirees only account for about one-third.



Rep. Trail referred to the MOST Report which says that Idaho school
districts lost 9.5% of their teachers last year, 2.2% was due to retirement.
Our teacher population is older than the national average, which could
mean Idaho will have a more serious problem in the future than other
states. He said we need more teachers, and Idaho’s salaries are a
deterrent to attracting and retaining quality teachers.

In answer to questions, Rep. Trail said he chose not to limit the scope of
the bill to only those teaching areas with the greatest need, such as math
and science. He followed the State of Georgia’s “across the board”
coverage. He chose to cover only those who graduate from Idaho
Colleges and Universities to “reward home-grown teachers” and keep
them in the state.



Rep. Trail then explained the bill. Teachers who have graduated from an
Idaho college and have taught in Idaho for two years, then become
eligible. They must promise to teach two more years. From this point, for
each year taught, a teacher would receive a $2,500 reduction in his or her
loan, up to a total of $10,000 for five years. College presidents have
testified that 80% of the teachers graduate with $20,000 in loans. This bill
would impact 600 teachers and cost 1.5 million a year. He said currently
there are forgiveness plans for teachers who teach in hardship areas such
as Washington D.C., and schools whose students score in the twentieth
percentile in terms of achievement.

Rep. Barraclough commented that the Virtual Learning Academy doesn’t
require classroom teachers. As the economic down-turn continues, more
teachers will realize they can’t find jobs. Some teachers aren’t suitable for
teaching and leave for other jobs. If someone doesn’t want to teach, we
shouldn’t have a program to keep that teacher. He asked if this is this fair
to the other state employees? Rep. Trail said he realizes the economics
of the situation, but stated there are a tremendous number of dynamics in
the recruiting and keeping of teachers. Those teachers who are
dissatisfied should not be encouraged to stay, but many of the top
teachers are being recruited by other states. This might help them stay.
Rep. Lake commented that there will be no effect for the next year. This
won’t kick in until the fall of 2004-2005. This won’t affect current budgets.
Teachers will not qualify for a couple of years. Rep. Trail agreed.
Jason McKinley, Director of Government Relations for the Idaho
Education Association, spoke in supports of HB 190. They look for other
ways to support the hiring of teachers. It can take 10 to 15 years to pay
off student loans. They face either a teacher shortage or teacher
retention problem. With this bill, a new teacher would be in this state for 7
years. He hopes this bill will become law in the very near future, if not this
year.
Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director of the Idaho Association of School
Administrators, spoke. He supports the concept. Retention and
recruitment are issues. There is a federal requirement to help para-teachers get their degrees. This could help. Down the road, this could be
a good bill. In response to questions, he said there is nothing in law now
to prohibit a local school district from doing this today.
Randi McDermott, of the Idaho State Board of Education, said they have
no position on this bill. In response to questions, Lynn Humphrey said
she didn’t have data from other states as to its effectiveness, but could
get it, and promised it to the Committee.



In answer to questions, Rep. Trail said the colleges and universities are
responsible for the collection of loans. He also said this bill would only
help traditional students, not the older students returning to the class
room. He said Oregon feels they get a 30 to 40% retention of teachers
staying beyond their contracted time with a similar program. He
commented that Alaska has a big program to train retired military to
become teachers.

MOTION Rep. Lake moved to hold HB 190 in Committee. He commented that
the concept is not bad, but we don’t want to pass legislation that will have
a fiscal impact in 2005 when we have no idea of the financial situation in
the State. Rep. Jones, spoke in favor of the motion. Rep. Sayler
expressed dismay in the waste of resources in that one-third of new
teachers quit in first three years, one-half by five years. He said he has
heard from teachers and they are frustrated. What we do here is
important.
Rep. Kulczyk said he feels this is bad policy. The average teacher
makes substantially more in this state than the average employee. We
would be taxing them to pay teachers more.
ACTION The motion to hold HB 190 in Committee passed by voice vote with
Reps. Naccarato and Trail voting nay.
ADJOURN Chairman Tilman adjourned the meeting at 10:00 A.M.






DATE: February 24, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representative Naccarato
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in
sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order and then recessed the
committee until 9:00 A.M. to accommodate a presenter whose flight was
delayed. The committee was reconvened at 9:05 A.M.
MOTION: The minutes of February 21 were reviewed. Representative Nielsen
pointed out that on Page 2, Mr. Friend stated he prefers “overestimating”
support units rather than “underestimating” them as the minutes reflect.
Chairman Tilman said this will be clarified with Mr. Friend.
Representative Kulczyk made a motion to approve the minutes as
written once Dr. Friend’s statement is clarified. The motion carried by
voice vote.
PRESENTATION: Dr. Janet Aikele, Head of Idaho Virtual Academy (IDVA), stated that as
a member of this body last year, she worked with Representative Boe to
get the legislation passed to create the Idaho Digital Academy that was
funded by J.A. & Kathryn Albertson Foundation for FY 2003/04. Dr.
Aikele stressed that the Idaho Digital Academy is directed at students in
grades 9-12 to enhance the opportunities for students who are attending
brick and mortar schools.
She explained that last summer she was approached by a company
called K12 led by Dr. William Bennett, former Secretary of Education
under Ronald Reagan. The company came about out of a frustration for
the ability to find a solid satisfactory curriculum for students. A team of
distinguished scholars were brought together to create, from the ground
up, a robust, vigorous, and well-designed curriculum that can eventually
be delivered to all students through numerous types of medium.
She stated she became intrigued with the virtual (web based) format that
can be easily delivered to all students regardless of their zip code. All
members of the curricular and management teams are leaders in their
respective fields (Attachment 1). Their express purpose is creating and
designing a curriculum that is unequaled, aligns with and exceeds all
state standards, and is defensible with test scores. Dr. Aikele indicated
that the design for implementation is family friendly and includes the
parent or another caring adult to be actively involved for a minimum of
five hours per day with each child who enrolls. The courses are delivered
into homes and supported by certified Idaho teachers and administration.
The Idaho Virtual Academy services only students in grades K-5 with
plans to add grade levels each year until all 12 grades are written and
offered.
Mrs. Heidi Scott, Teacher, IDVA, provided a brief history. She explained
that the IDVA was chartered by Butte County, teachers were hired in
August, and classes began September 3. She showed a chart indicating
that about 57% of IDVA’s students are in the Treasure Valley, but they
do have students in every “nook & cranny” of the state. The staff includes
20 general education teachers, 3 special education specialists, IT
director, operations director, federal programs director, and a business
manager. Approximately 43% of the students are entitled to Title I
benefits. The IDVA received a charter grant (federal funds through the
Department), and a J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Grant targeted for charter
and private schools for technology. Mrs. Scott explained they have
administered the IRI test twice this year, the direct math assessment
once, and they are gearing up for the ISAT through a local computer lab.
She pointed out that the teachers communicate through a monthly 2-3
day meeting/training and weekly conference calls. The teachers sponsor
monthly outings for the students each month, and produce a statewide
newsletter. The IDVA goals are to (1) allow students to meet their full
potential, (2) recruit and develop highly qualified teachers, and (3)
optimize educational productivity and fiscal responsibility.
Mrs. Vicki Scheufele, IDVA teacher from the Meridian area, said she
taught in Meridian and was involved in new teacher training. She stated
she was excited about the IDVA because she liked the idea of being a
pioneer in education, she was concerned about relying on technology for
education, and because the tag saying “one size fits all” isn’t true. She
explained that about 50 parents are assigned to each teacher, and they
spend the first month getting to know the parents, helping set up the
home classroom, computers and printers and working on lesson plans.
She pointed out that teachers hold a 30 minute, bi-weekly phone call with
the parents to look at progress and planning, where they are in the
various subject areas, what is going well, what the difficulties are, and
monitoring attendance. She said she can see on a daily basis where
students are, and if academic or behavioral problems are persistent she
can discuss ideas/options with colleagues. Parent discussion boards,
email, voice mail and PTA booster organizations are used to keep open
communications.
Mrs. Marci Moss, IDVA teacher and Extra Curricular Activities
Coordinator, said she taught grades 4, 6 and kindergarten in the Boise
School District. She explained she has 50 parents assigned to her, and
she mentors parents and networks with them to help plan monthly
activities. She mentioned some of the activities she has planned are
“rake up Boise”, a book and craft fair, a science fair, and trips to the
historical museum, the Gem State Gymnastics center, and the “Ugly
Duckling”. Students are welcome to attend any activities throughout the
state. She stated they must conduct the testing at a secure site and
explain the test results to parents. They encourage enrollment and are
putting together a parent handbook and training. She pointed out that
student hours are reported daily and students are required to have 25
hours of attendance weekly. They monitor the recommended level of
completion and give a grade promotion or book mark at the end of the
year. All email messages are printed and saved, and they hold two
conference calls with the parents per month. The teachers also have
staff development sessions for 2-3 days per month, and all will be
Microsoft trained at the end of this year.
Mrs. Jeanetta Asbury, parent, stated she has a BA in music and is
teaching her son, Daniel, and her daughter, Amanda. She said first she
had to develop a calendar and schedule courses, but found the sample
provided worked well. All of the supplies, a computer and a printer were
provided for her. She said she usually spends about three hours on
Saturday assembling materials and reviewing the teaching guides. She
stated that the children don’t spend a great deal of time on the computer
except for science and history, but she puts in a lot of computer time.
They start about 8:00 in the morning and finish between 4-5. She spends
about 30 minutes inputting the lesson assessments and attendance. She
explained she would like to see the attendance be more flexible, i.e. if
you teach 35 hours one week you can carry over hours in case of an
emergency or illness.
Mr. Daniel Asbury, second grade student, said he had just studied
about Roman Gods and Goddesses. He said he built a Roman fort in the
living room. An example of the history and science text was shown and it
was pointed out that the students can go to a history reading room for
stories relating to the content.
Ms. Amanda Asbury, fourth grade student, explained she had just
finished studying about Robinson Crusoe. She showed a drawing she
had made, and said this was fun to study and she learned that Robinson
Crusoe was a fictional character.
The following information was provided in response to questions:

IDVA is a public school and all students are welcome, but students
must enroll as they would at a public school, and parents must agree to
follow the goals of the school and the curriculum. She stressed that the
curriculum is very rigorous and may not be for all students and parents.
She explained that IDVA may be less expensive for parents than home
schooling and provides reassurance to parents teaching their children.

The IDVA is chartered through Butte County School District, but is
operated by a Board of Directors. The budget is not a line item under the
school district’s budget, but has its own budget. The district does have
oversight, and the attendance is reported to the Department. They are
funded using the same divisor as any other public school the same size.

The IDVA started with 998 students in September and they now have
955, which according to Representative Barraclough is a 4.3% dropout
rate.

K12 company has a person who looks at each states standards and
ensures their curriculum is aligned. Their curriculum exceeds Idaho’s
standards.

Parental involvement is one thing the IDVA has over public schools.
IDVA wants to attract as many students as possible in the next few years
while remaining fiscally responsible. They will be adding grades 6 and 7
next year and two additional grades annually until they offer K-12.

Testing for the IRI has improved since fall from 393 tested to 531. They
had 250 students at Level 3 in the fall and 322 at Level 3 on the winter
test. They tested 88% of their students in the winter, but there are
parents who do not trust the public schools and refuse to let their children
be tested. Their goal is to have 95% of their students takeing the tests.
The teachers act as testing coordinators and parents are given strategies
to raise scores. It was stated that public schools don’t offer the option of
not taking state tests, and Dr. Aikele said there are parents of public
school students who refuse to have their children take the tests.

The IDVA advertises their offerings and sends out information mailers.
Enrollment forms can be downloaded, and students must be assessed
before being accepted. When the statement was made that they are
taking the core students and creating fragmentation in the public schools,
Dr. Aikele explained that they take all students and have many students
with special needs. Chairman Tilman stressed IDVA does not offer one
service that can’t be provided by public schools. It is hoped that the same
innovations can be incorporated into all public schools.

It was clarified that their students are about half and half from public
schools and home schools.

ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chairman Tilman adjourned the meeting at 10:35 A.M.






DATE: February 25, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representative Naccarato
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in
sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of February 24, 2003 were reviewed. Representative Trail
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion carried by
voice vote.
PRESENTATION: Dr. Robert Hoover, President, University of Idaho (UI), provided an
overview of the Water Center Project. He mentioned that this project has
been in the news recently because of bond issues and a $10 million loan
to the UI Foundation from the UI cash management fund. He stated that
the cash management fund is invested to generate income and does not
contain general fund money. He said this loan did not impact the UI
budget. He explained that because of the economic downturn, UI is
delaying construction of a second building. He stressed that the Idaho
State Building Authority funding is in compliance with HCR 60.
Mr. Wayne V. Meuleman, Idaho State Building Authority (ISBA),
provided a “Comparison of the Key Bond Statistics for the Idaho Water
Center Project”. He compared the estimates provided in the Fiscal Note
for HCR 60 to the actual statistics of the Idaho Water Center bond issue
and provided a “Summary of Bond Sizing and Term” (Attachment 1). He
explained that the financing is divided between tax-exempt bonds
totaling $37,655.000 and taxable bonds totaling $17,070,000 for a total
of $54,725,000. Taxable bonds are necessary to accommodate the
extent of federal government and private users who plan to be housed in
the center. He explained that they went with 40-year bonds rather than
30-year bonds because of an opportunity to lock in low interest rates and
because the tax-exempt bonds are callable at par after 10 years,
allowing for re-amortization over 30 years or a shorter period. He stated
the ISBA objective is to comply with legislative requirements with the
lowest interest and best financing possible.
Mr. Roy Eiguren, Second Vice President, UI Foundation, pointed out
that the UI Foundation is a separate 501 (c) 3 organization, established
in 1970. It advises and assists the University of Idaho in attracting private
financial support to aid in the achievement of institutional goals. In the
last 13 years the Foundation has distributed $107,179,534 to the
University to fund a variety of programs (Attachment 2). Mr. Eiguren said
he represents a law firm that is involved in downtown development, and
that he is very comfortable that costs have been prudently incurred. He
provided a “Summary of UI Boise Initiative Expenses”. He stressed how
significant the Idaho Water Center Project is and provided a diagram of
the six different building pads that encompass six acres. He pointed out
that Site 1 is on hold, Site 2 is privately funded, and Site 3 is for the ISU
Health Center (Attachment 3). He explained that the cost of this project
will be spread as the buildings are built and leased and this is a normal
way to develop property of this sort.
Dr. Hoover said because the State Board of Education has deemed the
loan from the Foundation to UI was in violation of Board rules, the UI
Foundation will no longer be able to make transfers to UI. The Board will
hold a management review. UI will consolidate all of their education
facilities in the Treasure Valley into the Water Center. By delaying
building of the second building they will not incur a debt service. UI has
an AAA bond rating, and they have reached their debt maximum.
Responses to questions and concerns are as follows:

Numerous water research agencies were invited to participate in the
Water Center.

The economic impacts and the number of jobs generated from this
project have not been shared with the public and they should be.

ISBA will own the facility along with UI, Idaho Water Resources, and
the U.S. Forest Service. State and federal agencies are being
encouraged through legislation to own buildings rather than lease them.

Funds for the UI cash management fund come from interest generated
from student fees and auxiliaries and are generally used for deferred
maintenance.

Current office space downtown is not being used, so will this facility
impact that situation? This is the reason for phasing in the project and for
moving all of the UI facilities into one building. This center is the only
significant office building in downtown Boise and will consist of research
labs as well as office space.

It is a common practice for Universities to lease space to commercial
entities such as food services and student health facilities. They get the
Board of Regency’s approval and issue an RFP.

When asked to frame what the problem is with the $10 million loan, Dr.
Hoover explained that the Foundation was left with a considerable
financial issue and a Core Management Group was formed and made
the decision to make the loan. Loans require the State Board of
Education approval and before UI could inform the Board this became
public through a public records request. The Board is looking at this. Mr.
Gary Stivers
, Executive Director, State Board of Education, stated that
the Board will be reviewing the Financial and Management Practices
involved in this loan, and they will hire an independent reviewer and
outline the scope of the project. UI will be responsible for the cost of the
independent review.



Mr. Robin Dodson, representing Idaho State University, stated that
ISU’s president was unable to attend this meeting, but ISU favors this
partnership. It is hoped that Boise State University will join the project as
a full partner. When asked if ISU’s expansion into the Boise area is
critical to fulfill their mission and role, Mr. Dodson said “yes”. He clarified
this by saying that the relationships in the valley with hospitals and
medical centers are critical to address the crisis in the health care
profession.
RS13059 Representative Gagner presented RS13059 to the committee. He
referred to the interstate compacts with other states for medical, dental
and veterinary students, and the concern about how we can force these
students to return to Idaho to practice. He stated this legislation is a
“carrot” approach in which a rural physician incentive fund would be
established, and a fee would be assessed to those students preparing to
be physicians and are supported by the state through interstate
compacts. Representative Gagner said they estimate students would pay
$1,500 – $1,700 per year into the fund and could only be drawn out if
they come back to the state. The Board of Education could charge up to
8% according to this legislation which is modeled after legislation in
Montana.
MOTION: Representative Cannon made a motion to send RS13059 to print. The
motion carried by voice vote.
RS13025 Dr. Cliff Green, Idaho School Boards Association, introduced RS13025.
He said this legislation will create a timely, consistent notification process
when teachers are offered a contract with a different district. The
legislation will also allow districts more time for recruitment. This
legislation has been discussed with the Idaho Education Association and
the Idaho Association of School Administrators. When asked what the
penalty for not complying will be, Dr. Green said there would be no
change in penalty. He said it does not change the practices but adds a
process. Dr. Green clarified that most contracts are for 1-year.
MOTION: Representative Boe made a motion to send RS13025 to print.
SUBSTITUTE
MOTION:
Representative Kulczyk made a substitute motion to return RS13025 to
the sponsor, because he feels this is unnecessary if teacher contracts
are typically for 1-year. Representative Jones debated against the
substitute motion because he supports sending this to print and having a
full hearing on the issue. He also said contracts are usually negotiated in
March, and if teachers don’t notify the Superintendent until September
then the teacher is forced to stay or they have to find a replacement. The
substitute motion failed by voice vote. The original motion carried
and Representative Kulczyk asked to be recorded as voting “no”.
RS13012C1 Representative Roberts presented RS13012C1 to the committee. He
explained that this legislation will change the divisor for support units for
grades 4-12 by 1 student. He said there are substantial reasons for
keeping the class size small for grades K-3. Idaho Code bases support
unit funding on the size of the school district and the number of students
in each grade. He said this legislation does not direct school districts to
increase or decrease the size of a class, but gives them a justification to
spend less by adjusting class size by one. A discussion followed about
the fiscal impact not being properly reflected in the Statement of
Purpose. Representative Roberts agreed to change the Statement of
Purpose to reflect that $28 million currently flowing through the salary-based apportionment formula will instead flow to school districts as state
discretionary funds.
MOTION: Representative Lake made a motion to send RS13012C1 to print with a
revised Statement of Purpose. The motion carried by voice vote.
Representatives Andersen, Boe, Sayler, Jones and Trail wished to be
recorded as voting “no”.
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman adjourned the meeting at 10:15 A.M.






DATE: February 26, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representative Garrett
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 8:33 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of February 25, 2003 were reviewed. Representative
Andersen
made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion
carried by voice vote.
HB 189

MOTION:

Representative Trail made a motion to hold HB 189 in committee
because he will be introducing a new RS tomorrow to address this same
issue. The motion carried by voice vote.
HB 261 Representative Trail presented HB 261 to the committee and was quick
to point out that “this legislation has no impact on the General Fund”. He
explained that HB 261 will increase the fee paid for certification required
to hold professional positions in Idaho Public Schools and will provide
partial support for the Office of Certification. He indicated that the last fee
increase was made in 1987. This legislation will combine the efforts of the
Idaho’s MOST project and the Professional Standards Commission (PSC)
and is supported by the ISBA, IASA, and IEA.
PRO Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, Idaho Association of School
Administrators, spoke in support of HB 261. He stated that functions have
changed, and the IASA members are also payers of the fees. He
mentioned he had recommended a fee increase in 1990. When asked if
the fee increase covers all certificated personnel, Dr. Friend said “yes”.
He clarified that after FY 2004 the State Board will determine the fee rate
through the rule making process, and both the old and new language
refer to a 5-year fee.
PRO Dr. Bob West, Chief Deputy State Superintendent, Department of
Education, stated that the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the
Department support this legislation. He pointed out that the PSC was
established in 1969 through legislation and it was set up to be supported
by certification fees. The implementation of the State Board of Education
approved PSC strategic plan requires the revenue from the fee increase.
Dr. West explained that the administration and operations of the PSC
include investigations of all ethics violations by certificated educators,
hearings, teacher training standards, and conducting program reviews of
public and private colleges and universities. The PSC has major
responsibilities to evaluate and make recommendations to the State
Board of Education regarding all alternate route teaching permits for
those professionals without full certification. Dr. West stated that the
PSC’s efforts have been supplemented by the efforts of the Idaho’s
MOST project, and this legislation will allow the merging of the PSC and
Idaho’s MOST into one organization that would be more cost-effective,
efficient, and productive. Dr. West compared this fee structure to other
occupations and found it to be in line. He also explained that the
increased fees would support two full-time personnel from the MOST
project and some operating expenses.
In response to questions, Dr. West stated that the education
organizations will have input into the Transition Plan directing how the two
processes will blend, the mission remains the same, and students are the
beneficiaries of maximizing the preparation and quality of teachers. Seven
teachers serve on the PSC and review ethics violations and basically
police their own ­ it doesn’t seem to matter that the increase would come
directly from teachers. Chairman Tilman pointed out that the policy to fund
through fees is not changing.
PRO Ms. Patty Toney, Teacher and Policy Coordinator for Idaho MOST,
voiced her support for HB 261. She stated that the State Department of
Education established Idaho’s MOST (Maximizing Opportunities for
Students and Teachers) in 1998 to address teacher quality issues through
a grant from the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation and a grant from
the U.S. Department of Education. The funding for Idaho’s MOST will end
in August 2003, and this funding should be considered “seed” money that
has been used to make significant improvements in the way teachers are
prepared and supported throughout their careers. The PSC will be
responsible for maintaining what MOST has developed.



Ms. Toney outlined tasks completed by MOST:

With 250 stakeholders involved, they developed performance-based
standards in 38 content areas. Former certification standards were based
on course completion, while the new standards will ensure education
graduates are well prepared.

MOST has been working with the Department and the colleges/
universities to implement a test of teacher content knowledge (Praxis II)
as a pre-service requirement.

MOST stakeholder groups are finalizing teaching quality policy
recommendations in the following areas for performance-based (1) tiered
licensure structure; (2) professional development requirements; (3)
teacher compensation model(s); and (4) assessment process for
licensure advancement and renewal.

MOST has worked on alternative routes to teacher licensure. Ms.
Toney pointed out that MOST’s teaching quality recommendations align
well with the requirements of No Child Left Behind.

PRO Mr. Jim Hammond, Idaho’s MOST Chair, submitted written testimony
(Attachment 1).
PRO Mr. Jim Shackelford, Executive Director, Idaho Education Association,
stated that his organization does support this legislation. He said in the
past they have questioned whether fee increases were proper, but feel
this is the right time to increase fees. He stressed the importance of
performing ethically and adhering to the standards. The IEA believes the
work of MOST is valuable and future resources should be dedicated to
the PSC. Mr. Shackelford said that fee increases were discussed at many
locations and in many meetings ­ there is universal support.
PRO Ms. Janet Orndorff, Trustee for the Boise School Board, stated that the
Idaho School Board Association stands in support of HB 261. She said
she has been a member of both Idaho’s MOST and the PSC and the PSC
is operating in the red as far as services. She stressed that the PSC
members have felt for a long time that they have more work than can be
accomplished and this legislation will help provide additional resources.
She said she feels changing the funding source will not make a difference
in their mission.
PRO Ms. Randi McDermott, Office of the State Board of Education, spoke in
support of HB 261 and said setting the fee in rule rather than statute
allows of flexibility and is in line with other organizations. She explained
there are checks and balances in the system (OSBE and the Legislature).
Chairman Tilman pointed out that a fee change in rule must be approved
by both the House and the Senate. The OSBE suggested the language in
Line 30-33.
Representative Trail closed by saying the information has been well
covered by the various parties and once again emphasized that there is
no fiscal impact. Representative Kulczyk asked why the emergency
clause and Representative Trail said this will enable the process to begin
to help support the transition.
MOTION: Representative Jones made a motion to send HB 261 to the floor
with a “DO PASS” recommendation
. He explained he has worked with
MOST and this is a good project. Fees have not been raised in 15 years.
Representative Sayler spoke in support of the motion. Representative
Kulczyk spoke in opposition to HB 261, saying this is about raising fees to
hire two people from the MOST project. The motion carried by voice vote.
Representative Kulczyk wished to be recorded as voting “no”.
MOTION: Chairman Tilman called the committee’s attention to the revised
Statement of Purpose for RS 13012C1. Representative Jones made a
motion to accept the change to the fiscal impact for RS 13012C1.
Mr.
Tim Hill clarified that changing the divisor will change support units that
drive the salary-based apportionment. The motion carried.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman
Tilman adjourned the meeting at 9:23 A.M.






DATE: February 27, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and committee sign-in sheets.
Vice Chairman Lake called the meeting to order at 8:35 A.M., explaining
that Chairman Tilman had been delayed.
MOTION: The minutes of February 26, 2003 were reviewed. Representative
Rydalch
made a motion to accept the minutes as written, and the motion
carried.
SJM 101 Senator Goedde introduced SJM 101. He attended the Council of
States Governments West meeting last year in Lake Tahoe where a
similar memorial was passed. He said the average percentage of federal
land in the west is 52%, and Idaho has 62%. Originally the states were to
receive 5% from the sale of public lands for public schools, but changes
in federal policy have left the states at a disadvantage. He referred to the
APPLE Initiative that focuses on four sources of additional funding for
public education ­ revenue promised at statehood for the Permanent
School Trust fund, lost property tax revenue, natural resources royalties
and rents, and aggregation of our school trust lands.

This memorial suggests repayment of the loss of some $20 billion to be
spread across the 13 western states ­ Idaho specific numbers are $811
million in one time funding and $328 million in ongoing funding. Senator
Goedde was asked how realistic this is, and if the other 13 states are
also proposing similar legislation. He said other states are proposing
similar legislation, and if the 13 states work together he feels this may
get results.

MOTION: Representative Nielsen made a motion to send SJM 101 to the floor
with a “DO PASS” recommendation.
He said because of the budget
crunch, it is a great time to step up to the plate and influence other
states. Representative Rydalch spoke in favor of the motion, saying she
has been a part of an 8-state coalition that was successful in getting
Health and Welfare to do some things. The motion carried by voice
vote.
RS 13060C1 Representative Trail presented RS 13060C1, explaining this legislation
was before the committee earlier. Legislative Services recommended
drafting new legislation. He indicated that this legislation will provide an
additional option to school districts after July 1, 2005 to use school
district specific data rather than market value and county wide data. He
explained the large disparity in unemployment rates in his district. After
July 1, 2005 districts can use the data specified in SB 1474 or they can
use data from “free and reduced lunch rates” and the county per capita
income to determine the value index calculation. He stated it was difficult
to determine the fiscal impact, but Mr. Hill estimated a 20% increase if
the option is used.
MOTION: Representative Cannon made a motion to send RS 13060C1 to print.
The motion carried by voice vote.
RS 13042 Representative Lake introduced RS 13042, stating that this legislation
provides for the unified purchase of school buses and provides that the
state’s share of the transportation support program for bus purchases
shall be 85% of the cost of a “basic” bus. He said “basic” will be identified
in Rule. He indicated that the amount of savings indicated on the
Statement of Purpose has not been analyzed, and he will have better
figures when this comes back as a bill.
MOTION: Representative Kulczyk made a motion to send RS 13042 to print,
and the motion carried by voice vote.
RS 13099 Representative Sayler introduced RS 13099 to the committee,
explaining that this legislation will designate March 3 as “Read Across
Idaho Day”. He said there are numerous events planned by various
schools in Idaho to encourage parents to read to their children. He
mentioned talking with Nancy Larsen, 2000 Teacher of the Year, who
voiced her concern about parents not reading to their children. He closed
with a quote from Dr. Seuss, “adults are obsolete children.”
MOTION: Representative Block moved to send RS 13099 to print and move it
directly to the second reading calendar. The motion carried.
PRESENTATION: Mr. Jim Hammond, Chair of Idaho’s MOST and State Board of
Education member, briefed the committee on Idaho’s MOST (Maximizing
Opportunities for Students & Teachers). He stated that a lot of research
conducted in the 90’s identified three major factors in quality education:
class size, teacher quality, and family and home. He said MOST was
charged to look at teacher quality, and they received grants from the J.A.
and Kathryn Albertson Foundation and from the U.S. Department of
Education. MOST committees and task forces are designed to include
the diverse viewpoints of Idaho stakeholders to work collaboratively
toward the program’s mission: “… a competent, caring, qualified teacher
in every Idaho classroom.”



Mr. Hammond pointed out that the new performance-based standards
focus on competency by requiring teachers to pass the Praxis II test and
requiring longer internships before entering the classroom. He said we
have moved from a factory model to an individual model because of
standards and assessment. Mr. Hammond outlined Idaho’s MOST
accomplishments and future components of this project. He explained
the four proposed models: Tiered Licensure, Professional Development,
Middle Level Preparation, and Alternative Routes to Teacher Licensure
(Attachment 1). He pointed out that teachers are currently required to
complete six credit hours every five years to retain their certification, but
the new proposal will require professional development units relevant to
instruction. He stressed that MOST’s work does not criticize the work of
the many dedicated teachers, rather it recognizes the need to equip
teachers for the new model of education.

Mr. Hammond provided the following responses to questions and
concerns:

It was clarified that MOST’s work will finish this spring, and they will
turn over their work and their recommendations to the PSC. The
increase in certification fees will fund the PSC if legislation passes. It was
also pointed out that most of the $1.5 million grant money was spent on
travel to bring together the stakeholders who developed the standards.
Mr. Hammond said he was comfortable that the PSC would support the
same mission as outlined by MOST because they are trying to raise the
standards of their profession and will report to the Board.

When asked how this plan affects administrators, Mr. Hammond said
they had talked about standards for administrators, but MOST was
charged to focus on teacher quality. It was pointed out that you can have
quality teachers, but if they are put back in the same environment
nothing will change. Mr. Hammond agreed with this concern and said
MOST will be recommending that this effort needs to be addressed. It
was mentioned that the term “good building administrator” is disturbing ­
what about the children and the teacher? Mr. Hammond agreed
administrators need to be more. Through the performance-based model,
teachers can provide a leadership role while staying in the classroom.

When asked if the Board has a plan to meet the NCLB requirement of
states having qualified teachers in every American classroom by the
2005-2006 school year, Mr. Hammond replied that he was not sure we
can get there that soon, especially with the budget constraints.

In response to concerns about the IEA not supporting these efforts, Mr.
Hammond stated that the President of the IEA was a member of MOST
and they had supported this effort.

Chairman Tilman again voiced his frustration that the Board is not taking
this opportunity to look at the way we do business ­ they are tinkering
with small parts but not evaluating the big picture. This is a perfect time
to step back and evaluate how services are delivered, especially in light
of technology and other exciting opportunities. Rob Perez, Banker and
MOST member, stressed that private enterprise is not perfect and this
country is starved for supervision and leadership. He assured the
committee that management enterprise has been discussed. Dr. Mike
Friend indicated that the IASA has used this opportunity to accomplish
the same goals for administrators. He feels that yearly progress reports
will drive school administrator evaluations. Chairman Tilman voiced his
concern that the School Boards who control the purse strings are not
even in the ballpark.
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman adjourned the meeting at 10:33 A.M.






DATE: February 28, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representative Trail
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in
sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 8:32 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of February 27, 2003 were reviewed. Representative
Kulczyk
made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. The motion
carried by voice vote.
HB 263 Representative Garrett introduced HB 263. She stated this is a simple
bill the merely makes a name changes from “Idaho Association of
Trustees” to “Idaho School Boards Association”. She explained this is an
important change to correctly identify the entity required to sit on the
Professional Standards Commission. The Commission plays an
important role in implementing the standards, and it is important that the
Idaho School Boards Association (ISBA) be a member. Chairman
Tilman asked when the actual name change occurred, and
Representative Garrett said she would have to defer the question to an
ISBA member. .
PRO Ms. Janet Orndorff, Trustee, Boise School Board and representing the
ISBA, spoke in favor of HB 263. Ms. Orndorff was asked if she feels
there is a conflict if the name is changed here but not throughout Section
33, Idaho Code. She said she is guessing that when this legislation was
passed, they wanted school trustees to be included, and she indicated
she will check on this. She clarified that in the ISBA’s Articles of
Incorporation the term used is “Idaho School Boards Association”. When
asked if all school districts are represented in the ISBA, she said she
thought all but two are.
MOTION: Representative Rydalch made a motion to send HB 263 to the floor
with a “DO PASS” recommendation. The motion carried by voice
vote.
Representative Garrett will carry HB 263 on the floor.
HB 270 Representative Eberle introduced HB 270 to the committee. He stated
that this legislation makes a simple change to adjust for inflation. He
pointed out that education is the biggest business in many small
communities, primarily funded by state funds, and managed by school
board trustees. The law, as amended in 1992, sets the limit of $15,000
as the amount the board of trustees can spend without going through the
bid process. This legislation would increase that amount to $25,000. He
stressed this does not mean that the local board of trustees can’t go out
on bid, but in the case of an emergency it allows more flexibility. He
stated that the second part of this legislation removes the requirement
that the State Board of Education must give their approval if no bids are
received. When asked how often bids go to out-of-state bidders,
Representative Eberle said his district tries to buy locally, but on bus
purchases and for some emergencies they don’t have a choice.
PRO Mr. Terry Schwartz, Trustee, Butte County and representing the ISBA,
voiced his support for this legislation. He said this amount has increased
from $1,000 in 1964 to $15,000 in 1992. He polled the districts to see
what types of things they are buying, and they mentioned items like food,
milk, paper supplies, copiers, track equipment, and repairing equipment.
He said most local boards have policy requiring that they use the bid
process. He mentioned this increase will help avoid the high cost of bid
protests. He clarified that the trustees would still have the flexibility to
look for the lowest price, and because they are responsible to their local
patrons, they will not try and create a non-competitive process.
PRO Dr. Bob West, Chief Deputy, State Department of Education, spoke in
favor of HB 270 and submitted written support (Attachment 1). He
explained that the State Department feels this legislation will allow the
school district and charter school governing boards to be held to similar
purchasing requirements placed on other local subdivisions of
government, i.e. County Commissioners and City Councils. He said this
legislation will also allow the same public policy to be applied to school
boards when no bids are received.
PRO Ms. Randi McDermott, Office of the State Board of Education, stated
that her office lends support for this legislation, and they do not feel it is
necessary for the school boards to report to them when no bids are
received.
MOTION: Representative Bauer made a motion to send HB 270 to the floor
with a “DO PASS” recommendation. The motion carried by voice
vote.
Representative Eberle will carry HB 270 on the floor.
PRESENTATION: Mr. Gary Stivers, Executive Director, Office of the State Board of
Education, was introduced, and Chairman Tilman explained that he had
asked Mr. Stivers to brief the committee on their reorganization efforts to
see if we can find a way to accommodate this effort and still follow the
dollars. Mr. Stivers outlined the intent of the Board to reorganize
administrative and support services for the Office of the State Board,
Professional-Technical Education, and Vocational Rehabilitation
(Attachment 2). He provided a briefing paper outlining how they arrived
at the current organizational structure and how, as a team, they
developed a Process Improvement Plan. He described how they were
sharing a receptionist, but because each organization has a separate
appropriation, the legislative auditors had a problem with this. He said
the model they proposed to JFAC was to have one appropriation bill with
separate appropriations, but found this would not work because the
funds would go to the Division of Professional/Technical, but not trickle
down. They have developed a compromise they believe answers JFAC’s
concerns that will keep the appropriations separate, but through intent
language provide some flexibility, (Page 5, Attachment 2).
When asked if this proposal will result in an increase or decrease in
employees, Mr. Stivers said they have already experienced the decrease
and they are just trying to make better use of their resources. In
response to a question about combining divisions, Mr. Stivers said he
feels this might be a problem because of moving positions from one
division to another. Chairman Tilman pointed out that by managing
budgets in certain ways, it allows the Legislature, as a policy group, to
target funds.



Mr. Stivers was asked if he is comfortable in going forward with intent
language, and he stated they want to move ahead and maintain
services. He also said they are not aware of how to accomplish this
through statute, but they are certainly open to suggestions. Mr. Stivers
was encouraged to pursue making this more permanent from a policy
standpoint. Chairman Tilman said he appreciates JFAC giving this
committee the opportunity to look at this policy change, and he hopes all
agencies will follow the Board’s example and look for efficiencies.

Dr. Mike Rush, Administrator, Idaho Division of Professional-Technical
(IDPT), stated that the IDPT is comfortable with this reorganization. He
pointed out that his division strives for efficiency. He still believes that
IDPT still needs an advocacy. He pointed out that if this committee
approves of this, a letter of support would be appreciated.
Ms. Maggie Blackstead, Interim Administrator, Idaho Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation, said she believes this reorganization will allow
them to focus on their strengths, deal with their weaknesses, and share
training opportunities and expertise.
ADJOURN: There being no further business, Chairman Tilman adjourned the
meeting at 10:40 A.M.






DATE: March 3, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 8:32 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of February 28, 2003 were reviewed. Representative
Bradford
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion
carried.
RS 12745 Mr. Darrell Deide introduced RS 12745, explaining that this legislation
will amend the bond levy equalization legislation, SB 1474. He pointed out
that the amendment will allow the Legislature and the Joint Finance and
Appropriation Committee to base their decisions on actual numbers, and
the Department and the budget folks will be available for a hearing once
this legislation is printed.
MOTION: Representative Boe made a motion to send RS 12745 to print. The
motion carried by voice vote.
RS 13112 Representative Lake presented RS 13112, stating that this legislation is
in response to the lengthy floor debate on HB 188. He said many
members felt repealing the Early Retirement Incentive was a great idea,
but that it should be phased in over a two-year period.
MOTION: Representative Kulczyk made a motion to send RS 13112 to print
after asked about sending RS 13112 to the second reading calendar
since we had already debated this issue in committee. Chairman Tilman
explained that the next RS also deals with the Early Retirement Incentive,
and he plans to get both RS’s printed and then have a subcommittee look
at them. The motion carried by voice vote.
RS 13124 Representative Snodgrass introduced RS 13124 to the committee. He
indicated that this legislation also addresses concerns voiced during the
debate about administrators and supervisory staff driving up the costs of
this program. He said RS 13124 proposed to leave the program in place
for teachers, but exclude administrators and supervisory staff from
participating.
MOTION: Representative Nielsen made a motion to send RS 13124 to print.
The motion carried by voice vote.
HB 271 Representative Tilman presented HB 271 to the committee. He stressed
that it is Idaho’s policy to offer different kinds of public schools, and that
the Legislature encourages charter schools. He said the intent of this
legislation is to clarify the Legislative intent and make the process easier
and run smoother. Representative Tilman outlined the following changes:

Page 1, Lines 24-25 will provide more latitude for negotiation; Line 29 will
facilitate replicating techniques that work well. Page 2, Lines 26-27 clarify
that charter schools can identify their attendance area. Page 4, Section
33-5207, Lines 31-38, will simplify the appeal process and allow for a
three member panel to review the evidence rather than just one hearing
officer. The panel will include one member appointed by the
superintendent of public instruction, one designated by the persons who
have appealed the decision, and the third will be selected upon mutual
agreement. Page 5, Line 40 encourages entities to sit down and negotiate
and provides an opportunity to correct violations.

Chairman Tilman clarified the following for the committee:

Use of virtual distance learning and on-line learning was included in the
original intent language to encourage its use ­ there are three charter
schools using distance learning in Idaho, and it is hoped that we
incorporate its use into traditional schools.

The time limit used when a charter school fails to remedy a situation is
set when the charter is granted. If violations are not corrected and the
school is convicted of violating the law, this is a legal process and the
court will determine the conviction.

Oversight for a charter school is spelled out in the charter by the
authorizing entity. Charters are public records, and the Department has
long-term oversight.

Charter schools are not legally categorized as a district because they
are not a taxing district, but for funding and reporting purposes they are
considered a separate district.

The chair for the appeal panel is not spelled out in the legislation. The
appeal process has only been used once or twice in the past and the cost
has been minimal.

This legislation, if adopted, will go through Rule to outline specific
implementation requirements or clarifications.

CON Mr. Bob Henry, Chairman, Nampa School Board, spoke in opposition to
HB 271. He stated the SOP indicates this legislation clarifies the intent,
but he feels it changes the legislative intent and the appeal process. He
stated that 33-5202 is clear and was used to approve one charter school
in Nampa and allowed the Nampa Board of Trustees to deny a second
charter school. He opposes the language change on Page 1, Line 24
because he feels it shifts responsibility from charter schools to public
schools. Mr. Henry said the Nampa Board of Trustees is also concerned
with the proposed changes to the appeal process because the school
board is not represented on the three-member panel. He said in their
case, the hearing officer determined that the charter contract did not meet
all seven items. Mr. Henry responded to committee questions and
concerns as follows:

When asked if loss of revenue or what a student will learn drove the
Board’s decision not to approve the second charter school, he said
neither ­ the second charter school did not meet Idaho Code, and they
did not follow the process. Nampa’s list of students for the second charter
school has been around for four years, and he believes many of those
students no longer plan to attend.

It was pointed out that Section 33-5202 encourages innovative teaching
methods, and this is what the Legislature has wanted for years. Mr. Henry
was asked to explain how this harms public schools, and why they want to
discourage opportunities for the public schools to do better? He said he
feels Nampa is doing the right thing. He said there is very little about a
charter school that makes them look like a public school.

On Page 4, could the school board be the third party on the appeals
panel? Mr. Henry said “they could be”.

Mr. Henry was asked if his school board has discussed how they can
accommodate those students wanting to enroll in a second charter
school, and he said they have not discussed this at a formal Board
meeting.

When asked if any of the seven items are not good policy, Mr. Henry
said “no”, and he would not object to having these put in existing statute
for public schools.

When asked if a charter school is a public school, he responded “yes”.

CON Mr. Terry Schwartz, President, Idaho School Boards Association (ISBA),
spoke in opposition to HB 271. He stressed that the ISBA recognizes
charter schools as another public school choice available to parents, and
they have identified specific provisions in their “ISBA 2003 Positions and
Resolutions”. They are concerned about the changes proposed for the
appeal process because they feel the process is working through the
hearing officer. He pointed out that his school district was the first to grant
a charter, revoke a charter and then issue a charter to the Virtual
Learning Academy. He voiced a concern about local funds being sed to
pay for the appeal process. He also voiced a concern about removing the
words “meet” and “violated” on Page 5 because this “muddies the water”
and seems to relay the message that as long as “you’re not caught, you’re
not convicted”. The ISBA would like a committee to review all changes to
charter legislation prior to or in conjunction with the legislative review
scheduled for FY 2005.
When asked how the proposed changes will change oversight, Mr.
Schwartz said legislative changes should benefit someone, and he feels
local funds will be spent to prove a violation. It was pointed out that if
accusing someone of a violation, you’ve got to prove they are breaking
the law. It was asked what the school boards are doing when traditional
schools are not following the statutes, and Mr. Schwartz said they go over
the requirements at school board meetings, and if not being followed they
will lose federal dollars.
PRO Mr. Steve Adams, Charter School Administrator representing himself and
his four children, spoke in favor of HB 271, stating he has been involved
in two charter schools in Eastern Idaho. He explained that charter schools
meet the needs of the minority, not the majority, and they drive
improvement through competition. He said charter schools have two
authors ­ the State Board of Education and the local school boards. He
said charter schools are forced to dramatically change their intent just to
get the school district’s approval, which leads to a negative relationship
from the beginning. He mentioned that charter schools serve all students
in their attendance are and if they are providing a statewide service then
their area should be statewide. He said you cannot expect to have good
public education that serves individuals until you have true, free market
choice. Mr. Adams was specifically asked about the charter in his district
that was to solve problems with special education students. Mr. Adams
said they serve children with special needs differently, and they
understood that the school district will look at this approach to possibly
adopt some of these techniques. When asked if there is anything in the
changes that will prohibit the authorizing entity from revoking their charter
he said “no”.
PRO Ms. Dawn Justice, Lobbyist for IACI, spoke in support of HB 271. She
said she specifically remembers when the original legislation was drafted
that the appeals process needed attention. She said there were many
discussion about the local school district being the approving authority.
She was asked if it would be possible for IACI to come up with a better
way to take the school district out of the conflict, she said IACI doesn’t
consider themselves to be experts and that all stakeholders are needed at
the table.
MOTION: Representative Kulczyk made a motion to send HB 271 to the floor
with a “DO PASS” recommendation.
Representative Naccarato said he
would be voting no because he has a problem with the appeal procedure.
Representative Cannon debated against the motion because he feels the
appeals process is stacked. The motion carried by voice vote.
Representatives Naccarato, Andersen, Sayler, Jones, Trail and
Cannon wished to be recorded as voting nay.
MOTION: Representative Lake moved to carry over HB 272 to the March 4,
2003 agenda
. The motion carried by voice vote.
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman adjourned the meeting at 10:10 A.M.






DATE: March 4, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 8:32 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of March 3, 2003 were reviewed. Representative Bradford
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion carried.
HB 272 Dr. Bob Haley, Legislative Liaison, State Department of Education,
presented HB 272. He stated that this legislation would allow student
directory information to be released to military recruiters for military
recruiting purposes pursuant to the requirements of federal law. The
NCLB and the National Defense Authorization Act require that any school
receiving federal funds must release student directory information when
requested. He stressed that there is a provision for parents to opt out of
this requirement. Dr. Haley pointed out that Page 1 of this legislation
deals with what a district cannot do with public information, and Page 2,
Subsection 9, provides for student directory information to be released to
military recruiters. He indicated that this legislation has been approved by
the State Board of Education. Dr. Haley clarified that names, addresses
and “listed” phone numbers only are released for high school students.
Parents are notified through students, written parental notice is required
to opt out, and the general public cannot get a copy of this information.
MOTION: Representative Barraclough made a motion to send HB 272 to the
floor with a “DO PASS” recommendation
. Representative Sayler said
he is opposed to the motion because of a philosophical difference and
has seen students being harassed by recruiters. The motion carried by
voice vote, and Representatives Sayler, Boe and Lake voted “nay”.
Representatives Trail and Barraclough will sponsor HB 272.
RS 13101C1 Representative Block introduced RS 13101C1. It was pointed out that
once printed, RS 13101C1 will be referred to the Business Committee.
Representative Block explained that Idaho franchise owners can be
required by an out-of-state franchiser to travel out-of-state and hire an
out-of-state lawyer to litigate their disputes in another state. This
legislation will allow Idaho residents to litigate their disputes in Idaho
under Idaho law.
MOTION: Representative Boe made a motion to send RS 13101C1 to print and
then refer it to the Business Committee. The motion carried.
RS 13114 Representative Kulczyk introduced RS 13114, stating this legislation will
give a local school board the freedom to choose to negotiate with the
local union by changing “shall” to “may” on Line 11. Representative
Andersen asked if this legislation was requested by a group of school
districts, and Representative Kulczyk said the legislation was originally
introduced by Rod Beck in 1995. Representative Anderson questioned
the need for this legislation because when he represented 15 different
school districts, four chose not to negotiate. Representative Kulczyk
stated that as he reads the existing legislation, it is mandatory.
MOTION: Representative Cannon made a motion to send RS 13114 to print. A
roll call vote was requested, and the motion carried by an 11 to 7
vote (Attachment 1, Roll Call Sheet).
RS 13035 Representative Eskridge presented RS 13035 to the committee. He
referred to the partnership between the State and the school districts (HB
315). He explained this legislation clarifies that expenditures made to
abate unsafe or unhealthy conditions in public school facilities by repair,
renovation or replacement are and have been ordinary and necessary
expenses. Representative Eskridge was asked what kind of repairs are
being done that are not ordinary and necessary, and if money is being
spent on repairs not specifically for “unsafe or unhealthy” conditions?
Representative Eskridge said there have been some concerns, and this
legislation further clarifies the intent.
MOTION: Representative Nielsen made a motion to send RS 13035 to print.
The motion carried.
HB 300 Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director, Idaho School Boards Association
(ISBA), introduced HB 300, explaining that this issue was identified at the
ISBA convention as a resolution for ratification. The ISBA circulated a
survey to determine how many contracts have been breached in the last
three years, and school districts responding reported that 62% of their
contracts were breached. He said many of these positions are held by
highly qualified teachers which creates a real hardship for the districts to
replace these teachers at the last minute. This legislation amends 33-513
to provide for needed notification to facilitate timely notice of personnel
changes between districts, allowing for timely replacement. He indicated
that the ISBA discussed this legislation with the IEA and the IASA, and
recommended changes were addressed.
Dr. Green responded to concerns and questions as follows:

This legislation does not create an unfunded mandate.

The district can remedy a breach of contract by (1) suing the teacher,
(2) filing a complaint with the Professional Standards Commission (PSC)
or (3) refusing to let the teacher out of the contract. All of these options
can create bad relationships, be lengthy, and be costly. The ISBA’s
position is that the teachers have signed a contract, and districts rely on
these contracts. If the district breaks a contract the teachers are entitled
to due process which is much more arduous.

This legislation does not apply if teacher is leaving and going out-of-state or not going to another teaching position.

The original legislation was written so teachers would do the
reporting/notification, not the districts, but was rewritten throughout the
negotiations with other organizations.

Concerns were voiced about the legislation enabling two parties acting
in bad faith, the teachers being hurt, the teachers not notified of the offer
before district officials discuss the offer, and adversarial positions being
worsened. Dr. Green said the ISBA sees this as a process to enable
communications to take place, and the districts are concerned about
staffing the classrooms when notice is given late in August.

PRO Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, Idaho Association of School
Administrators, spoke in support of HB 300, stating it establishes a
protocol to address issues for those who have signed contracts. School
Board of Trustees can release a teacher from a contract for family
reasons. He clarified that the breach occurs when a contract has been
signed and the teacher takes a job with another district, and a breach in
Idaho may result in a revocation by another state. He said the
Professional Standards Commission process can take months. With this
legislation, teachers will still have due process rights and hostile
environment rights. He indicated that this must be an issue since the
Legislature has passed rules for those hired after August 1.
Mr. Jason McKinley, Director of Governmental Affairs, Idaho Education
Association (IEA), was asked by Chairman Tilman what his position is on
HB 300, and he replied he is taking a “position of neutrality”. He
explained that the IEA did meet with the ISBA, and they objected to the
original legislation. The ISBA did listen and made changes. He said the
IEA recognizes the difficulty districts have in getting qualified teachers
when notified in August. He said his organization has many good
relationships as well as adverse, and if this legislation creates problems,
they will be back next year.



When asked about continuing contracts and what time period a teacher is
not under contract, Mr. McKinley explained that a teacher receives a
Letter of Intent around May 15 to determine whether they will return the
next year, and then the contract is signed around June 15. Contracts then
run from June 15 that year through August 31 of the next year. He said
the IEA does not consider the Letter of Intent a contract. It was asked if a
teacher has not signed the Letter of Intent or the contract and is looking at
a position in another district, will that district notify the teacher’s district.
Dr. Friend said there would not be an obligation to notify the district.

MOTION: Representative Boe made a motion to send HB 300 to the floor with a
“DO PASS” recommendation
.
SUBSTITUTE
MOTION:
Representative Kulczyk made a substitute motion to hold HB 300 in
committee
, because if there is a problem, he feels this legislation will not
solve it. Representative Cannon spoke in support of the substitute motion
because exit policies should be negotiated at the time of the contract, and
teachers and superintendents need to communicate and work this out.
Representative Boe debated against the substitute motion, pointing out
that the school boards feel they need a process and the IEA and IASA are
both supportive. Representative Jones debated against the substitute
motion, saying that in a perfect world integrity would prevail. He said this
doesn’t penalize one over another, and no one testified against this.
Representative Andersen debated against the substitute motion, stating
he generally argues against the school boards, but he feels with all the
changes coming it may be of value to know talents and training are in
demand ­ this is not detrimental to teachers. Representative Rydalch
spoke in favor of the substitute motion because this legislation could be
detrimental to teachers. Representative Eberle spoke in favor of the
substitute motion, stating he is in favor of solving the problem, but not
sure this is the way to do it. Representative Nielsen spoke in favor of the
substitute motion because he hates to preclude teachers from shopping.
Representative Lake debated in favor of the substitute motion and said in
his cattle business once a contract is signed the negotiations are over. He
said having a contract with the district should preclude teachers from
shopping that year. Representative Sayler opposed the substitute motion,
saying he can see the problem in the district but one of the main reasons
teachers leave is because of administration. It was clarified that this same
language could be negotiated into their contracts.
VOTE: A roll call vote was taken, and the substitute motion to hold HB 300
in committee passed by a 12 to 6 vote (Attachment 2, Roll Call
Sheet).
HB 301 Because of a request from the sponsor, Representative Naccarato
made a motion to move HB 301 to Wednesday, March 5. The motion
carried.
ADJOURN: The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 A.M.






DATE: March 5, 2003
TIME: 8:34
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
GUESTS: See attached sheet
HB 301 Rep. Gagner presented HB 301. There is a growing problem of a lack
of physicians in all rural areas of the country. This bill targets those
physicians whose education has been paid for in large part by the State of
Idaho, since we have no medical schools. These graduating physicians
need a reason to come back to Idaho. The bill sets up the guide lines and
leaves it to the State Board of Education and the Board of Regents of the
University of Idaho to set the exact details. For example, currently,
students enrolled in the WWAMI (University of Washington) medical,
dental, or veterinary programs pay $11,300 per year, the State of Idaho
pays the remaining of their $44,300 tuition per year. There are 18 new
students enrolled in each three-year program every year. This bill levies a
surcharge against all students in this program, up to 8% per year. (The
State also has programs at the University of Utah and one other school.)
Rep. Gagner said there are about 100 students, and if they each
contributed $1300 per student, this would put $126,000 in the fund
annually. If a doctor comes back to the state and goes to a rural area,
they would receive up to $50,000 by the end of year five, which would pay
all of their student fees. It is up to the Board to set the criteria. Hospitals
or communities would have to submit a statement of need, and once
approved, the Board would look for a match. Once selected, the
physician would sign a contract for 6 months. For every six-month period
served, a portion of the debt would be paid off. It would start at a smaller
amount and increase as the five year mark approached, at which time, the
$50,000 would have been paid.

This program is based on a successful program in Montana which has
many similar characteristics to Idaho.

In questioning, Rep. Gagner stated there is no subsidy for the doctor’s
practice to assure sufficient income.

Dr. Jim Blackman, Assistant Dean of the University of Washington
School Medicine, spoke in favor of HB 301. He lives in Middleton. The
Federal Government has had programs like this for years. He explained
that it costs more at the U of U program because it is a four-year program,
the WWAMI is only a three-year program. He listed reasons why a doctor
stays in a rural area. 1. He or she comes from a rural area and
appreciates the life-style. 2. The spouse is from a rural area­very
important. 3. Role models as they go through school. 4. Debt load. The
larger the amount of debt, the less likely rural practice will be chosen. He
felt a surcharge of $1000 is reasonable, but expressed concern if it got
too high. He said it is one thing to get a doctor into a community, it is
another thing to keep him or her.

In answer to questions, he said students are leery of a requirement
that they must come back to Idaho, and such requirements don’t seem to
work. There would have to be a viable practice and a need if the student
wanted to go to a particular area. He also said he thought 8% was too
high, but the State Board has oversight to set the rate. He agreed that his
chart just shows the debt after four years, it does not cover residency. He
said several physicians in a local residency program have a debt load of
$150,000. There wouldn’t be a pay-out for seven years, until the students
entering medical school this fall have graduated. Montana makes sure
they have the money to guarantee the payment of $50,000 before they
sign the doctor on.

In further questioning he stated the national definition of rural is a
population of 25,000 or less. However there are communities in Idaho
such as Lewiston, Idaho Falls, and Twin Falls that are underserved. He
said the bill doesn’t address specialists either.

He said that Idaho students in this program would get first chance at
the pay-back provisions. If there weren’t enough in that group, then the
next group would be Idaho students who paid for their own schooling.

When the issue was raised about those from other states applying,
Rep. Gagner said those who pay into the fund will get first choice to
withdraw from the fund. It will be a future decision if we open the fund up
to others. He agreed that “underserved” might be placed after “rural” for
those who could qualify for these funds.

In answer to questions, Dr. Blackman said Alaska has such a high
rate of return of its students, because “Alaska kids like to go back to
Alaska.” Montana opens their plan to those not on the WWAMI program if
they can’t find enough doctors in that program. In further questioning, he
said that basically Idaho pays the out-of-state tuition for its students at the
University of Washington.

Chairman Tilman pointed out that the ratio is the same for the state’s
part in the costs of a student at one of the Idaho universities­the state
pays over 70%.

MOTION Rep. Cannon moved to send HB 301 to the floor with a Do Pass. By
voice vote the motion passed, with Rep. Kulczyk voting nay.
HB 287 Rep. Tilman presented HB 287. He said he had received numerous
complaints that there are too many school administrators, and that their
number keeps growing faster than the school population grows. He said
technology should help districts operate more efficiently. The law now
states that certain monies must be used for administration. If a school
doesn’t use these funds, they lose them at the end of the year. This bill
allows the local school districts to keep any funds they save and use them
where they wish. The average number of ADA (Average Daily
Attendance) students per administrator in the state is 209. Locally, it
ranges from 318 per student to 50 per student. In this bill, the multiplier is
reduced from .075 to .065, and the “use it or lose it” clause is stricken.
The districts will not be given as much money for administration, but if
they save any of the administration money, they will be able to keep it.
The intent is to encourage districts to operate more efficiently in
administration and use the savings elsewhere.

In reply to questions, Rep. Tilman said he got his number of
administrators from the published reports by the Idaho Association of
School Districts. In response to who is an administrator, Rep. Tilman said
it would be superintendents, principals, and assistant superintendents and
principals. Secretaries would be “classified” jobs. He agreed it would be
better to state on the SOP that this is a reallocation, not a savings. By
definition there are currently 11,102.2 administrators in the state. In some
districts superintendents are doing other jobs­in Orofino, the
superintendent also teaches and drives a school bus, yet the pay is for a
superintendent.

Bedford Boston, a retired administrator from Wilder spoke against HB
287
. He said the formula for administrators has never been adequate for
smaller districts. Wilder is the poorest district in the state with a large
non-English speaking population. They take money from areas to pay
their superintendent, elementary principal, and high school principal. As
Superintendent, he did many jobs. The new “no child left behind” and
state standards are costing the districts a huge amount of time and
money. The burden falls on the principals. Seventy per cent of his time in
his last two years dealt with the Idaho Standards. Administrators haven’t
been trained in this program. He agrees with consolidation in theory, but
principals are over burdened. This bill could reduce the potential for
districts to meet the standards.

In response to questions, he said he would not be in favor of all money
being discretionary. He firmly believes that education for our kids should
be driven by the standards. If all decisions are left to local control, there
won’t be any standards in Idaho. Some decisions need to be at the local
level, but not the standards and achievement. He agreed that this bill
would help local school boards, but only if the “pie” stayed the same size.

Bob Haley, of the State Department of Education, spoke against HB
287. He said he wishes the bill was broken into two parts. He doesn’t
like the reduction in allocation of administration. In 1989, local lawsuits
were filed against the State. There was a lot of division. In 1993,
legislation was introduced that had the support of 90% of the
superintendents. New formulas and an increase in budget were given.
Prior to 1995, money was to a large part discretionary, and students were
not being treated the same across the state. Allocation numbers were put
in statute. The number .075 was put in for administrators in every district.
It was then discovered that districts with less than 40 support units could
not meet accreditation. Half an administrator was added to those
districts. Larger districts were allowed to use 20% of their administration
funds for non-certified people­technology directors, business managers,
etc. A couple of school districts still could not meet certification, so
another law was passed giving them an opportunity to appeal to the State
Board if they couldn’t meet certification. These districts were allocated
additional administration funds. There are three or four districts still on
this program.

Mr. Haley said HB 287 will increase the work load of the Department
of Education. If discretionary funding is increased, the number of
administrators will go up, not down. In 1997, there were 54 more
administrators than allocated. When discretionary funds went up in 2001-2002, there were 109 more administrators than allocated. Discretionary
funds are now tight, and there are only 69 more administrators than
allocated.

He suggested reasons for the growth of administrators from the
Meridian District. Meridian built Eagle High School and was required to
have 5 administrators­1 for every 400 students. Two new middle schools
have 2 administrators each, and 8 new elementary schools have 1
principal each for 500 to 800 students. In addition there are two
alternative schools with principals for 150 students in each one. There is
a waiting list of students for the alternative high schools. Alternative
students need a full-time administrator,

Nampa has opened four or five new schools, too. As students shift
from districts around the state, buildings have not been closed. Pocatello
did close a school and decrease administration. He said as a high school
principal he put in 11 hour days plus he covered night time activities on a
rotation basis. He asked the bill be held in Committee.

In questioning, Mr. Haley said he felt a reduction in allocation will
increase the appeal process. He said most high schools use the
Northwest Association of Accreditation which requires 1 administrator per
400 students. Idaho State accreditation has been under revision these
last few years to more align with academic results. It won’t be complete
until the standards are in place. He said larger districts are running at the
400 to 1 ratio, but smaller districts have a smaller ratio.

In further questioning Mr. Haley said he did not expect this bill to
impact accreditation, as it is important to local communities. They will use
discretionary funds for accredation. There used to be a problem in that
Universities only accepted students from accredited high schools, but with
the growth of home schooling, that requirement has gone away. He said
he would oppose any number lower than .075. He said the .065 number
would reduce the number of administrators by 62 or 63. He said the
allocation is for money, not the number of administrators. If the district
goes to a fewer number of administrators, there can be problems.

In response to comments about districts sharing administrators, and
resistance to change, Mr. Haley said as an administrator, he was a leader
in change. He said there are other ways to accomplish savings. There is
a need to close buildings, but that brings an emotional outcry. He said as
a Superintendent, he got few complaints on academic programs, but a lot
about the condition of the playing fields, buildings, uniforms, buses, etc.
School trustees bow to pressure. It is a fine balance between allocation
and discretionary monies.

Janet Orndorff, a Boise School Trustee, and President Elect of the
Idaho School Boards Association, spoke against HB 287. She held up a
long list of the initiatives required by State and Federal regulations. She
said all the current administrators are needed to implement all of these
changes. Teachers will be overwhelmed if the leaders are taken away.
She said that districts need all of these administrators to see that each
child meets or exceeds the state standards. Administrative allowance is a
key component to meeting the new standards. There is also a need for
professional development for the administrators. She mentioned the great
results at Taft Elementary in Boise, and said it took leadership to do this.
They are looking at reallocating time in their six Title schools. The scores
have been going up in those schools due to leadership at the school and
district level. They can’t do this without administrators. They have a grant
to help principals in other schools use what they have learned. They will
also share this information with anyone else in the state. In 1994, Boise
started cutting administrative positions. A 1999 study on management
from an outside source criticized these cuts­it said they were too much.
She said this bill will only create more of a problem, and schools will never
see the discretionary 9.5 million.
Dr. Mike Friend, of the Idaho Association of School Administrators,
spoke against HB 287. He represents 850 administrators across the
state. Before the Northwest Association of Accreditation became
involved, the state did not have an allocation for administration per
student, but did it by building. He said this bill will take discretionary
money away from every district in the state. He said it is easy to talk
about getting money to the classroom, but other things are needed.
Currently, eight per cent of the funds are used for administration, and the
administrator’s role has only increased with the new standards, not
decreased. The index numbers of .075 for administrators and 1.1 for
instructional needs to be increased, not decreased.
MOTION Rep. Lake moved to hold the HB 287 in committee for one legislative
day.
He said he wanted to talk to the stake holders. The House was
about to convene. By voice vote the motion passed.
MOTION Rep. Lake moved to hold HB 304 until time certain. By voice vote
the motion passed.
ADJOURN: 10:40






DATE: March 6, 2003
TIME: 8:35
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
GUESTS: See Attached Sheet
MINUTES Rep. Rydalch moved to approve the minutes of March 5 as written.
By voice vote the motion passed.
HB 322 Rep. Cannon moved to send HB 322 to the State Affairs Committee
at the Request of the Speaker. By voice vote the motion passed.
HB 287 MOTION Discussion on HB 287 resumed. Rep. Lake moved to send HB 287 to
general orders to keep the factor at .075 on Line 25.
(HB 287 changed
it to .065.) Rep. Lake said that this change makes the discretionary
money available, but keeps the formula the same.

Rep. Eberle Cannon, and Andersen spoke in support of the motion.

In questioning, Rep. Lake said this bill just changes how the money
flows. JFAC determines the size of the pie.

SUBSTITUTE
MOTION
Rep. Kulczyk made a substitute motion to send HB 287 to the
floor with a Do Pass.
In discussion Rep. Lake agreed that the Discretionary pie will get
larger if the change is made to .065.

Chairman Tilman commented that for those districts that are impacted
by accreditation, the Board of Education can allow extra administrative
units.

ACTION ON
SUBSTITUTE
MOTION
By voice vote, the substitute motion to send HB 287 to the floor with
a do pass failed.
ACTION ON
MOTION:
By voice vote the Committee sent HB 287 to general orders to
change line .065 back to .075. Moved by Lake, seconded by Cannon.
RS12947C2 Rep. Tilman asked that RS12947C2 be sent to print. Rep. Rydalch
moved to send RS12947C2 to print. By voice vote, the motion
passed.
HB 318 Rep. Lake presented HB 318. This is a replacement bill. Rep. Lake
moved to send HB 318 to the floor with a Do Pass.
Jason McKinley, of the Idaho Education Association, spoke against HB
318. He said he opposed HB 187 for the same reasons. Teachers
appreciate the option. Seventy percent of the educators are female and
many entered teaching later in life. It is difficult for them to reach the Rule
of 90. He is glad that the bill give a couple of years for phase-out and
hopes things may change by that time.
Dr. Cliff Green, of the Idaho School Boards Association spoke against
HB 318. He said the current program provides aid to help teachers leave
early. He said the teacher portion of current law saves money, but the
administrative portion costs the state money. Under questioning, he said
there had been no official vote by his organization
Dawn Justice, of the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry,
spoke in support of the bill. She said it would be more accurate to offer a
bonus to a person at age 55, rather than calling it an early retirement
program. They are not opposed to the concept, but believe it should be
controlled by management. Age 55 is very young for the maximum
benefit. (By age 62, there is no benefit left.) She felt that ten years of
consecutive service is too short a period of time to qualify–it should be 20
or 30 years service in order to call it retirement. She questioned whether
this is good public policy as it exists.
One representative said this program was designed as a tool to move
out deadwood, not an entitlement. It isn’t good state policy to keep it in as
an entitlement. Another commented that military people don’t think about
retirement in 10 years.
ACTION By voice vote HB 318 was sent to the floor with a do pass with
Reps. Andersen, Trail, Sayler, Boe, and Naccarato voting Nay.
Dr. Robert Barr, of Boise State University, representing the Center
for School Improvement and Policy Studies, presented. His group is very
small. They work at the direction of the Legislature. They have been
asked to study past legislation, alterations later made, and what effect the
total legislation has had on the State. Last year they did a study on the
Reading Initiative.

Dr. Barr presented the “Idaho Technology Initiative Status Report,
1994-2002”. (See Attachment I.) He started out by saying this Initiative
was a Win/Win one for the State. He gave a brief history. In 1994 money
was provided for technical equipment and education. Schools found
grants to supplement this money. Albertson Foundation provided $44
million for this program. Boise Schools passed a bond issue to buy one
computer for every classroom. He introduced Carolyn Thorsen, who
designed a program to provide free computers to schools. She collected
three year-old computers from businesses, had college students refurbish
them, and delivered them to schools. Three thousand computers were
given to Idaho schools through that program.

Carolyn Thorsen, a professor at BSU, spoke. She worked on the
testing of teachers as required in 1996/97 by the State Board. The three
universities in Idaho fielded three different tests on technology
competency, all based on national standards. With surprisingly little fuss
and problems, BSU has given 20,000 tests, many of them on-line. Idaho
was one of the first states to give these tests, and became nationally and
internationally known for this as a result. Idaho State uses a portfolio, and
U of I does a performance test. Currently, teachers must pass the test
only once, and all students or new teachers to the state must pass the
test before receiving certification from the state. The Idaho Council for
Technology and Learning evaluates the best practices and did training
across the State under this initiative.

Dr. Barr referred to pages 6 and 7 of the report. He said $90 million
was invested in technology. They now have one computer for every five
children in the state of Idaho. Students in the State rotate on the
classroom computers in cooperative learning on a daily basis. After
training, eighty percent of all teachers have passed the test. Kids are
coming to school armed with technology skills unthought of a few years
ago. Students will drive the computer technology learning curve in the
future. However he cautioned that we do have a digital divide. Poverty-level homes do not have computers.

Virtual learning in higher education is expanding. Students throughout
the world are able to get a great Masters Degree from BSU.

Ms. Thorsen, said she had to sell her home and move her family from
rural Idaho to Boise to get her Master’s Degree. Teachers in rural areas
can now get advanced degrees while staying in their community.

Ms. Thorsen said the challenge today is to capture and disseminate
the use of the best practices in technology. They have been successful in
capturing these ideas, but not in disseminating them.

When asked if they are involved in MOST, Dr. Barr said no. Ms.
Thorsen
said there is no mechanism for them to be involved in the new
standards.

Dr. Barr said with the Technology Initiative, there was a state-wide
coordinating committee. They don’t have that with the MOST. There is a
need for more cooperation. ISIMS (Idaho Student Information
Management System) might be the focusing umbrella.

In response to questions, Dr. Barr said high schools now have
programs for refurbishing and updating computer equipment.

Shannon Nation, a teacher and member of IEA, stood up and said
budget cuts canceled that program in her school.

In response to questions, Ms. Thorsen said they are now looking at
testing for a higher level of proficiency in actual classroom use. However,
they can’t test at that level yet, as teachers haven’t been trained at that
level. In response to further questions, Ms. Thorsen said the result of the
Technology Initiative is that students are more ready for the job market.
They do not have to teach word processing and spread sheets to those
they hire to work at BSU. Special education students learn some facts
better from a computer than from a teacher. In focus situations, students
learn more facts. There are national studies to show technology improves
higher levels of learning and thinking, too.

The Chairman commented that students write more in quantity, more
in depth and just do generally better with technology. The Center needs
to continue to do their studies.

Dr. Bar then presented a study on Charter Schools. He said it is a
work in process. Charter Schools are adding a new and exciting
dimension to public education in Idaho and across the nation. It took a
great deal of work to get the Charter School legislation passed. He
presented a report. (See Attachment II.) Charter schools are public
schools. They are more autonomous and are given some waivers,
however, they are held to a higher level of accountability. They can lose
their charters if they do not meet the standards. He likes that way of
operation.

Charter schools were proposed in an effort to break lose from
regulations and bring a degree of competition to public education. Thirty-nine states and D.C. have approved charter schools. Last year over
500,000 students were in 3000 charter schools across the nation. Four
hundred and fifty more opened this year. With the “No Child Left Behind”
program, parents have the opportunity to move their child to another
school if the child is not doing well. Some states have even allowed the
formation of a charter school district. Charter schools have received bi-partisan support. Only 12 of the 39 states limit the granting of the charter
to only the local school district. Fifty-seven percent of the charters have
been grated by authorities other than local school boards.

There is still a mixed attitude towards charter schools, because many
do not realize that they are public schools and hire only certified teachers.
Some feel charter schools take money away from the local district.
Charter schools have the same percentages of poor, and special needs
children as do regular public schools­they are not elite schools. Parental
satisfaction is very high with charter schools.

Facilities funding is the greatest difficulty that charter schools face.

Dr. William Parrett, of the School Improvement and Policy Studies at
BSU, spoke. He mentioned the Meridian Charter High School’s success.
Dr. Haley, when Meridian Superintendent, pushed for this. There is a
great relationship between the Meridian Charter High school and the
Meridian School District. Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case with
charter schools and the local school district. He mentioned his center
helped develop the Idaho Charter School Network to help charter schools.

Kerri Whitehead, of the Idaho Charter School Network, spoke.
Currently, there are 16 approved charter schools in Idaho. Thirteen are
up and running and three more will open next fall. The Network serves as
a united voice. They provide technical assistance and help those
applying for a charter to understand laws, petitions, and waivers. There is
no “use it or lose it” for administrative money in charter schools. The
Network is collaborating with the Colorado League of Charter Schools and
others. They are working to design an accountability plan for Idaho’s
Charter Schools. Their issues are

1. Governance & administrative obligation

2. Successful academic program

3. Stakeholder support, satisfaction & involvement

4. Continuous school improvement.

Dr. Barr said that charter schools appear to be a remarkable success.
Many teachers and administrators in Idaho stepped out on their own at
considerable personal risk to crate a school that follows their dreams.
These are committed people. If one walks in to a charter school, one will
see something different happening. A significant number of home
schoolers are returning to public charter schools. Charter schools have
been so successful in Idaho, that more students are waiting to get in than
are currently involved in charter schools. This has been done with no new
money. Charter schools have had a positive effect on the local school
districts.

During questioning, Dr. Barr said it appears that charter schools need
to be authorized by more than just the local school board. Universities,
and colleges are also working out plans to authorize charter schools,
especially in Michigan.

As to the issue of facilities, Colorado gave per pupil funding for this.
Districts must let charter schools use an unused district building, or the
empty portion of a school.

It was mentioned that the Boise School District is looking into providing
more options as a result of the influence from a local charter school. In
addition, a local charter school is looking into using the empty portion of a
small grade school.

ADJOURN: 10:37






DATE: March 7, 2003
TIME: 8:34
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Trail, Bradford,
Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett, Kulczyk,
Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Rep. Jones
GUESTS: See Attached Sheets
HB 262 Rep. Lake presented HB 262. He said this bill repeals the
requirement that school districts pay teachers while they attend teacher
association activities. A statute allowing this has been on the books since
1973. However, there could be a problem with using tax dollars to
support a private organization. The IEA is a private organization. He said
this legislation fits in rather nicely with other legislation to separate public
interests and private interests.

A legislator commented that she pays her own expenses to attend her
professional association meetings for which she also pays dues.

In response to questions, Rep. Lake said associations such as
principals and special education are not unions by definition and so would
not be covered by this bill.

Jason McKinley, Director of Government Relations for the Idaho
Education Association, spoke against HB 262. He said the IEA has never
taken the position that the district has to pay for its members’ attendance
at meetings. If the district bills the IEA, they will pay the bill. He claimed
this law has been in code since 1921. They are unaware of anyone else
trying to appeal this law. In 82 years, the problems have been worked out
at the local level. He claimed that while they do discuss wages and
benefits at meetings, most of the time is spent doing other things. He
gave a long list of items discussed at the recent State Board meeting of
the IEA. He said that when teachers get together, they discuss
substantive issues. The IEA does not believe this law applies to its
members being able to attend bargaining training, civil rights workshops,
etc. He said it would only apply to the annual IEA Board Meeting and the
delegate convention. He asked that HB 262 be held in Committee.

In response to questions, Mr. McKinley said some districts have
allowed 15 Association leave days. Lewiston does, if a substitute can be
provided. He said that the “make up time” meant that if they attended a
meeting on Friday, the district couldn’t make them work on Saturday. He
said that not much would change locally as these leave days are
negotiated between boards and local IEA memberships. He said he
objects to the message this bill sends. He did not know how many school
districts bill the IEA for days teachers attend association meetings.

In response to the question about the teachers needing to wear green
tags as lobbyists, Mr. McKinley said if teachers are only here for one day,
they don’t have to register as a lobbyist. He also said there are 35
members on the IEA Board and 400 attend the delegate assembly. He
admitted that political issues are discussed, but said individual candidates
are not discussed.

He was asked if at the delegate assembly, the budget is approved for
the Political Action Committee of the IEA. His answer was that no budget
for the IEA’s Political Action Committee is approved, they just spend the
money that comes in from the teachers. He had a copy of the last bulletin
which he said he would make available.

Tim Rosandick, Associate Superintendent of Schools in Caldwell,
spoke on HB 262. He said he has had many positive experiences
working with the local and state IEA. They do support the education of
kids in Idaho. He said teachers from the Caldwell district were in the
room. He claimed the language of the bill is open for interpretation and is
causing confusion as to the legislative intent. He is not sure what
meetings are protected. He has been on the negotiating team in Caldwell
for a number of years. He asked for more clarification and that the strike-out on line 35 of Page 1 be reversed. He questioned what “regularly
scheduled official meetings of the state teachers “association” are.

He said there is language in the Master Contract with the Caldwell
School District. Forty days are allowed by the district. If it goes over the
40 days, they bill the IEA.

Mr. Rosandick said he was representing himself, not the Caldwell
School Board. He said if the language were to be taken out, it wouldn’t
change anything, but that both parties would have to sit down and discuss
the new contract. The language about attending meetings has been in
code and referenced in their contract. All issues are reviewed and
renegotiated on an annual basis.

Dawn Justice, of the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry,
spoke for HB 262. She said she recognized the incredible value the IEA
brings to the state and appreciates what they do. However, the IEA is a
union, and the IACI does not feel that it is appropriate for tax payers to
support union activities. She does not think this is good public policy.
MOTION Rep. Cannon moved to send HB 262 to the Floor with a do Pass.
He said he supports the efforts of teachers, but feels this is clearly a
matter of union activities. He said these activities could be scheduled on
Saturdays. By voice vote the motion passed, with Reps. Trail, Boe,
Naccarato, Andersen, and Sayler voting nay.
Reps. Lake and
Cannon will sponsor.
ADJOURN: 9:18






DATE: March 10, 2003
TIME: 8:35
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Rep. Naccarato
GUESTS: See Attached Sheet
MINUTES
MARCH 7
Rep. Cannon moved to approve the minutes of March 7. By voice
vote the motion passed.
MINUTES
MARCH 6
Rep. Lake moved to approve the minutes of March 6. By voice vote
the motion passed.
HB 320 Rep. Jaquet spoke first for HB 320. The Superintendent at Sugar City
brought this situation to her attention. In addition, Administrators make
15% to 30% more than teachers. When a superintendent retires, the
replacement is usually paid more than the previous superintendent. HB
320 would not affect administrators retiring this year.

Rep. Lake pointed out that although the paper work is done this year,
the money comes from the 2004 budget. He asked if there would be the
money in the 2004 budget if this bill passes.

Rep. Snodgrass continued presentation of HB 320. (He presented a
series of documents labeled Attachment I.) He said some assumptions
were made as the State Dept of Education only had figures prior to 2000.
These charts show early retirement of administrators has cost the state
and local districts approximately $932 since the beginning of this
program. However, there has been approximately $57 million saved by
the teachers’ early retirement part of the program.

Concerns were raised that in small, rural districts, superintendents
hold part administrator, part teacher, and other duties. Rep. Snodgrass
said the credit would be received for teacher-based retirement. He said
that even through principals are usually replaced from within and not at
higher salaries, they are included in this bill. He said that the $57 million
savings was for nine years.

In response to the question–where are the savings, Rep. Snodgrass
replied that the state reimburses districts on a composite of the teachers
in the district. Short term, this results in more discretionary funds, he
believed. When asked if this bill was discriminatory, he replied that lines
are drawn in welfare, taxes, etc. He said there was no emergency clause
because those currently filing should be allowed to take their retirement.

Mike Friend, Director of the Association of School Administrators,
spoke against HB 320. He said there could be a problem with the legality
of the term “supervisory staff.” A supervisor of special ed, or other
situations might come under this bill. He questioned that those intending
to retire before the school year 2003-4 will be able to do.

In response to questions, he said he assumed that multiple tasked
certificated personnel would fall under the majority of their duties.

Dr. Tim Hill, Bureau Chief of Finance and Transportation for the State
Department of Education was there to answer questions only. His
department was taking no position. He said districts do adjust for the
actual experience of teachers. He said this bill would require funding out
of the 2003-4 education budget unless there was an emergency clause.

In response to questions, he agreed that it can be argued on either
side of the fence as to whether districts would get more discretionary
funds or less. He also said we have an aging work force in our teachers,
and more are eligible to retire every year. However, when these teachers
are replaced by less experienced teachers, the funds from the state would
go down.

In closing, Rep. Snodgrass said some numbers are difficult to
determine. He urged members to look at the merits of the bill. To
determine in which category a person falls, look at the salary schedule
from which they are paid. He said the administrative salary schedule is in
itself discriminatory to teachers.
MOTION Rep. Boe moved to send 320 to the Floor with a do pass. She said
the sponsors of the original retirement bill never thought it would be
extended to administrators. She said the current program is cost-effective
for teachers.
SUBSTITUTE
MOTION
Rep. Nielsen gave a substitute motion to send HB 320 to General
Orders to put in an emergency clause.
ACTION By voice vote, the substitute motion failed.
ACTION HB 320 By roll call vote the motion to Send HB 320 to the Floor with a Do
Pass failed (Attachment 2). HB 320 will be held in Committee.
HB 311 Rep. Trail presented HB 311. Last year a bill was passed to help districts
replace old buildings. A formula was devised to determine the level of a
district’s financial capabilities. County per capita income and the county
unemployment numbers are used, but are not always revised on a yearly
basis. He said that in his district the higher wealth of the City of Moscow
skewed the numbers for the small, poorer school districts in the rest of
Latah County. His bill suggests using the free and reduced lunch
numbers to determine 50% of the index. He said that his research shows
that districts feel their free and reduced lunch numbers are under
reported, rather than over reported
Mary Breckenridge, Supervisor of the Child Nutrition Program, spoke,
stating she did not feel that counts of free and reduced lunch numbers
would go up if this bill were to be passed. She said new regulations
coming will require even more paper work. She said schools do try to
verity the information. Twenty-nine percent of the requests are not
verified.

In response to questions, she said some applications are pre-approved by Health and Welfare. Schools verify 1 ½ % of those close to
the qualifying level, and another 1 ½ % of participants at random.
Applications are given out at registration or on the first day of school.
Schools are supposed to be notified if the income changes $50 or more a
month, but parents don’t call. Parents can also chose not to respond.

Ms. Breckenridge said the plans are based on the national poverty
level, so the numbers change in response to that each year. Some
parents don’t know about the program. The average of those who qualify
is 39% in the State of Idaho.

Stan Kress, Superintendent of Cottonwood School District, spoke in
favor of the bill. He did say that he is President of ISEO who has a law
suit against the state on school buildings. (Chairman questioned the
propriety of his testifying, but Mr. Kress insisted there was nothing wrong.)
Mr. Kress said he supports the general concept of this bill. Free and
reduced lunch numbers are used for determining many factors in regards
to education. He gave examples throughout the state of disparity
between large counties with a good city to help the numbers for their
district, the surrounding poorer school districts. He expressed concern
that districts in the middle (average) get the same assistance as the ones
higher up on the scale. He said the index needs to be changed so middle
districts and the richest districts are not treated the same.

In response to questions, Mr. Kess said that those families with
children are usually fairly indicative of the county or district’s economic
health overall. He said districts could choose which plan best benefits
them.

Rep. Trail closed the debate. He said in our rapidly changing
economy, free and reduced school lunch figures are district specific, and
a more accurate reflection of the true situation. He said he doesn’t feel
the number of the free and reduced school lunches will increase if this bill
is passed,

In answer to questions, he said Mr. Hill estimated there would be a
20% increase in the cost of the program. However, the number of
districts that have taken advantage of the current program is below the
number estimated.

MOTION &
ACTION
Rep. Eberle moved to send HB 311 to the floor with a do pass. By
a roll call vote, the motion failed (Attachment 3). HB 311 will be held
in Committee.
RS 13149 Rep. Roberts presented RS 13149. This is new policy which changes
the way the State compensates school teachers for their work in
educating the children of the State of Idaho. This is a structure bill only.
The details will be worked out in part by the Board of Education, and the
rest of the details will be up to the local school boards. Teachers are
currently rewarded on the level of education and years in the district. This
bill would change that. Performance would count for 50% and the district
would decide what the other 50% would be based on. (It could also be
part performance, so performance could count for more than 50%.)

This bill would set up a second system in addition to the current one.
The new system would apply to any teacher with less than five years, any
teacher new to the district, or any teacher who chooses to join the
program. This will help motivate teachers.

Jason Hancock, of Legislative Services, spoke on the bill. He said
the base salary would be $25,000 for a teacher. An additional $3,000 per
teacher would be distributed on the basis of performance. There is a new
provision in the law to allow for teachers’ salaries to go down if their rating
went down. Most of the performance side of the evaluation will be based
on standardized tests.

In answer to questions, Rep. Roberts said nothing prevents districts
from doing something like this now, but funding is based on the current
methods. This bill gives more control to the local district. A committee,
rather than a single individual, will determine the ranking of teachers. The
committee will be composed of administrator, teachers, parents, and other
(possibly a business person)­each category is to be selected by the
group they represent.
MOTION &
ACTION
Rep. Eberle moved to sent RS 13149 to print. By voice vote the
motion passed with Rep. Andersen
voting Nay.
ADJOURN: 10:20






DATE: March 11, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: See presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
HB 319: Representative Denney introduced HB 319. He explained that this
legislation makes technical corrections to SB 1474 to allow appropriations
to be made using known figures. He stressed this will not harm districts
because they will receive the full payment in the second year. It was
clarified that these are the same amendments proposed in an earlier
piece of legislation ­ the clarification just makes things work.
MOTION: Representative Cannon made a motion to send HB 319 to the floor
with a “DO PASS” recommendation. The motion carried, and
Representative Denney will carry HB 319 on the floor.
HB 310: Representative Lake presented HB 310 to the committee. He stated this
bill is intended to provide for a unified purchase of school buses by the
State Division of Purchasing and provides that the state’s share of the
transportation support program for bus purchases shall be 85% of the
cost of a basic bus. He briefly outlined the portions of the legislation that
would: (1) allow the State Board of Education to determine, through Rule,
the definition of a “basic bus”, (2) set the state’s share of the
transportation support program at 85% of allowable costs; and grant the
authority to generate a statewide contract. Representative Lake said
Section 3, the emergency clause, is probably not necessary and could be
deleted. He explained the fiscal impact is very evasive, and he referred to
the letter from Rodney McKnight (Attachment 1). He said just the
difference in cost between basic buses and buses being purchased today,
it is estimated that the savings would be from $500,000 to $600,000.
A discussion followed and Representative Lake clarified (1) that the
Division of Purchasing is under the Department of Administration (2) that
the State Board of Education sets transportation policy and the State
Department of Education is responsible for carrying out that policy, and
(3) this legislation was brought by the State Board of Education. In
response to concerns about specialized equipment, time lines, and cost
savings, Representative Lake pointed out that this legislation addresses
two issues: savings through statewide purchases and districts buying
“bells and whistles”. It was clarified that all decisions are kept local
except for purchasing from a statewide contract, and it was pointed out
that often counties “piggy back” on equipment purchases, some districts
already combine their school bus purchases, and districts like this idea
because purchasing the basic bus saves dollars.
CON Mr. Vern Carpenter, Bus Dealer, Western Mountain Bus Sales, spoke in
opposition to HB 310 because Idaho is a low-bid state, Western
Mountain’s profit margin is minimal now, and he is concerned about his
company sustaining their business if they are not awarded the state
contract. He indicated that there are three school bus manufacturers:
Thomas, International and Blue Bird. The state manual provides
requirements for school buses to address state and federal standards and
mandates. He explained that white roofs and tinted windows reduce the
heat inside the bus by 10%, and crossing guards on the front of the bus
provide additional safety. He stressed that support after the bus is
purchase is key to the contract and cautioned that it may appear a
savings will result in the short-term, but without support it may cost more.
Mr. Carpenter responded to questions as follows:

Service provided by his dealership includes warranty items, repairs,
volunteer and mandatory recalls, and they can service all three makes of
buses, but agreements must be worked out with the other dealerships.

If buses are purchased directly from the manufacturer, the manufacturer
would set the cost.

There are three dealerships in Idaho and one in Salt Lake, and his
district sells to about 50% of Idaho school districts. He said each bus type
accounts for about 1/3 of the business in Idaho.

Each manufacturer offers various models of bus, i.e. conventional,
Class A, Class D, and in true bidding different brands should not be
different prices, but he has seen a great difference in pricing. He clarified
that there are 3-4 different engine types offered, but districts specify by
horse power rating rather than brand name engine type.

On larger orders (10 vs. 100) buses, the dealership determines what
their bottom line might be, and on larger orders, the manufacturer would
be asked what they would be willing to do.

Mr. Rodney McKnight, State Department of Education, provided the
following information:

Amortization is done to equalize the cost of the bus per year and is
done by style of bus, not longevity.

Idaho’s bus costs for 135-200 buses are pretty close to other states
purchasing 5,000 buses per year.

Several districts are pooling their purchases now, but this sometimes
falls apart because districts feel they don’t get what was ordered. Mr.
McKnight said he is not convinced it saves because of the small number
of buses ordered. In regards to the State Department coordinating efforts
to combine orders, he said there is not a mechanism for them to be
actively involved, but they are always there to provide assistance ­
districts would need to come to the Department.

MOTION: Representative Jones made a motion to hold HB 310 in committee.
He explained that at first he thought this was a “no brainer”, but after
looking at this in relation to his own equipment purchases, he feels
districts do have unique needs (sanders) and these should be allowed.
He also pointed out that districts may have a preference based on their
current fleet, parts on hand, local service, and in the long-term this
legislation might do harm by forcing dealerships out of business.
Representative Barraclough debated against the motion because we are
being asked to provide education more efficiently without raising taxes,
and we need the districts to manage the state appropriated transportation
dollars. Mr. McKnight clarified that the last rule change defined “basic”,
and if a district requires options over and above the basic options, they
will not be reimbursed. Representative Eberle spoke in support of the
motion because he questions the savings and is concerned about putting
dealers out of business.
SUBSTITUTE
MOTION:
Representative Kulczyk made a substitute motion to send HB 310 to
general orders with committee amendments attached to remove (1)
the emergency clause and (2) remove the language requiring a
statewide contract.
He said he feels portions of this legislation do have
merit, but combining the purchases for 130 or so buses would not save
that much. Representative Jones debated against the substitute motion,
stating he is not against the concept of the motion, but feels it is much
cleaner and more efficient to write a new bill rather than amending this
one. Representative Sayler said he agrees with what Representative
Kulczyk is trying to do. Mr. McKnight clarified that options such as
sanders are looked at because of safety issues. He also said the
Department is moving forward on defining a “basic” bus, and the support
of the Legislature provides an endorsement to what they are doing.
Representative Kulczyk withdrew his substitute motion.
VOTE ON
ORIGINAL
MOTION:
The original motion to hold HB 310 in committee carried by voice
vote.
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman informed the committee he is forming a subcommittee to
consider HB 285 and HB 286. Representative Lake will chair the
subcommittee and Representatives Rydalch, Garrett and Sayler will serve
on the subcommittee. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 A.M.






DATE: March 12, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

All members were present.
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 8:35 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of March 11, 2003 were reviewed. Representative Kulczyk
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion carried.
HB 326: Representative Eskridge introduced HB 326. He pointed out that this
legislation further clarifies the language that dates back to HB 315,
legislation that set up a grant fund to be used for the abatement of unsafe
and unhealthy school facilities. The intent is to clarify that expenditures
made to abate unsafe or unhealthy conditions in public school facilities (to
provide a safe environment conducive to learning) are, and have been,
ordinary and necessary expenses.
Mr. Michael Gilmore, Attorney, Attorney General’s Office, testified on HB
326. He explained that this legislation resulted from a lawsuit in Boundary
County where the school district passed a plant facility levy to pay off a
loan for unsafe and unhealthy conditions. Mr. Gilmore stated that in his
opinion, based on similar cases, existing law allows this. He indicated
that 68% of the proceeds from the grant fund are being used to abate
unsafe conditions. He explained the addition of Section 2, 33-1613A is to
clarify what expenditures are allowed to abate these conditions. He
stressed that this legislation does not immunize school districts from
lawsuits.
Mr. Gilmore provided the following information in response to questions
and concerns:

As well as unsafe buildings this legislation does cover an unsafe bus
and other physical assets ­ not additional staff.

This legislation applies to new buildings only if it is cheaper to build new
rather than to repair. It does not apply to purchasing additional property.
The Division of Building Safety inspects the schools to determine the
extent of the unsafe and unhealthy conditions.

HB 315 was a direct outgrowth of the school facilities lawsuit. A $15
million grant fund was established and schools can apply for a grant from
the Treasurer’s Office. The Division of Building Safety determines the
extent of the unsafe condition, and the Department of Administration,
Public Works, determines if the costs are reasonable. The legislative
intent was to get things fixed. Allowing a plant levy to be used to pay back
a loan to fix unsafe conditions was a change in policy.

Plant facility levies are based on a sliding scale and are generally for 10
years, although they can be up to 20 years if patrons vote for the
extension.

Representative Eskridge closed by stating the whole issue is that unsafe
and unhealthy conditions are a necessary and ordinary expense. When
asked if there is a down side to this legislation, he said he doesn’t feel
there is. Mr. Gilmore clarified that about 8 or 9 school districts took
advantage of the $15 million grant fund and the fund is now exhausted.
Representative Denney indicated that the original amount of the grant
fund under HB 315 was $10 million, not $15 million. He also explained
that HB 314 will sunset in July. It was pointed out that the statute of
limitation for the other school districts won’t end in July and this legislation
provides a tool for plant facility levies and allows for a broader revenue
stream.
Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, Idaho Association of School
Administrators, stated this has been a helpful tool and believes it is a
good thing. IASA has no objections to HB 326.
MOTION: Representative Jones made a motion to send HB 326 to the floor
with a “DO Pass” recommendation
. Representatives Rydalch, Eberle,
and Nielsen spoke in support of the motion. Representative Kulczyk
voiced a concern because he felt this legislation might lower the bar. He
based this concern on information provided during the original debate of
HB 315 regarding a three-year old school with unsafe conditions. The
motion to send HB 326 to the floor with a “DO PASS”
recommendation carried by voice vote.



Representative Kulczyk requested that it be noted in the minutes
that this committee does not support using this legislation to lower
the bar to allow school districts to construct new schools by
bypassing the required two-thirds vote for a school bond.

ADJOURN: There being no further business, Chairman Tilman adjourned the
committee at 9:12 A.M.






DATE: March 13, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

None
GUESTS: See presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 8:35 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of March 12, 2003 were reviewed. Representative Bauer
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion carried.
RS 13177 Representative Lake introduced RS 13177, stating this legislation
replaces HB 310. He explained that RS 13177 builds a box for the State
Board of Education to continue their efforts in defining the specifications
for a basic school bus and will set the state’s share of the transportation
support program for bus purchases at 85% of the cost of a basic bus.
MOTION: Because of the prior debate on HB 310, Representative Kulczyk
made a motion to send RS 13177 to print and then have it placed on
the Second Reading Calendar. The motion carried by voice vote.
RS 13173 Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, Idaho Association of School
Administrators, presented RS 13173 to the committee. He stated that it
was known when the Standards were adopted that data acquisition would
be a major part of this process, but no one realized the extent of that data.
He explained that this legislation will formalize a partnership with the J.A.
& Kathryn Albertson Foundation to develop, implement, and sustain a
student information management system. This legislation has two parts to
it and both must be approved for this project to begin. First, to establish
and require the use of the Idaho Student Information Management
System (ISIMS) so that the most efficient and effective system can be
implemented; and therefore, requires all public school districts and state
educational agencies to participate in ISIMS. Second, once the system is
operational it will have ongoing state costs and requires that the ongoing
costs be provided in the state appropriation annually to public education
as an off the top line item.



Dr. Friend pointed out that the State Department of Education will be
responsible for the day to day operation of the system and be guided by
policy and rules established by the State Board of Education. ISIMS will
allow for centralized student data management and reporting at the
school, district and state level, providing an opportunity for analysis by all
stakeholders.



The J.A. & Kathryn Albertson Foundation has offered to provide $35
million to design, build and implement ISIMS. The purpose of this new
system is to improve student learning by providing information to
teachers, students, parents, and school administrators. Dr. Friend
stressed that information to make education decisions is imperative, and
the information must be timely, accurate, and useful to indicate where
students are performing and in identifying the resources to further
learning.



Dr. Friend walked the committee through the four parts to the legislation:

(1) Page 1, Section 33-120A, a new section that outlines the State Board
of Education’s responsibilities; (2) Page 4, Lines 12-17 ensure that all
school districts participate; (3) Page 4, Lines 42-53, describe the system;
and (4) Page 6, Lines 17-27 clean up the statute, and Lines 31-36
address the ongoing allocation of dollars.

Dr. Friend responded to questions from Representatives Eberle, Kulczyk
and Nielsen about the impact to small school districts, data entry
responsibilities, and additional costs vs. savings. He explained that small
school districts will be required to collect thousands of pieces of
information ­ ISIMS will facilitate the data collection. The staff required for
data entry was built into the ongoing costs. Regarding additional costs,
Dr. Friend explained there will be a net cost increase, but the cost is much
less than if each district has to develop a system ­ districts currently
spend $1-1.5 million per year for software. Representative Jones voiced
his concern about this legislation enabling the State Board to operate this
system when a staff of technical experts in the State Department of
Administration operate the state’s automated systems. Dr. Friend pointed
out this would be clarified during debate of the bill, but doesn’t feel it is
intended that the State Board will physically manage the system.
MOTION: Representative Cannon made a motion to send RS 13173 to print.
The motion carried by voice vote.
SCR 106: Senator Geddes introduced SCR 106. He stated that this legislation will
reject a Rule that has been in place for 37 years, and the State Board
supports SCR 106. He gave a brief history of the legislation, explaining
that it came to the Senate, was discussed by leadership, and was placed
on the Senate Education committee’s agenda and then held in committee
until additional information was provided. On March 6 the State Board of
Education met and voted 7-1 in favor SCR 106, and they explained their
intent in the attached letter (Attachment 1). Leadership and the Governor
feel this will add an extra level of accountability. It was pointed out that
the State Board of Education cannot reject their own Rule while the
Legislature is in session.
When asked why after 37 years the State Board has decided they need
the authority to manage Federal funds/programs, Senator Geddes stated
that the State Constitution and the Idaho Code both indicate the State
Board has this authority, and the Board’s intent is to exercise its authority,
but not to take over. In response to the question about this legislation
providing greater power to negotiate, Senator Geddes stressed that he
does not want anyone to believe that the Superintendent and the
Department have not done a good job in managing Federal funds/
programs. He pointed out that the Bush administration is proposing to
distribute Federal funds through block grants that will give states more
flexibility to meet their specific needs. Senator Geddes referred to an
email from the U.S. Department of Education that clarifies that state law
determines which agency manages Federal funds/programs.
PRO Ms. Randi McDermott, State Board of Education, spoke in favor of SCR
106. She provided the committee with a handout showing Idaho Code 33-110 and the Board Rule 08.02.01, Section 100 (Attachment 2). She
pointed out when reading the language of the two, they don’t say the
same thing, and the Board, regardless of what 33-110 says, really doesn’t
make any decisions or negotiate regarding federal funds/programs. The
Federal government deals directly with the State Department of Education
and the dollars flow directly to them.



She explained that in the past federal funds have flowed to the state with
very tight strings, and there haven’t been many decisions to make. With
NCLB it appears there will be more flexibility. She stressed this is not a
power play or political maneuver by the Board nor was it an attempt to be
critical of the job the Department has done. The Board is interpreting this
as a message from the Legislature that they should not ignore the role
given to them in statute related to Federal programs ­ they feel it is time
for them to step up and be involved in the decisions relative to this
funding. It will force all parties to sit down and decide how to deal with the
federal funding and programs and with the repeal of this Rule — it is a
good time to have this conversation.

Representative Barraclough stated he feels this is the right move so the
State Board doesn’t become a “rubber stamp”, and this should result in
better government. Representative Jones said he would support the SCR,
pointing out this isn’t the first time this issue has come up, and the Board
under a previous Superintendent did accept the federal funds and then
gave them to the Department to administer.
MOTION: Representative Lake made a motion to send SCR 106 to the floor
with a “DO PASS” recommendation.
In response to questions from
Representatives Andersen, Boe, and Sayler, it was explained that if this
Rule goes away, the State Board can implement a new Rule, the “letter of
intent” reflects the motion made at the Board meeting and it is a
permanent part of the Board’s minutes, and no impact on the Department
of Education is intended by the rejection of this Rule The motion carried
by voice vote. Representative Naccarato and Andersen asked to be
recorded as voting “Nay”.
HB 304 Representative Roberts introduced HB 304, stating that this legislation
was a proposal to change the divisor for grades 4-12. He explained that
he received information at 4:00 P.M. yesterday that shows changing the
divisor to allow funds that currently flow through the salary-based
apportionment formula to flow to school districts as state discretionary
funds would actually result in a loss of funds for small school districts and



increase funds for larger districts. For this reason, he asked that HB 304
be held in committee. He thanked Tim Hill for all the work he did to
provide these figures.

MOTION: Representative Jones made a motion to HOLD HB 304 in committee.
The motion carried by voice vote.
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman reminded the committee that we would meet in the Gold
Room tomorrow. The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 A.M.






DATE: March 14, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

None
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in
sheets.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 8:35 A.M. with a quorum
being present. He welcomed the attendees and stressed that
demonstrations are not allowed in public hearings and no witness is to be
intimidated. He stated that, if necessary, he would set time limits on
testimony and explained that written testimony and the sign-in sheets
become a part of the permanent record. He stressed the purpose of
legislative hearings is to gather information and pointed out this
information is used by the legislators to make policy decisions.
MOTION: The minutes of March 13, 2003 were reviewed. Representative Bradford
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion carried by
voice vote.
HB 325: Representative Kulczyk introduced HB 325. He said prior to coming to
the legislature, he was a lobbyist for the Idaho Family Forum. He provided
copies of the Attorney General’s advisory comments on “Teachers’
Freedom to Negotiate” (1997) and “the Teachers Right to Work Act”
(1995) and pointed out to the committee that if HB 325 passes, trailer
legislation will follow. He referred to the article in today’s Statesman,
explaining that it is not the intent of this legislation to “bash the union”, but
rather than making it mandatory for school boards to negotiate, the
legislation would provide flexibility by changing “shall” to “may” on Line 11.
PRO Ms. Tina Wilson, Trustee Chair, Boundary County School District #101,
spoke in favor of HB 325. She explained that her school district uses a
negotiated procedural agreement, and they have no master agreement.
She said through court proceedings stemming from a lawsuit in 1977, they
district developed a memo of understanding, and they only negotiate
salaries and health benefits. She pointed out that the Executive Council
meets and confers with teachers, administrators and classified personnel
to discuss and resolve education issues ­ they like how things are going.
She clarified that if the legislation passes it would not change how they do
business, but this was not formally discussed by the Board.
CON Mr. Jerry Helgeson, President, Meridian Education Association, spoke in
opposition to HB 325, stating that legislation was passed 29 years ago to
provide for negotiations, and there have been few changes to the
procedural agreement. He said negotiations have contributed to the well-being of teachers, Meridian has a sound working relationship with the
school board, administration and teachers, and Meridian would not be a
leader in Idaho education without negotiations.
CON Ms. Kathy Phelan, President, Idaho Education Association, spoke in
opposition of HB 325. She explained she has been a teacher since 1964
and pointed out that before the late ’60s decisions were made from the
top down. Teachers began expressing a desire to be involved and
approached the legislature asking for a specific, clear process for
professional negotiations. She said there is no requirement for teachers to
negotiate, and only issues are negotiated that both sides agree to
negotiate. She also mentioned that IEA, IASA, and school boards are
working together to provide collaborative negotiation training to school
trustees. She said there is a framework for resolving disputes in place,
and it guarantees that teachers have a seat at the table.
PRO Mr. Armand Eckert, retired school board trustee from Buhl, spoke in
favor of HB 325. He stated that the Idaho School Board Association
supports HB 325. He described a lawsuit his school district was involved
in 8-10 years ago and how time consuming and difficult this was. He said
districts basically have two yearly issues to negotiate and these are
salaries and benefits. He mentioned that often laundry lists are brought
forth, and school board members are not always trained in negotiations.
The district has entered into some harmful/costly negotiations. He stated
HB 325 will give districts more local control. He stated that other state
employees don’t have the same negotiation privileges.
CON Mr. Jerry Lee, Government Teacher, Post Falls Education Association,
stated he is representing himself and the association and opposes HB
325. He talked about how bad conditions were at his district when he was
hired in 1985 ­ school board members resigned because of no insurance
and the superintendent was given a vote of no confidence. He said the
superintendent, the school board, and teachers got together and
compromised, and now this is a great district with great relationships
because of negotiations.
CON Ms. Loretta Morris, Teacher and Nampa Education Association, spoke in
opposition to HB 325. She explained who she actually is ­ mother,
grandmother, disillusioned Republican. She explained that she has
testified on many issues over the years and felt she was not seen except
as a member of the IEA/union. She said she fears HB 325 will take Idaho
back to the ugly war years, and many districts have learned to work
through issues and collaborate on salaries, benefits, and education
issues. She asked that they let the training continue to teach school
boards to work as a team. She said if this legislation passes, she sees no
reason people will focus on children.
CON Mr. Brady Dickinson, Teacher, Twin Falls Education Association, spoke
in opposition of HB 325, and he explained Twin Falls has a master
agreement that works well for all parties. He said he feels adopting HB
325 opens the door for more contention. He stressed that teachers bring
important issues to the table, and the lists they bring give the school
board and administration an idea of the issues and a chance to solve
these issues. He asked that we not step backwards but keep the process
going.
CON Mr. David Brainard, Speech & Language Pathologist, Aberdeen
Education Association, spoke in opposition of HB 325. He stated that
teachers are nervous and cited double digit health insurance, standards,
and NCLB. He said now through negotiations they can sit down and
discuss issues, and they feel an assurance and security which leads to
better performance. With adoption of HB 325, they feel school boards
won’t sit down ­ prior school boards may not have negotiated. He
suggested we should be discussing the way negotiations are being done
and mentioned the use of the collaborative negotiations model. He talked
about the bargaining course he took which allows each member to bring
their own perspective to the table and come up with better solutions.
CON Mr. Marden Phelps, Teacher, Bear Lake Education Association, spoke in
opposition to HB 325, explaining he is probably one of the few teachers
left in Idaho who remembers what it was like before negotiations. He
talked about Superintendent’s having many more powers, but with
negotiations comes more scrutiny and accountability ­ books are audited.
He explained his school board embraces negotiations, but communities
and school board members change. He talked about decisions that were
made that put the district in a financial situation and through everyone
making contributions they were able to solve this problem. He said he
doesn’t want to go back to before collective bargaining.
PRO Mr. Laird Maxwell, Chairman, Idahoans for Tax Reform, spoke in favor of
HB 325. He referred to a study on the salary grid and said when you look
at this grid (years of service and training) and try to match to performance
there is no correlation. He stated that “may” still allows for negotiations.
He talked about voluntary and involuntary relationships and cited the fact
that machinist bankrupted United Airlines through a forced relationship.
CON Ms. Christine Donnell, Superintendent, Meridian Joint School District #2,
stated she opposes HB 325. She explained that when she accepted the
job at Meridian she was told she would be the Head Negotiator. She
explained how difficult things were until a new board member encouraged
the use of collaborative negotiations. She said if HB 325 passes, they will
not stop using the collaborative model, and she encourages the use of
this model.
CON Mr. Blas Telleria, Boise Teacher and President of the Boise Education
Association, voiced his opposition to HB 325. He explained that with the
collaborative bargaining model, anyone can bring issues forward. He
stated that most of Boise’s negotiations revolve around student
performance and how to become a better district. He said negotiations
provide checks and balances in looking at budgets and other issues. He
stressed that the difference between “shall” and “may is significant, and
used an analogy of marriage. He said in a marriage shall means you will
work through the issues and you are committed to marriage where may
allows you to walk away. He stressed how important the partnership is
while working through standards, accountability, and NCLB.
Mr. Jason McKinley, Governmental Relations Director, Idaho Education
Association, was asked by the Chairman to share his findings with the
committee on whether local organizations fall under the National Labor
Law. Mr. McKinley stated that they do not, and there is a litany of case law
to back this up.
Representative Kulczyk closed by reading lines 9-13 of HB 325, “The
board of trustees of each school district, including specially chartered
districts, or the designated representative(s) of such district, is hereby
empowered to and may upon its own initiative or upon the request of a
local education organization representing professional employees, enter
into a negotiation agreement with the local education organization …..”

He reiterated that this bill does not eliminate negotiations or how they
negotiate, and explained teachers want and need a job and school boards
need teachers ­ they have to negotiate. He said this committee is
charged to determine if this is good policy or not. He asked if it would be
considered good policy for building contractors to have to negotiate with
the carpenters union. He said he feels the attendance today indicates the
pressure the union puts on trustees.

When Representative Andersen asked about the language in 33-1272
and whether “any number” means districts could end up negotiating with
individual teachers, Representative Kulczyk said it is possible. In
response to a question from Representative Jones about other sections
of code requiring negotiations, Representative Kulczyk said he is not
aware of any. Representative Bauer stated that Mr. Eckert made some
good points, but he opposes the bill because it will lock out teachers.
Representative Eberle stressed the committee is not anti-education, they
are just trying to use existing funds to better education. Representative
Boe
questioned the comparison of teacher unions and carpenter unions,
and Representative Kulczyk stated that carpenters also serve children by
building safe buildings. Representative Nielsen asked Mr. Marden
Phelps
if changes in his district occurred because of collaborative efforts
not a “shall” vs. “may” attitude, and he said the solution part was right, but
the reason they got in trouble to begin with was because the school board
did not view the law as binding. Representative Lake asked Mr. Eckert if
one reason the school board supports this is because of the frustrations of
trying to move forward the negotiations, and Mr. Eckert said this bill
would provide more flexibility and do away with the “chipping” affect of the
laundry lists (each issue has a financial affect).
MOTION: Representative Eberle made a motion to HOLD HB 325 in committee.
He stated he talked with the Superintendents in his district and they felt
the bill is not needed. Representative Trail said he supports the motion
because he too has talked to his Superintendents. Representative Lake
said he is in favor of holding HB 325, but does have a problem because
the school boards are in favor so there may be problems and this needs
to be pursued ­ you can’t negotiate everything out of the school boards
decisions. Representative Garrett said she also has talked to people in
her district, and she agrees with Representative Lake’s comments.
Representative Block stated she is opposed to HB 325 and that
negotiations are not without problems, but through example, children
need to be taught to deal with adversity. Representative Jones said he
supports holding this bill for two reasons: (1) Idaho Code 33-1273, 74 &
75 speak to this issue and provide for mediation, fact finding and allow the
Superintendent of Public Instruction to take action so negotiations will
continue and (2) 44-1802 also specifies negotiation procedures/rights for t
firefighters. Representative Nielsen thanked Representative Kulczyk for
bringing this legislation because of the debate and ideas brought forth, but
said he would be voting to hold HB 325 in committee.
SUBSTITUTE
MOTION:
Representative Kulczyk offered a substitute motion to send HB 325
to the floor with a “DO PASS” recommendation because he feels this
is good legislation.
ROLL CALL
VOTE:
A roll call vote was asked for on both the original motion to HOLD
HB 325 in committee and on the substitute motion to send HB 325 to
the floor with a “DO PASS” recommendation. The substitute motion
failed on a 17-1 vote, and the original motion passed on a 17-1 vote
(see attached Roll Call Sheet).
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman invited those attending to participate in the
subcommittee hearings next week on consolidation or any other issues
brought before this committee. He said we all have the same mission and
that is to find solutions. Mr. Blas Telleria thanked the Chairman for a very
well-organized, fair debate. There being no further business to come
before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 A.M.






DATE: March 17, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representatives Jones and Naccarato
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 8:33 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of March 14, 2003 were reviewed. Representative Bradford
moved to accept the minutes as written. The motion carried.
S1134: Mr. Darrell Deide presented S1134 to the committee in Senator Geddes
absence. Mr. Deide stated that the late Senator Lee conceived the idea of
the Idaho Promise Scholarship 4-5 years ago, and this legislation
memorializes his name by changing the name to the “Idaho Robert R. Lee
Promise Scholarship Program.”
MOTION: Representative Barraclough made a motion to send S1134 to the
floor with a “DO PASS” recommendation. The motion carried by
voice vote, and Representative Barraclough will carry S1134.
HB 367 Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, Idaho Association of School
Administrators, introduced HB 367, stating this legislation is the “missing
link” to help fit together the Idaho education goals. He explained that this
legislation is based on a partnership with the Governor’s office, the 114
school districts, the State Department of Education, the State Board of
Education, the state education organizations, and the J.A. & Kathryn
Albertson Foundation. The Idaho Student Information Management
System (ISIMS) represents a significant change in the way we do
business.



Dr. Friend walked the committee through the four parts to the legislation:

(1) Page 1, Section 33-120A, a new section that allows the State Board of
Education to promulgate rules to provide for and implement ISIMS; (2)
Page 4, Lines 12-17 ensure that all school districts participate; (3) Page 4,
Lines 42-53, describe the system, and Page 5, Line 2 defines “Real time”
as immediate access ; and (4) Page 6, Lines 17-27 clean up the statute,
and Lines 31-36 address the ongoing allocation of dollars.

PRO Mr. Craig Olson, Executive Director, J.A. & Kathryn Albertson
Foundation, spoke in favor of HB 367. He explained ISIMS efforts to date:

The J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation funded a pilot program
used by 13 districts in creating high performance schools

Equipment and software ­ purchased in December 2001

Data conversion ­ completed (Dec. 2001 – Sept. 2002)

Staff development ­ initial in March 2002 & ongoing

Reporting ­ partially completed for state and local



Mr. Olson indicated the Foundation worked with consulting firms MGT of
America and CRI Advantage to study four different methods of distributing
this system: local, by district, hybrid (large districts) and centralized. He
said the study found that the centralized data system was the least
expensive, especially for ongoing costs. Mr. Olson outlined for the
committee the Albertson Foundation’s commitments to this project and
also the Governor’s and Legislature’s commitments necessary for the
Foundation to contribute the $35 million (Attachment 1).



Mr. Olson addressed the $7 million for ongoing costs, explaining that this
is an estimate of ongoing costs plus 20% for overruns, and the money will
be used for software licensing, curriculum management, analysis, data
centers, a help desk and additional state employees to manage state
control of data analysis, security, standardization, privacy and
professional development. When the Chairman asked why the Albertson
Foundation would step up and take on this project, Mr. Olson said the
Foundation’s mission is to improve education in the state. He said data
driven decisions using constant, consistent data result in better decisions.
He said ISIMS will allow consistent data definitions and a consistent look
at the data. Regarding cost savings/offset down the road, Mr. Olson
explained that we know districts are spending approximately $1 million on
software and 17 different systems are being supported today. The cost for
personnel operating these systems could not be ascertained, and training
is an unknown because training for new teachers may be done by
institutions of higher education. Regarding data warehousing, Mr. Olson
said they haven’t identified an agency for redundancy purposes, but this
would probably be outsourced.

PRO Mr. Gary Stivers, Executive Director, State Board of Education, spoke in
support of this legislation, citing the immense value of ISIMS. He referred
to 33-120A which provides oversight authority for the Board to monitor
security, analysis, privacy, and budget decisions. When asked his opinion
of the pilot project, he said he has not been closely involved He felt it has
resulted in good, valuable data, but not comprehensive statewide
analysis. He said this system will place proper controls on the data with
many controls beyond what is available today ­ some school districts are
having students enter the data. When asked how this system will help
individual students, Mr. Stivers explained that it will allow parents to
monitor grades, attendance and assignments, and teachers will report
attendance electronically and have better access to test data.
PRO Dr. Bob West, representing the Superintendent of Public Instruction,
provided the Department’s written support for HB 367 (Attachment 2). He
explained the Department of Education has already begun the
implementation of the pilot project, with a grant from the Albertson
Foundation, upon which the centralized ISIMS statewide system will be
based, and they already have two Foundation experts working on this.
PRO Mr. Darrell Deide, Governor’s Office, spoke in favor of HB 367. He stated
the first time he heard about ISIMS was at a December meeting where
the Governor pledged his support. The Governor said this is a grand
opportunity to improve schools in Idaho one school at a time. Mr. Deide
defined data as “standardized information about each student so that
informed decisions can be made”. He said you must provide resources
and assessment tools to promote a statewide school improvement
program.
PRO Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director, Idaho School Boards Association,
voiced the ISBA’s strong approval of this legislation. He said they feel this
legislation will achieve economy of scale and provide local and statewide
access to current data. He said once the Board has promulgated the rules
for this system next year, the local school boards will work on local policy.
He said that the Board and the Department will have full access at the
ISBA’s fall conference to discuss the system and provide
information/training. When asked about the local school board’s
willingness to support this system and their ongoing commitment, Mr.
Green explained that they already are paying for software and hardware
and it is felt that the system will provide many efficiencies ­ it is their
policy to support and make successful. When asked if this system will
help in light of considerable turnover of school board trustees, he said the
system will provide a management tool for new members by having
current data available so they can address deficiencies, even though the
intervention process may differ from district to district.
Dr. Friend closed by stressing it will take a team to pull this off. He
mentioned that the Oversight Committee has 14 members from education
organizations/agencies, teachers and the Foundation. He emphasized
that the project is research based, is ongoing, allows for prudent, public
policy, and provides a new way to look at how we do business. When
asked if this system would lend itself to combining administrative
positions, he said the system will consolidate services and is a classic
example of cost savings.
Dr. Friend and Mr. Olson provided the following responses to
questions/concerns:

Regarding the language in Subsection “k” requiring substantially more
money on an ongoing basis, Mr. Olson explained that a provision for
minimum funding for the system was included, and they tried to design
this in the language without calling out a specific amount. He said the $7
million is their best estimate, and it has been supported by the various
vendors. He said the key word is “operations” of project.

Pertaining to a downside to this project, it was pointed out that
professional development is key to the project, and probably the greatest
risk is the vendor piece for purchased software. He said this type of
software is in its infancy and it is important to make sure the software
vendor selected will be around in 10 years. Representative Rydalch
offered that the Federal labs can help with this, and if they are not on the
committee they should be.

Regarding the technology support at the districts and whether
broadband is available to all school districts, it was explained that the
system was designed so a basic web browser can be used and
technology in the classroom is important. As far as broadband, they have
checked access to the district, and other servers can be added at districts
to increase access. He explained they didn’t feel they could sufficiently
address this prior to the session and until the contract was let and the
vendor selected.

MOTION: Representative Lake made a motion to send HB 367 to the floor with
a “DO PASS” recommendation.
He said he feels it is commendable that
the Albertson Foundation would provide funds and assist with this project.
Representative Rydalch stressed how vital this system is, and she pointed
out that we shouldn’t count on Federal funds to help pay for this. The
motion carried by voice vote, and Representative Tilman will carry
HB 367 on the floor.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman
Tilman adjourned the meeting at 9:50 A.M.






DATE: March 19, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS: Chairman Lake, Representatives Rydalch, Garrett, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

None
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Lake called the meeting to order at 8:35 A.M. He explained that
this subcommittee will be looking at legislation dealing with administrative
and school consolidation. He reported that as the JFAC chairs gathered
information on balancing the budget from throughout the state,
approximately 5,975 out of 9,500 residents suggested looking at school
consolidation.



Chairman Lake explained that those wishing to testify need to testify on
both bills at once, and those from out of town will be allowed to testify
first. The subcommittee will meet again on Friday and additional testimony
will be taken.




Representative Tilman explained he has asked the subcommittee to
look at HB 285 and HB 286. He emphasized that this legislation is about
looking at and gaining efficiencies, and he feels this is an appropriate time
to have this conversation. He said you may be asking why are we doing
this now, and explained that with the transition taking place in the state
(standards, curriculum alignment, accountability), it is a good time for the
State Board and the Legislature to look at different management systems
for managing public education. He stressed we need policies in place to
have schools succeed and to ensure that the management structure is
appropriate to implement the standards. He pointed out that one piece of
this legislation is based on information brought to him by a constituent,
and he stressed that this is how we start the process.



Representative Tilman made it clear that he is not trying to rush this
process, but asking the subcommittee to look at the data during the
session and possibly throughout the year. He indicated this issue has
been around for a long time, and we need to determine if there are
benefits to consolidation. He said we may need to build a new base for
how we do business in the future, and we need to “look through the
windshield instead of the rearview mirror.”

HB 285 Representative Tilman said this legislation is an effort to look at an idea
that was brought forth by a constituent (Attachment 1). The data came
from Department documents. He explained that there is nothing magical
about the thresholds laid out in the legislation, but they do provide a
starting point. School districts within a county would have to come
together to hire a county superintendent. He asked the subcommittee to
look at the numbers, and stated that the amount spent per student varies
greatly. He gave some examples (Attachment 2):

­ two counties having eight districts and one has 25,616 students and the
other 11,898

­ 36 districts have fewer than 500 students; and of those 28 have full time
superintendents and 8 have part-time superintendents

­ 59 districts have less than 1,000 students

­ 13 counties have already consolidated



Representative Tilman stressed that this issue is not just about data, but
geographic areas also need to be considered. He said from a policy
standpoint the issue is whether management is as efficient as possible.

HB 286 Representative Tilman stated that HB 286 takes a different look at
consolidation. On Page 1, Section 2 is a new section 33-310C
“Consolidation Based on Population of the County” that addresses
physical consolidation of districts to create a new taxing district. He
stressed that if it is better for community efforts, county boundaries no not
have to be used. He said when districts were challenged to realign
curriculum several said they didn’t have the capability, while others had
already built in this capability. He explained that research indicates there
is a real efficiency by having a certain population ­ an optimum size for
efficiency. Combining districts doesn’t mean building new buildings, but
looking at this from an administration standpoint. Many districts don’t have
the tax base needed to address school facility needs. Attachment 3
provides data on how many superintendents a county would have based
on population, and it also provides information on how this would look
statewide. He pointed out that the number of students per administrator
varies from 50 to 318 with the state average of 209 students per
administrator. Several schools have an assistant superintendent as well
as a superintendent (Attachment 4).



Representative Tilman said he welcomes the public to come in with ideas
on how we can serve students and address challenges, and he
encourages looking at this in its entirety, not just from a dollars
standpoint. Representative Rydalch asked about looking at school board
duties/functions as we look at management processes, and
Representative Tilman said he does not want to limit the parameters of
the subcommittee to just these two bills, but wants them to stay on point.
Representative Lake asked how the three charter districts play into this,
and Representative Tilman said they do have a different constitutional
structure, but these also need to be considered.

CON Mr. Max Excell, Superintendent, Shoshone School District, spoke in
opposition to HB 285 and HB 286, stating this legislation needs a lot of
study and consideration. He provided a copy of his testimony outlining his
concerns with consolidation in Lincoln County (Attachment 5). Mr. Excell
urged that if consolidating it be done in the right way and be phased in
because of current three-year contracts and the workload associated with
NCLB, standards, and Idaho’s MOST.
CON Mr. Jim Woodworth, Superintendent, Rockland School District, spoke in
opposition to HB 285 and HB 286. He stated he is the only full time
administrator at Rockland and is responsible for supervision, discipline,
the Safe & Drug Free program, and reports. He makes less than the
principals at the senior district of American Falls. Mr. Woodworth outlined
issues/concerns if Rockland is consolidated with American Falls as:

local control ­ how their opinions can be expressed when the county
superintendent may be more interested in their own/senior district

consolidation (HB 286) ­ the articles he has researched have all been
negative about consolidation and indicate that consolidation increases
costs because of levels of administration, security, and maintenance of
operation

community pride ­ they have a 5-year old school that the community
and students worked on to save $700,000

they are on track with reports for NCLB and for standards and
accountability

students come from larger schools and get back on track at smaller
schools

some students would end up riding the bus for 90 miles a day on grade
3 roads

23 families indicated they would move out of Rockland if it weren’t for
the school

He urged them to take a serious look at this legislation and stressed that
the heart of Idaho is its small, rural districts and rural economic
development.

Representative Rydalch questioned how the board of trustees’ input is
handled, and Mr. Woodworth said they meet and there are lots of
discussions ­ the district is run by the board with his input. His expertise
is necessary because of all the laws and regulations that the board
members do not have the expertise to address.
CON Ms. Joni Cordell, Superintendent, Notus School District, opposed HB
285 and HB 286, stating that many superintendents have contracts for
multiple years, and even if her superintendent’s duties go away, her
duties as elementary principal, 504 coordinator, curriculum director, and
grant writer would not. Ms. Cordell explained how they use a 5-district
cooperative and share professional technical education and Special
Education (Attachment 6, Ms. Cordell’s Written Testimony).
CON Mr. Scott Crane, Assistant Superintendent, Blackfoot School District,
opposed HB 285 and HB 286, pointing out that right now it costs the
district about $422,000 for individuals to manage the district, and he
estimates with consolidation it would cost about $567,000. He stated that
33-310 already allows districts to consolidate. Mr. Crane provided their
consolidation issues and concerns and other pertinent information about
how their district is organized and operates (Attachment 7).



Representative Rydalch asked Mr. Crane about interfacing with the
trustees, and he said Mr. Wren, the superintendent, runs the district with
the trustee’s guidance. Mr. Crane said he feels adding additional mid-management layers and enlarging the district will result in less efficiencies
and be more costly. When Chairman Lake asked if the administration
funding from the state covers all of their administrative positions, Mr.
Crane said the state provides funding for 15.1 positions and they actually
have 16.9. He said they are working to reduce the number of teachers
and administration to the state allocation, and he pointed out that the
athletic director is counted as an administrative position and it has been
difficult to cut an administrative position at Fort Hall.

CO N Mr. Scott Tverdy, Trustee for Castleford Schools, spoke in opposition to
HB 285 and HB 286. He provided information on the impact to his school
district and pointed out information about cooperative programs they have
tried and are using in his district. He talked about the varied duties of their
Superintendent and pointed out that the school is the center of the
community. He said Castleford welcomes the opportunity to participate in
studying these issues (Attachment 8, Mr. Tverdy’s written comments).



Representative Rydalch stated that school trustees are the unsung
heros of a district, and she feels whatever road we go down we need to
make sure trustees are in charge and are well trained. She asked if there
is any part of the system that needs changing to make it better. Mr.
Tverdy stated that without non-partisan members, we will lose touch with
those served and participation and trust will diminish. Regarding laws
governing selection, he said local patrons weed out the trustees who don’t
take this seriously and who are not qualified.

CON Ms. Anne Moscrip, Homemaker, New Plymouth, opposed HB 285 and
HB 286, stating that she serves as a trustee on the New Plymouth School
Board where the Superintendent discusses all points with the Board and
the principals. She gave the following reasons for her opposition:

as a trustee she requires a lot of the Superintendent’s time and vice
versa, and she feels if there was one superintendent for all three school
districts there would not be time to discuss issues.

the superintendent teaches Spanish and officiates games so he is not
just in the office.

the superintendent is an advocate for the whole community and would
have to be replaced by several people.

the superintendent assists the principal by becoming the “tough guy” to
make decisions and resolve politics inside each building

Ms. Moscrip volunteers a lot at the school and is not hearing complaints
about the administration. She feels if principals are making more of the
decisions that there may be more dissension in the buildings.

CON Mr. John Eikum, Executive Director, Idaho Rural School Association,
spoke in opposition to HB 285 and HB 286. Mr. Eikum said he represents
32 members and most of his experience has been gained in rural Idaho.
He said it is amazing the expertise in small, rural schools and this
expertise contributes to the achievement and success of students. He
agreed it is feasible to consolidate some services, but supervisors will be
needed in each school. He urged the subcommittee to study this further.
When Representative Lake asked about rural areas not requiring as many
students per support units as in urban areas, Mr. Eikum explained that
this formula was set up because of a lawsuit and to make the funding
equitable.
PRO Mr. Tom Luna, parent from Nampa, spoke in favor of HB 285 and HB
286, pointing out what it costs to educate a student and asking where the
extra money is going. He said we need to spend what we have differently
and compared what four bordering states are doing (Attachment 9, Mr.
Luna’s written testimony). He stressed he is not saying superintendents
are being overpaid, but possibly Idaho has too many. He said we have
the opportunity to move funds out of the board room into the classroom,
and urged them to move ahead to consolidate out of classroom functions.
ADJOURN: Chairman Lake informed the attendees that another public hearing will be
held on Friday in Room 406 to continue testimony and discussion of this
legislation. He adjourned the meeting at 10:40 A.M.






DATE: March 20, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

None
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 8:32 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of March 17, 2003 were reviewed. Representative Kulczyk
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion carried.
RS13202C2 &
MOTION:
Representative Block had RS13202C2 before the committee. The
Chairman explained this was the same legislation, with changes, that we
sent to print last week. Representative Cannon made a motion to send
RS13202C2 to print and then refer it to the Business Committee. The
motion carried by voice vote.
HB 359: Representative Roberts introduced HB 359, asking the committee to
keep in mind that HB 359 proposes a major shift in how teachers with less
than five years experience are compensated. He said this legislation
would be phased in and would not be implemented for two years. He said
teachers would receive their base salary plus a performance bonus, 50%
of which would be based on student performance. Representative
Roberts handed out proposed amendments to the bill (Attachment 1). He
explained that the question was raised about the local district raising
additional money and all of this going to teacher salaries ­ the
amendment would prorate this.



He stressed that July 1, 2005 is a very important component of this
legislation because it says to the legislature, to school boards, to districts
and to teachers that there is going to be a new way of doing business. It
allows time for changes to the language or the rules and provides time to
work on the performance criteria. He said it would be easier if this
legislation could be implemented today, but some teachers would take a
cut. He went over the language at the bottom of page 2 and the top of
page 3, explaining what would happen if this was implemented today and
not phased in. He outlined the establishment of a performance allowance
committee and the evaluation procedures, Page 3, Lines 47-53 and Page
4, Lines 1-21. He said the committee will be made up of people who are
not in the classroom doing evaluations. He described the drawbacks to a
merit pay systems as administrators having to decide who gets and who
doesn’t and the amount in the pool has been small. He said this proposal
is about local control. He stated that this legislation is like building a new
building and all you have is the steel structure (the framework), but don’t
know what kind of windows or furniture you will have. He said most
existing teachers today will stay on the current pay scale. In answer to
questions asked when the bill was printed he clarified that:

— the current system of funding will remain, and the new option will be
added for new teachers.

­ committee selection is not outlined in the legislation, but will be decided
locally.

— this legislation is about performance pay, not merit pay and the base
salary portion will still be based on the statewide salary schedule.

PRO Senator Kent Bailey indicated he is in favor of HB 359, and he provided
information about his business, Northern States Security, in Hadden
Idaho. He explained that they evaluate employees after 90 days and
every six months. Employees evaluate themselves and the supervisor
evaluates them, they discuss the evaluations, and both must explain why
they gave low or high evaluations. The operations manager and the
supervisor determine the amount of the raise.
Mr. Alex LeBeau, Lobbyist for Idaho Association of Realtors, was asked
by Representative Roberts to explain how Realtors are compensated. He
stressed that the Idaho Association of Realtors has no position on HB
359. He explained that new Realtors must work for a Broker and the
compensation plans are very individualized depending on the company,
i.e. 75% compensation with no desk fee; 100% with a desk fee. He said
Realtors produce and then receive a percentage of the total volume they
generate.
Representative McGeachin stated that she and her husband are small
business owners, and described how they apply performance based
salaries. She described the advantages of performance based pay as low
turnover, employees having a vested interest in the company, and
employees understanding their value and that the company depends on
them.
Mr. Jason Hancock, Budget and Policy Analyst, Legislative Services,
explained he helped draft the technical portion of the legislation dealing
with salary based apportionment. He explained the language on Page 1,
Lines 32-34 and the fact the approach used would result in a rolling phase
out. He said it was unlikely that any teacher with six years experience
would be under the new system. In discussing this legislation with the
Department it was determined that if the base salary and performance
bonus is not raised each year less funding will go to teacher salaries. To
keep this cost neutral, the legislature would have to approve a $500-600
increase each year. When asked about teachers who negotiate multi-year
contracts, Mr. Hancock said this legislation sets up a framework, and the
base funding will be there but districts will have the discretion of how they
negotiate contracts. He said there will be separate allocations of funding
for teachers who have more than five years of experience and those who
are new to the profession. He said the state would not fund a teacher
under the new system with 10 years of experience. He estimates an
additional $2-7 million dollars in cost, and the unfunded mandate would
go away ­ the difference between the $24,210 the state funds and the
$25,000 required for base salaries. Teachers coming from out-of-state
would be placed based on years of experience, i.e. 8 years would go on
old system; 3 years would go on the new system. This legislation does
not do away with the masters pay.
CON Ms. Kathy Phelan, President, Idaho Education Association, spoke in
opposition to HB 359, stating that if the legislature’s goal is to create a
compensation system that attracts and retains quality educators, this is
the wrong plan to adopt. She described the research-based components
of a performance-based system as:

Adequate salary base for all teachers

Sufficient funding to create and sustain meaningful financial incentives

Credible, agreed-upon standards and measures of professional practice

Clear steps for improving professional practice, combined with
necessary supports

Collaboration between teachers and school management on the design
of compensation systems that establish credibility and buy-in of teachers

Incentives that are available to all eligible teachers

Easily understood standards and procedures for awarding teachers
additional compensation

She said the legislation does not require the committee members to have
expertise in analysis and the only professional skills required are the
students. She feels this will take away local control.

CON Mr. James Francis, Educator, spoke in opposition to HB 359. He said he
has wonderful, bright students who could attend Harvard, but he also has
high school students who can’t read and can’t write a sentence. He said it
is a community effort to help those who score below grade level, and this
legislation will bring a competitive not collaborative system. He said he
feels everything accomplished the last two years with the new teacher
program will be undone. He said the legislation will set parents up as
evaluators when the best evaluators are in the classroom ­ business sets
their standards not dissatisfied clients.
CON Ms. Nancy Larsen, Teacher of the Year 2000 from Coeur d’Alene,
opposed HB 359. She said she is a teacher on special assignment ­ one
of 10 teachers chosen to look at testing data and help schools achieve.
She mentioned one school not succeeding and they were told “you can
teach a duck to square dance”. They divided students to teach at different
levels and they were given support and resources and they did succeed
and test scores were up. She said a survey showed that only 1 in 5
students had remained at that school since kindergarten. She said it takes
three weeks to administer the ISAT and resources such as libraries are
closed during this time (9 weeks). She said the key elements to success
are time, resources and the ability to team, and these will be taken away
with HB 359.
CON Ms. Jennifer Williams, Teacher of the Year 2001, spoke in opposition to
HB 359. She said she has taught for 31 years and she is representing
small schools. She cited her reasons for opposition:

Subject teacher salaries to a group of people who may discriminate

Urban areas would be hurt because teachers would go to schools
known to perform well



Factors for performance out of teachers’ control ­ may be based on
subject area taught

Creativity in teaching removed

Weeds out minorities and handicapped students ­ kids aren’t
standardized

She said compensation would be based on perceived student success
and pit teachers left against one another ­ divide house against itself.

Mr. Phil Kelly, Professor of Education Policy, Boise State University,
addressed his concerns about HB 359. He said he has been involved with
the assessment and accountability efforts for two years and also with
Idaho’s MOST. He said he feels HB 359 constricts local control, and he
has an issue with how student performance may be defined. He said if
student performance is based on test scores it is unfair, and if it is based
on student growth it is fair ­ bill does not specify this. He pointed out that
the ISAT only tests for reading, math, and language so districts would
have to develop standardized tests for other subjects. He said he is
concerned about how this legislation aligns with MOST because tiered
certification and alternate certification expect different expertise.
CON Ms. Alexa Shanafelt, New Sixth Grade Teacher, spoke in opposition to
HB 359, stating she has a BS degree in ESL and a Masters degree in
Technology. She asked, if because she has taught less than five years,
she would loose her salary benefit for having her Masters, and if so, why
would any teacher chose to get a Masters degree. She said she is
fortunate to work in a school with wise administrators and good
performers, but her friend who teaches three miles away has just the
opposite. She asked how the committee would be paid and trained. She
said she works with a wonderful team of teachers and doesn’t want to
compete. She also wonders what incentive their would be to be a teacher
not knowing what they would be paid.
CON Ms. Tami Bromley, representing herself and new teachers, opposed HB
359. She said she is a former Meridian trustee and teaches fifth grade
where about 60% of her students don’t have the same support system
that students at her daughter’s school have. She said the first year of
teaching is grueling with a barrage of challenges and the attrition rate for
new teachers is about 40%. She indicated she doesn’t know one teacher
who doesn’t work their heart out, and they continue to update their
credentials out of their own pocket. She stated that society and families
are not accountable, but teachers are. She felt that the local school board,
administration and teachers are the proper governing body to determine
what performance-based system is used and asked them to consider this
legislation long and hard.
CON Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, Idaho Association of School
Administrators, voiced his opposition to HB 359, saying that the legislation
is bad and of no value. He explained that he has been involved in looking
at different ways to compensate through the work of Idaho’s MOST. He
said he feel Section 4 dealing with the committee has problems and he is
concerned about recruitment and retention. He said there are many
unanswered questions and feels when building this house you need to
build the first floor before you add the second floor. He said a method to
fast track bright stars is needed, and various compensation models need
to be examined to find a better way to do this. He indicated that this is a
timely discussion.
CON Mr. Jerry Hegelson, President of the Meridian Education Association,
pointed out his accomplishments in his 38 years as an educator. He said
the subject of pay for teachers and alternative methods of compensation
is always a topic at national education seminars. He referred to
Representative Roberts comment that this legislation would have no
affect the next two years. Mr. Hegelson said he believes those studying to
become educators will decide not to. He stressed this is a merit pay
proposal and stated you can’t put a price on a child’s head. He explained
that today is the first day of ISAT testing, and he asked how will the kids
do whose parents are overseas today ­ how will they perform?
Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director, Idaho School Board Association,
stated that ISBA “supports efforts to develop alternative compensation
plans that provide local districts greater flexibility to reward school
employees for outstanding performance”. He explained that he has been
involved with Idaho’s MOST, and he wants to make sure that HB 359 fits
with what MOST is recommending. He said there is no “silver bullet” and
no one system that fits all. He stressed that ISBA does support a
compensation system based on performance, but ISBA has chosen to
stand neutral on HB 359 and wait for the results from MOST. He said this
legislation is premature.
CON Mr. Jon Allen, CFO, Nampa School District, spoke in opposition of HB
359. He pointed out that the current single salary system came about
around the turn of the century because of inequities in the system. He
mentioned the efforts to change this nationally. He recommended holding
HB 359 in committee and let MOST’s work continue. He said we need to
have a system that is knowledge and skills based, is not negative
competitive, is performance based on a group basis, and allows for
collegiality. He urged they look for a win, win system.
MOTION: Representative Lake made a motion to hold HB 539 in committee for
time certain until Tuesday, March 25, 2003. The motion carried by
voice vote.
HB 346 Representative Tilman introduced HB 346, referring to Dr. Barr’s report
on Charter Schools, and the recommendation of having alternative
methods for authorizing charter schools. He explained that only 5% of
states with charter schools allow the local school boards to approve these
charters, and indicated that charter schools don’t receive local tax dollars.
He pointed out that the State Board of Education is ultimately the
responsible entity for charter schools according to existing language
starting on Line 30, Page 7 of this legislation. He said if the State Board of
Education authorizes a charter school, they are responsible for that
contract, but the current legislation does not create a process by which
this is can be done.
He pointed out that under NCLB every state will deal with the element of
schools not performing on their annual performance report. He stated that
states will have to provide an alternative choice of education, and he feels
charter schools may provide one of those needed choices. He said the
question today is do we have a viable charter school process in place. He
said this legislation sets up a process for the State Board of Education
and Page 2, starting on Line 50 outlines that charter schools can be
authorized by an Idaho local school district board of trustees, and Idaho
Community College, or a college or university in Idaho which grants 2 or 4
year degrees, and it allows the State Board through rules to establish
other authorizing entities. On Page 5, starting on Line 41 it establishes a
charter appeal procedure. He closed by saying we need to look at the
whole education system and ensure Idaho has a good viable process with
adequate parental choice if schools are not performing.
PRO Mr. Paul Powell, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Hidden Springs
Charter School spoke in favor of HB 346. He stated he is the Chairman of
the Legislative Committee for Idaho Charter School Network, which is an
association of the 13 currently operating public charter schools in the
state. He said the Network strongly supports House Bill 346 which begins
to expand charter granting authority beyond just the local school district.
He said the Network believes the bill takes a prudent and measured
approach to this change. Mr. Powell stated that Idaho has about 3,000
charter school students with approximately 4,000 currently on waiting
lists. He provided information on what other states are doing and talked
about the importance of a good working relationship with the chartering
authority (Attachment 2).
PRO Mr. Bart McKnight, Chairman, Liberty Charter School Board, spoke in
favor of HB 346, stating they have had four years of success, have happy
teacher, and have an environment conducive to learning. He said charter
schools are focused on giving parents options. He pointed out that they
use national and state tests, and they are competitive. He believes if
children are not taught to be competitive they will fail. He said the
sponsorship through universities will be a positive move, and Albertson
College has approached them and their professors are already teaching
classes at Liberty. He said the mayor’s office supports this legislation and
sees a need to have outside entities authorized.
Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director, Idaho School Board Association,
stated he wants to address the preconceived notion that the ISBA is
opposed to charter schools. He said they are not and that they applaud
and support these schools. He said ISBA does have concerns based on
what school boards are held accountable for, and are concerned that if
this legislation grants other authorizing entities that Title I and other
Federal mandates will not be met. He said apparently 27 other states
have solved this, and said that ISBA is open to working through these
issues. He explained he has written charter school legislation that was
introduced in the Senate.
Representative Barraclough said he sees charter schools as improving
education and modeling success. He said this bill is a good step and
allows for better ties between K-12 and higher education ­ students the
big winners. Representative Andersen asked if this legislation will dilute
resources, and Representative Tilman said there are only so many dollars
per student and the dollars follow the student. Representative Sayler
asked that if 10% of a district’s students go to a charter school, will the
school funding be reduced by 10%, and Representative Tilman said it all
comes out of the same pie ­ would be the same if they moved out of the
district. Representative Jones asked if a community college can say they
are not interested in being an authorizing entity, and he was told “yes”.
Representative Kulczyk asked if a non-profit organization such as a
church can be granted a charter, and it was explained this legislation
doesn’t allow for this.
MOTION: Representative Nielsen moved to send HB 346 to the floor with a “DO
PASS” recommendation. Representative Eberle stated after being
involved with school boards, home schoolers and charter schools he feels
there is nothing as important as this legislation. The motion carried by
voice vote. Representatives Boe, Andersen, Naccarato and Sayler wished
to be recorded as voting “nay”.
ADJOURN: The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:05 A.M.






DATE: March 21, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Lake, Representatives Rydalch, Garrett, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

None
GUESTS: See presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Lake called the meeting to order at 8:32 A.M. to continue the
discussion on HB 285 & HB 286.
CON Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, Idaho Association of School
Administrators, spoke in opposition to HB 285 and HB 286, explaining that
consolidation of school districts and/or administrative services is not a
new concept. In 1944-45 Idaho had 1,110 school districts and by 1961
through a series of legislative actions the number was reduced to 118.
Currently Idaho has 114 districts. Dr. Friend said the IASA believes that
consolidation of school districts works only when the people directly
impacted want the consolidation ­ school superintendents find it very
difficult to work with multiple boards. He provided information on the
consolidation efforts in Idaho (Attachment 1, Dr. Friend’s testimony). Dr.
Friend pointed out that the Legislature has already provided a framework
and incentives for consolidation in the current statute, and explained that
districts are held harmless for 7 years after consolidation. He
recommended holding HB 285 & HB 286 and retaining local control and
decision making in the state.
A discussion followed about consolidation without closing buildings, and
Dr. Friend stated that in Boundary County they feared that consolidation
meant loss of, and their buying practices were still based on what the
local board wanted ­ no site left behind. When asked how much more
money Cassia County would receive if they de-consolidated, Dr. Friend
said remote schools receive more because of an increase in support
units. When asked if this is a motivating factor for not consolidating, he
said he feels the issue is identity, not support units.

Representative Garrett asked Dr. Friend to balance for her the varying
administrative costs per student between Ada and Clark Counties. He
said small districts and small elementary schools do cost more, and he
feels the legislature put in the incentive for consolidating to level the
playing field.

Representative Sayler referred to research showing that student scores
decrease as school size increases, and Dr. Friend said this is one of
many factors feasibility studies have looked at.

Chairman Lake asked why the JFAC Chair got the comments about
consolidation he did, and Dr. Friend said there is a lot of misconception
about how administrators operate, and he feels they were probably
recommending consolidation for the school down the road, not theirs.

CON Mr. Bob Larsen, Superintendent, Melba School District, stated he
compliments the sponsor for looking at ways to save dollars, but he
opposes HB 285 and HB 286. He said he has been a superintendent at
two small districts, and he said he considered reorganization at Notus and
Parma, but local boards tend to be committed to their own superintendent.
He explained that superintendents wear many hats — he is the Director of
Special Education and has inherited 100s of meetings on IDEA.



He stated this legislation assumes schools with less than 10,000 students
are inefficient and touts savings and benefits, but he doubts either. He
pointed out that Melba is a Joint School District that borders Canyon, Ada
and Owyhee Counties, and they bus students from Owyhee. He said
Melba is 26 miles from Nampa, and if consolidated with Valley View he
fears Melba would have no representation on the Board. He also
indicated that if it is determined their buildings are no longer efficient, they
would have to bus some students about 120 miles; he is highly doubtful
this would result in better student achievement. He feels the voice here
originates from the large school districts, not small schools ­ not everyone
wants to live in urban Idaho. He mentioned that charter schools will create
60 new districts, and they will have some form of leadership. He asked
that the subcommittee report back to the committee that this legislation is
seriously flawed, and reducing the number of superintendents will leave
districts behind. He asked that the House Education Committee stand up
for education and invest in public schools, not divest public schools. He
asked they consider how their decisions affect children.

Representative Rydalch told Mr. Larsen that no one here cares more
about kids than the education committee does, and reminded him that
consolidation has been discussed for a long time. She asked Mr. Larsen
to tell them how to make things better for kids. He said this would take
quite some time, and that he isn’t against consolidation. He said
consolidation needs to be done at the legislative level, but with a surgical
knife and surgical hands ­ this legislation uses a chainsaw.
Representative Rydalch said it has been explained that this is not cast in
concrete ­ we need to look at the whole school management system.
Representative Garrett asked Mr. Larsen to describe the Melba School
District, and he said they have an elementary school, a middle school and
a high school at one location and each school has a principal. They
passed a $6 million dollar bond to build a new high school and middle
school in May 2001 and they take education seriously. State funding pays
for all but one administrator, but the school board was adamant that they
would have a principal at each school.

Representative Sayler asked if these bills will not save money, what
areas of administration could we look at to save. Mr. Larsen said he is not
saying there aren’t areas in administration to save, they did make cuts last
year, and he agrees with not cutting funds for the classroom. When
Representative Sayler asked about the paperwork, Mr. Larsen said he
tries to be visible in his schools but there is more paperwork each year.
He mentioned certification and said it is difficult to find certified teachers,
and the Letters of Authorization take a lot of time. He said he feels a lot of
information that is provided year in and year out could be done once, and
he fears NCLB will only increase the paperwork. Representative Garrett
asked if Melba is using coops to help fill the gaps, and Mr. Larsen said
they do bus Special Education students to Nampa where they have the
expertise Melba doesn’t, and they have talked to Kuna about alternative
schools.

CON Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director, Idaho School Boards Association,
spoke in opposition to HB 285 and HB 286, stating he is not an expert on
consolidation, but he can say how trustees feel, 92% said “NO”
(Attachment 2). Chairman Lake asked Dr. Green to explain how he
contacts trustees, and he responded that they phone them when time
permits, but are now using web based software and email with a web link
to post questions and submit responses. The responses are pooled and
pulled out in Access. They also use workshops to communicate. It was
pointed out there are 540 trustees, and he received 101 responses on this
legislation. When asked if this is a typical number responding, he
explained the system has just been in place 60 days, and the ones
responding are better at technology, but it varies.



Dr. Green provided data from the National Center for Educational
Statistics and Idaho ranks 46th among all states in expenditures with a
cost of $5,789 per student compared with a national average of $7,524.
The data also indicates Idaho’s public school test scores consistently rank
ahead of the national average in areas such as math, reading and
science, yet financial resources available to Idaho educators rank in the
bottom 10%. Dr. Green painted a picture of the situation in Nevada where
they have gone to County districts (Attachment 3). Dr. Green said he is
not opposed to county districts, but this is a local decision. He stated he
is not sure consolidation would give the taxpayers a “bang for the buck”
and provide a quality education.



Dr. Green said ISBA would like to suggest Idaho create a County Reform
Committee to undertake a thoughtful and through study of the concepts
before changes are made because there are too many items to be
considered and too many questions left unanswered (Attachment 3).

Chairman Lake asked Mr. Larsen what services Melba can’t provide, and
he said that professional technical is too costly, and he is working with
Kuna and Nampa to try and provide.

Representative Garrett asked about the 36 districts with less than 500
students and how decisions were made to hire full-time or part-time
superintendents. She asked if the districts don’t receive adequate state
funds for administrative positions is the money raised locally or taken from
discretionary funds. Dr. Green stated decisions to hire full time vs. part-time were probably based on money and need and the school board and
the community decide. He said he was not sure how the positions were
funded, but he would find out.

Representative Sayler mentioned that Avery had a part-time retired
superintendent and wondered how he would be affected. Dr. Green said
they would probably lose this position.

Chairman Lake asked Dr. Green for his recommendation on the study
team and about centralizing accounting and school functions. Dr. Green
said he would recommend a broad based study team with stakeholders
from the Legislature, school boards, community, and superintendents. He
said no one believes we can’t save money, and he voiced his concern
that ISIMS doesn’t have a financial component.

CON Mr. Warren Bean, Citizen from Boise, testified in opposition to HB 285
and HB 286. He stated he received a good education in Idaho public
schools and that every teacher gave a “damn” about students and still do.
He said his neighbors are teachers and when they talked about the
consequences and workload brought about by NCLB, he did some
research. He feels their workload would be increased by 25-50%. He said
he researched the consolidation legislation and feels it would create an
administrative nightmare. He stated that forcing schools to deal with
consolidation by the 2003-2004 school year would “cruel and inhumane”.
He said another aggravation would be the impact on people under
existing contracts. He said there was no information given to substantiate
an emergency, and this subcommittee should report back to the sponsor
that he is wrong.
Chairman Lake explained to Mr. Bean that the ideas in this bill were
formulated to start the discussion and driven by comments received by
the JFAC chairs at open meetings.
Dr. Bob Haley, Legislative Liaison, State Department of Education,
explained he is substituting for Mr. Tim Hill. He said Mr. Hill was asked to
determine the number of support units saved by consolidation, and he
was only able to complete seven scenarios because this was very time
consuming. Dr. Haley pointed out that because of the complexity of the
formula if you make a change in one area there are other considerations,
for instance if elementary schools are 10 miles from the district, they
receive additional funds. When Dr. Haley was asked if he knows of
instances where schools were purposely built 10 miles from the district,
he said we are all aware of at least one. Dr. Haley went on to explain
when using the table of divisors in code, Mr. Hill had to combine numbers
and look at the divisor (some would gain students but lose money). He
said the special education divisor is 4-1/2 and districts have the option of
using the special education divisor or size. He referred the committee to
the handout prepared by Mr. Hill to see the increase and decrease and
then compare the table for administration (Attachment 4). He said in
looking at Lincoln County, Shoshone would gain about $360,000. Mr. Hill
wanted to evaluate counties with eight school districts but didn’t have time
to do this.
Dr. Haley discussed his experience as a consultant conducting a
consolidation study for Richfield and Shoshone. He said Dietrich wanted
no part of the study, Richfield voted 4 to 1 in favor of the study and
Shoshone voted 5 to 0 in favor. He pointed out that another of the
incentives for consolidation is the state pays $10,000 for the study. He
said he proposed three options (leave buildings, move kids, consolidate
administration). They decided they only wanted administration studied,
and the superintendents agreed if necessary both would go. He did the
study and when it was time for public hearings he reported back to the
Richfield Board. He said the one member who had voted against
consolidation packed the meeting and consequently the vote was 1 for
consolidation and 11 or 12 opposed. Those opposed cited “loss of athletic
teams” as their reason for opposing, and they didn’t trust their buildings
wouldn’t be lost. The Board tabled the study even though Shoshone was
ready to move ahead. Richfield had a great deal to gain, and Shoshone
would not have gained a great deal.



Dr. Haley said he feels this is a somewhat typical scenario and feels
things to look at are consolidating services. He stressed that Boise and
Meridian have very different issues and are much too large. He stated he
was disadvantaged in high school because he didn’t have access to
advanced courses, and as a principal in Meridian he had about 2,500
students. He encouraged them that if this issue is to be studied further,
they look at other states. He also said if studied further, areas in the
funding formula need to be looked at closely.

Chairman Lake said he was not aware of the incentives in statute for
consolidation and asked if districts are aware and if we need to make
further changes in code to encourage consolidation. Dr. Haley assured
him that districts are aware of the incentives, but pointed out that some
districts who consolidated in the 50s and 60s are still fighting.

Representative Garrett asked Dr. Haley about the pitfalls/advantages to
sharing a superintendent, and he stated that if districts want this to work it
can. He told them about the frustrations of the superintendent at
McCall/Donnley trying to serve two boards with two different focuses and
philosophies, and Dr. Haley indicated the superintendent has resigned.

Representative Rydalch said she looks at MOST, NCLB and ISIMS as
opportunities to make sure we are providing the best for schools, and
asked if it wouldn’t be better to refer to this as school management, not
consolidation. Dr. Haley said a lot of this deals with frustrations of change.
He said this is an exciting time for him and the legislature has a
tremendous amount of influence. He said one thing he has found in
working with the 15 districts to accelerate standards and accountability is
that teachers need more time for professional development ­ we have
taught them to deliver one way and now we are asking they deliver
another way. He stressed the kids are still there each day while all of this
is supposed to be accomplished.

Mr Tom Luna, parent, referred to his comments on Wednesday, and
stressed that Nevada is an example of what to do ­ if they did error it was
because they didn’t take the money saved and put it back in the
classroom. He said on one hand they have been used as a poor example
here today, but they are still able to attract good Idaho teachers because
of their signing bonuses. He said supporters of Nevada’s legislation have
districts that are exploding while other districts are very small. He said
Montana has only one superintendent per county, but each school
operates with a school chief/principal. He said that Utah may spend less
overall, but they spend more in the classroom. He said the compelling
reasons in Idaho to look at this is the variance of money spent on
administration by districts. He stressed that we need to know where the
money comes from to fund administration because most districts spend
more than the state allocates ­ some 50% more.
Chairman Lake thanked those who testified and informed the committee
that he would like to give them time to digest all of this information. He
said he planned to call a meeting sometime next week and have them put
together their recommendations to be presented to the whole committee.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the subcommittee,
Chairman Lake adjourned the subcommittee meeting at 10:40 A.M.






DATE: March 25, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

None
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 8:32 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of March 20, 2003 were reviewed. Representative Rydalch
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion carried by
voice vote.
HB 359: Representative Roberts opened the discussion on HB 359 referring
back to the debate on last Thursday. He pointed out that many of the
concerns voiced dealt with what performance would be based on, and he
assured the committee that it would be based on student improvement,
not grades. Representative Roberts reminded them that this legislation is
just the framework to attract teachers, allow collaboration for developing
the criteria used, and the July 1, 2005 implementation date allows time to
develop the specifics.
Representative Roberts responded to questions as follows:

Student Performance ­

There may be greater potential for students at the lower end to improve,
but the potential for student improvement at the higher end would not be
limited.

The new system will allow for parental involvement, and one criterion to
be considered for performance could be parental involved. Low economic
conditions in the community and poor performance could lead to pay
based on teamwork for improvement.

Student teachers generally teach segments, not the entire day, so
Representative Roberts was not sure how the classroom teacher’s
performance would be evaluated when they have a student teacher.

The local district’s committees would have the flexibility to set their
criteria for the performance based bonuses on local issues, i.e. a teacher
providing mentoring may be paid more.

Teacher Pay, Bonuses, and Fiscal Impact —

This legislation does not deal with non-classroom teacher’s pay such as
librarians, nurses, social workers, but Idaho’s MOST committee has
received information on measuring pay for these positions.

The discretionary/district funds for bonuses would be prorated according
to the proposed amendment to Page 4, Line 20.

This legislation would allow existing teacher to move to the new
performance based system, but would not allow new teachers to enter
into the old system.

The intent of the legislation is to allow existing teachers to move out
through the existing system ­ could take 25 to 30 years.

The reasons for phasing in this legislation are to provide $25,000 for the
base pay and get away from the unfunded mandate plus allow for a
$3,000 bonus. If a switch could be flipped and the new system put in
place today, the base salary would start at $30,000 per year, and bonuses
would be about $8,000 per year. There will be an annual review, and the
base increased for the inflationary cost of living. It was suggested that
numbers be set in code, but this would be very difficult.

Portions of this legislation could be done today, but one important
concept could not ­ if you earn performance pay this year is this where
you start next year? Representative Roberts said this should be reset
each year and bonuses earned each year. In Idaho Code 33-515 today
once a teacher reaches a threshold they cannot go back.

The fiscal impact of $3.2 million in 2006 was arrived at based on the
current information for teachers having 1-5 years of experience to
determine what would be required for base pay plus the $3,000 bonuses.
This figure does not take into account what districts are paying above the
index, but just dealt with the funding formula.

The average salary for teachers distributed through the formula is
$37,000, but the average paid is $39,000.

The bill does not set a cap on what a top teacher can look forward to
and bonuses could range from $1 to $40,000.

The state funding would remain about the same as it is today. This
doesn’t mean every teacher is guaranteed a specific bonus amount, it will
vary. Representative Roberts said he didn’t want to dictate a set figure in
code how paid but allow flexibility to districts.

Miscellaneous ­

Ideas for this system were drawn from business, and private and charter
schools.

This legislation was discussed with the Idaho MOST committee in
January, and it is believed the legislation does not hinder MOST’s efforts.
The legislation sets in place a date for implementation and there are two
legislative sessions before July 1, 2005 to consider changes.

Charter schools are not exempt from Idaho Code 33-515, and
Representative Jones suggested they might be allowed a waiver to
experiment with performance pay.

If a district has a pool of several gifted teachers and another district has
only one gifted teacher, the first district could add more funding to the
performance side.

The bill on Page 4, Line 11 talks about performance allocations and it is
possible that all teachers would receive an “A” ­ hard to say if a curved
standard or a target standard will be set.

Ms. Randi McDermott, Office of the State Board of Education, provided a
handout entitled “Idaho’s MOST ­ Teacher Compensation Project
(Attachment 1). She emphasized that there is a subcommittee working on
this project and they have hired a consultant from Illinois to assist them.
She emphasized that this project is in the preliminary stages, and the
State Board of Education does not have a position on this legislation.
Representative Lake asked if MOST’s efforts are independent of this
legislation, i.e. tiered licensure and professional development. Ms.
McDermott said as she understands it, they are looking at performance
based pay.
Dr. Bob Haley, Legislative Liaison, State Department of Education, stated
that the Department does not have a position on this legislation ­ they
have provided information. They ran the figures and were fairly close with
those provided by Jason Hancock, Legislative Services. He explained that
teachers with five or more years of experience would use the index and
the index would go up. For those teachers with one to five years of
experience there would be two pots of money ­ $25,000 each for the
base salary and then $3,000 each for bonuses. He said base pay would
start at $25,000 and end at about $29,000. They determined that about
25% of teachers would be on the new system and 75% on the old
schedule.



Dr. Haley addressed the question of how teachers are paid for
performance today by explaining that legislation in the 1980s required
districts to develop a career ladder, and then the legislation was never
funded. He said funding goes out to the districts today and they develop a
pay schedule to ensure all the money is paid out. He described his
experience at Meridian where they set criteria for advancement based on
additional credits taken now they use a staggered system. They did at
one time use performance based pay, starting with the Superintendent
and adding all administrators. He said there were many internal problems,
and the system was only used 2-3 years. Regarding student performance
being used at Meridian as a criteria, Dr. Haley said it was only one of ten
factors evaluated.

Mr. Warren Bean, Citizen from Boise, shared a couple of his
observations with the committee. He referred to Page 3, Line 11 of the
legislation where it outlines the bonuses, and Page 3, Line 47 where each
district establishes a committee. He said he wouldn’t want to require any
more of teachers, parents, or others to work on this committee, and he
was concerned with the increased workload for superintendent’s (that this
committee is proposing getting rid of) to tabulate performance data for
each student.
Representative Roberts closed by saying it had been suggested that if
this is good for teachers it would be good for administration as well. He
said he feels ISIMS will provide the tabulated data needed to determine
student performance. He asked them to keep in mind that the legislation
proposes a new system for base pay plus bonuses, and provides a
structure for the State Board, Idaho’s MOST and the Legislature. He
emphasized again the most important part of the bill is the fact that not
implementing until 2005 there is time for all of the stakeholders to make
changes and work on the criteria and other requirements.
MOTION: Representative Kulczyk made a motion to send HB 359 to general
orders with committee amendments attached.
He said no pay system
is completely equitable, but if we base teacher’s pay on what students
learn, this will drive performance. He said this legislation deserves time to
be considered. Representative Eberle made a comment that he loves the
concept, but worries about “the devil in the details.”
SUBSTITUTE
MOTION:
Representative Jones made a substitute motion to hold HB 359 in
committee.
He said he is not totally opposed to the concept, and if this
was presented as a pilot or charter schools given waivers to try this he
would feel more comfortable with this. He mentioned that other groups in
the state are working on this concept, and stated that major projects
generally take 2-4 years to reach fruition. He said this legislation is in print
and can serve as the framework for public discussions, and then come
back next year with a refined product.



Representatives Andersen, Cannon, Boe and Sayler spoke in favor of
the substitute motion to hold HB 359 in committee. Reasons given for
their support were (1) the legislation does not address how student
performance will be measured, and someone must address the whole
basis of performance pay; (2) this is an excellent concept, but time is
needed to discuss locally, and we may want to consider legislation doing
away with tenure; (3) Idaho’s MOST is now aware of the legislation, and
they have professionals working on this; and (4) a school is a community
of learners and this legislation is competitive based, not community based
­ it is important to reflect MOST’s work.



Representatives Lake, Barraclough, Eberle, Nielsen and Kulczyk
spoke in opposition of the substitute motion. Reasons given for their
opposition were: (1) if legislation is out there, MOST will make it a part of
their evaluation process ­ get it out there and in final form ­ start moving
the ball; (2) this is an opportunity to look at the “angels in the concept”
and an opportunity to work with MOST ­ this would be healthy for
education; (3) this is a good concept and we need to get it rolling by
sending it forward; and (4) if a good structure is in place remodeling isn’t
that difficult.

ROLL CALL
VOTE:
A roll call vote was called for on the substitute motion to hold HB
359 in committee. The motion failed by a 9 to 8 vote
(Attachment 2,
Roll Call Sheet).
ADJOURN: The Chairman advised the committee that they will meet tomorrow to
consider an RS. There being no further business to come before the
committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 A.M.






DATE: March 26, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Trail, Bradford, Block, Eberle
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
MOTION: The minutes of March 25, 2003 were reviewed. Representative Kulczyk
made a motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion carried.
RS 13222: Representative Langford presented RS 13222 to the committee.
Chairman Tilman explained that she is requesting that we send this to
print, but there will be no hearing this session. Representative Langford
explained that this legislation is the result of an idea presented to her by
Mr. Lee Crockett, a constituent. She said she suggested this idea at Idaho
Education Association meetings, and the feedback she got was teachers
are teaching with many students absent because of activities. Teachers
indicated they would love this change because of the absenteeism and
the fact that students are very tired after traveling home from activities late
at night.



She stated that she originally thought this should go through the
Department of Education, but realized that the concept could be
introduced through legislation. She said she feels the legislation needs to
be on the Internet and open for public comments. She pointed out that
this legislation proposes that only academics are taught Monday through
Thursday, and all extra curricular activities would be conducted on Friday
and Saturday.

Time was given for the committee to ask questions. Members mentioned
several areas of opposition that may surface in the discussions:

­ no time allowed for teams to practice

­ instructional hours increasing; impact on students if school days
lengthened

­ students are tired because of work, and some would not be able to
participate in sports because they work on weekends.

­ not practical to schedule all sport activities on Friday and Saturday
because schools have Freshman, Sophomore, Jr. Varsity and Varsity
teams

­ release time for Seminary classes has become an issue in Twin Falls

­ vast areas students must travel to sports activities ­ need to consolidate
areas of travel

­ activities such as debate, music, band, drama, art and cheerleading will
have to be considered

­ will this affect only high school students or all K-12

Representative Langford said she felt it was best to make the legislation
as tight as possible and then get people involved to fine tune it. She
admitted that this legislation will need to be amended to consider the
many issues that are brought up. She feels there will be many “pot shots”
taken at it, but it is important to gather that information. She reminded the
committee that Legislatures take an oath to uphold the constitution which
requires that we provide a free, public education, not Freshman,
Sophomore, Jr. Varsity and Varsity athletics, and if one-third of the school
week isn’t enough for athletics we have problems. She said the decision
in Idaho is how to provide the best education economically.
Chairman Tilman asked about the fiscal impact, and Representative
Langford explained that Jason Hancock, Legislative Services, prepared
the fiscal impact by looking at transportation costs saved and possible
savings to districts from utilities, etc. The Chairman pointed out that this is
not a new idea, and one concern that will come up will be child care on
Friday.
MOTION: Representative Kulczyk made a motion to send RS 13222 to print,
stating there is probably zero possibility of this being passed, but we need
to look at it as we try to improve education and save money. The motion
carried by voice vote. The Chairman reminded the committee that there
would be no hearing this session.
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman advised the committee that the subcommittee will meet
tomorrow, there is no meeting schedule for Friday, and Monday at 9:00
A.M. there will be a presentation on the Governor’s bonding project for
university buildings.



Representative Sayler informed the committee that Marty Meyer, from his
district, just received the National Classified Employee of the Year Award.
He received a $10,000 award, of which he donated half to a charity.






DATE: March 27, 2003
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Lake, Representatives Rydalch, Garrett, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

None
GUESTS: See presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
Chairman Lake called the meeting to order at 8:32 A.M. to continue the
discussion on HB 285 & HB 286.
MOTION: The minutes of March 19 and March 21, 2003 were reviewed.
Representative Garrett made a motion to accept both sets of minutes as
written. The motion carried.
Chairman Lake advised the public attending the meeting that it was his
intent to have a round table discussion with the committee members to
develop recommendations for the committee as a whole.
WRITTEN

TESTIMONY:

Chairman Lake asked that written testimony received from the Idaho
Association of REALTORS that supports consolidation of government
services and recommends that the committee press for more efficient
administration of school districts be made part of the official minutes for
this meeting (Attachment 1).
The subcommittee, while reflecting on the public testimony heard on
March 19 and March 21, 2003, put together their ideas and the issues as
they understand them, discussed the ideas and issues, and made their
recommendation (House Education Subcommittee Executive Summary,
Attachment 2).
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the subcommittee,
Chairman Lake adjourned the subcommittee meeting at 9:22 A.M.






DATE: March 31, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representative Jones
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in
sheet.
MOTION: Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:02 A.M. with a quorum
being present. The minutes of March 26, 2003 were reviewed.
Representative Rydalch made a motion to accept the minutes of March
26 as written with one correction on Page 2, last paragraph ­ Marty
Meyer donated “half” of his award money to charity. The correction was
so noted, and the motion carried by voice vote.
PRESENTATION: Mr. Charles Winder, President, The Winder Company, presented the
Governor’s proposal for “Creating Jobs through Facilities Bonding”
(Quick Facts, Attachment 1). He said he was asked to present this
proposal because of his background with economic development in the
valley. Mr. Winder stated that this proposal was part of the Governor’s
State of the State message, and the proposal centers around generating
jobs now.



Mr. Winder explained that there are eight projects proposed and all have
previously been approved by the Legislature, but funding was lost due to
holdbacks. Mr. Winder used Attachment 2 to provide information about
each of the proposed projects, the number of jobs created, the total
economic impact of each project, and to point out that this project would
take advantage of a unique, cost-effective opportunity because (1)
interest rates are near record lows; (2) the high bond rating for the State
Building Authority; (3) Idaho’s per capita public debt is lowest in the
nation; and (4) competition for contracts helps ensure low construction
costs. Mr. Winder indicated that the total project costs are estimated to
be $68,871,000 with an estimated economic impact to the state of
$188,219,279 (calculated by the Idaho Department of Commerce). Mr.
Winder pointed out that there is a site issue to be resolved for the Idaho
Falls project.



Chairman Tilman asked Mr. Winder to explain for the new members
where the revenue comes from for the permanent building fund. Ms.
Maria Barratt
, Sr. Budget Analyst, DFM, stated that the legislature has
directed four dedicated fund sources for the building fund: $5 million from
sales tax (set amount); percentage of the cigarette and beer taxes;
interest monies; and one-half of the lottery proceeds. It was further
clarified that this fund averages about $30 million per year and only $5.5
million from this fund would be available to fund the bonds for these
projects.

Mr. Winder provided the following information in response to committee
questions:

Idaho law does not provide for the first right of refusal, but must go with
the lowest bidder. There is a clause that says 95% of the work force will
come from the state, but this is not always enforced.

There will be no increase of student fees, and at ISU the proceeds from
the bonds will be used for the academic portion of the buildings, while
student fees from rent will be used to pay for the housing units. The
policy for how student fees are used is not changing.

Mr. Keith Hasselquist explained that in most cases the faculty and
staff to support this expansion is in place so there would not be a major
impact to the General Fund. It is felt that expanding the facilities will
allow for enrollment growth and result in additional fees.

Delaying the construction of the Idaho Falls facility will result in the loss
of $3.5 million of Federal funds. There is not a difference in funding
based on the final location of the Idaho Falls project.

All of the stakeholders involved have agreed that these eight projects
are the highest priorities, and the State Board of Education supports the
process and is willing to handle the site issue in Idaho Falls.

The interest rate for the bonds will be locked in and they will be tax
exempt bonds.

Mr. Darrell Deide said there has been no discussion from the
Governor’s office regarding use of this same bonding authority for public
schools ­ these are two different issues.

The time frame for these projects will vary from 1-21/2 years.

Mr. Winder closed by stating that the legislation necessary to implement
this project was approved by the State Affairs committee for printing.
There will be two trailer bills accompanying this resolution that (1)
authorize the State Building Authority to bond for community college
projects and (2) prohibit future use of the Permanent Building Fund
revenues to pay debt services on new bond issues. He indicated that
Legislative authority must be granted to bond for projects, this legislation
will not create a slush fund for projects, and it does comply with state
law.
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman thanked Mr. Winder for his presentation. There being
no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:45 A.M.






DATE: April 2, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail,
Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle, Garrett,
Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

None
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in
sheet.
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:05 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
SUBCOMMITTEE
REPORT
Representative Lake presented the report for the House Education
Subcommittee on School Consolidation, explaining that the
subcommittee met twice to take testimony on HB 285 and HB 286 and
most of the testimony came from the educational community. He read
the subcommittee recommendation ­ “The House Education
Subcommittee on School Consolidation recommends that House Bill
285, which provides for the consolidation of school superintendents, and
House Bill 286, which calls for the physical consolidation of school
districts, be held in committee. The subcommittee further recommends
that broad based testimony and discussions are needed in order to make
a definitive recommendation regarding a final disposition on school
consolidation”.
Representative Lake briefed the committee on a few of the key issues
addressed in the Executive Summary and those were (1) most view
consolidation as shutting down schools while the subcommittee believes
it is the integration of systems. Some districts are taking advantage of
cooperative agreements and there is a potential to expand these
agreements; (2) school districts wishing to consolidate do have
incentives to do so today ­ legislation is in place that (a) provides
$10,000 for any district, or group of districts, to study consolidation; and
(b) provides that the support units for school districts that choose to
consolidate will be held harmless for seven (7) years. Representative
Lake pointed out that most of the testimony revolved around community
issues, and even though it is more expensive to operate small, rural
schools they feel it brings the community together ­ many communities
revolve around the school.
Subcommittee members responded to questions as follows:

Cost Savings from Cooperative Agreements ­ No dollar amount was
given during testimony for the savings from cooperative agreements. Dr.
Haley did provide information during testimony on the impact on support
units for a small sample of school district consolidations, but it was
pointed out that good data is not being kept on consolidating services so
cost saving recommendations can’t be made.

Formula Change for Administration ­ There was a lot of discussion
centered around the formula for funding administration during testimony.
Representative Lake pointed out that even if that formula is changed, it
probably won’t result in savings because of the way the funding is
distributed. Representative Garrett mentioned that the subcommittee
was not able to get data showing how the administrators over and above
the state allocations are funded, i.e. discretionary, bonds, levies. This
information is needed when looking at how to get more money to the
classroom. Representative Lake mentioned that the number of
administrators has decreased, and Mr. Tim Hill provided the following
figures for the committee. Mr. Hill stated that in 2002 districts had 1076
administrative FTE and the state allowance was for 966, a difference of
110 FTE. In 2003 districts had 1,049 administrative FTE and the state
allowance was for 981, a difference of 68. These figures show a
reduction in administration in 2003, even though the state funded more
positions.

Local Control ­ It was emphasized that consolidation only works
where the local community wants it and supports it. Chairman Tilman
indicated that in his conversations with school boards and districts they
admit there are ways to look for efficiencies, but they haven’t brought
these forward. He urged the entire committee to go back to their districts
and look for efficiencies in the school management process.
Representative Block said the school board members in her district are
interested in a Task Force to study these issues.

Representative Lake asked Dr. Bob Haley if he would share his
experience on a consolidation study for Lincoln County. Dr. Haley said
Dietrich wanted no part of the study, Richfield voted 4 to 1 in favor of the
study and Shoshone voted 5 to 0 in favor. He said he proposed three
options (leave buildings, move kids, consolidate administration). They
decided they only wanted administration studied, and the
superintendents agreed if necessary both would go. He did the study and
when it was time for public hearings he reported back his findings to the
school boards first. He said the one member who had voted against
consolidation at Richfield packed the meeting, and consequently the vote
was 1 for consolidation and 11 opposed. Those opposed cited “loss of
athletic teams” as their reason for opposing, and they didn’t trust that
their buildings wouldn’t be lost. The Richfield Board tabled the study
even though Shoshone was ready to move ahead.
MOTION: Representative Lake asked that the subcommittee members approve the
subcommittee minutes of March 27, 2003. Representative Rydalch
made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion
carried.
MOTION:









PRESENTATION:

Chairman Tilman asked the full committee if they wished to adopt the
subcommittee report. Representative Nielsen made a motion to
accept the Subcommittee Report on Consolidation as presented.

Representative Boe expressed her appreciation to the subcommittee for
the work they did. The motion carried and the report was adopted.



Dr. Bob Barr, Center for School Improvement and Policy Studies, Boise
State University, presented the Idaho Reading Initiative Status Report.
Before he began, Chairman Tilman asked if his group would be
interested in conducting a study on consolidation. Dr. Barr replied that it
would be a “shock and awe experience”.

Dr. Barr stated that there is no other area in education that has been
studied as much as reading. He indicated there is a direct relationship to
not being able to read by third grade and the number of dropouts.
Further, he said 60% of prisoners are illiterate. Dr. Barr referred to the
1999 legislation that began the Idaho Reading Initiative, and said if the
IRI is not made in Heaven, at least it is made in Idaho. He said this
legislation initiated a different philosophy of assessment, intervention and
assessment reports. Public school students in K-3 will be tested 2-3
times a year, and those reading below grade level are targeted for
intervention to sustain or improve their reading skills. This legislation also
set guidelines for pre-service teacher education and asked the
universities to evaluate their programs, gave responsibility to the State
Board of Education for developing a single pre-service assessment
measure for all K-8 teacher preparation programs, and required the State
Board to report annually to the legislature and the governor (Attachment
1, Pages 4-5). Dr. Barr said Idaho is well ahead of other states and was
looking at elements of NCLB well ahead of the federal government.
Dr. Barr reported that Idaho has spent $4 million annually for the Idaho
Reading Initiative, and this amount has been reduced to $3.3 million this
year because of budget holdback. Dr. Barr addressed the Idaho Reading
Indicator (IRI), a reading assessment tool, stating this was developed in
1999-2000 to determine whether a child is above or below grade level.
He said the IRI has been praised as being effective and easy. He pointed
out there has been a significant improvement in student reading levels
since 1999 (Attachment 1, Pages 6-8). He pointed out that it appears we
are losing ground from first to second grade, but skills tend to expand so
a newer reading indicator is used. He stressed that the scores for
minority students are rather grim, and this is an area of challenge as the
demographics of Idaho change. On a positive note, he said there are 11
fewer Title I schools that have been placed on mandatory improvement
plans this year.
Dr. Barr mentioned that Idaho has received a Reading First Grant of
$21.8 million over the next eight years. Reading first targets at-risk
students and is part of NCLB federal policies. He outlined how the
money would be directed and spent (Attachment 1, Page 10). Dr. Barr
briefed the committee on observations and conclusions of this study,
stating he is concerned about the performance assessment developed
by universities. He said this is a pencil and paper test and he fears that if
the assessment does not effectively measure the reading education skills
of pre-service teachers then re-training will be necessary and costly. He
also expressed a concern about students reading below level being
placed into low performing classrooms, and he stressed this needs to be
studied.
Dr. Barr closed by praising the teachers in Idaho for their hard work. He
indicated there is a 90% probability that if students are reading at grade
level in first grade they will continue. He said the IRI is now online and
teachers will have a diagnosis within three weeks after the test. He said
the long-term payoff from this program in the state will be students
staying in school and going onto college.
The committee raised several key questions/concerns, and Dr. Barr
provided the following responses.

In regards to being on the same page with the IRI, ISAT, and Reading
First, Dr. Barr said that Mary Ann Flachbart is trying to correlate the tests
and find ways to collapse them. He indicated Idaho is very fortunate to
have some one of Ms. Flachbart’s background heading the Reading
Initiatives. He said he is completely convinced that all of NCLB is being
critically looked at and changes are being made.

In response to teachers spending more time testing than teaching, he
indicated that the IRI is quick and does not intrude a great deal into
classroom time, but parents are concerned it is not comprehensive
enough.

To the question about second graders being frustrated with the ISAT
test because they couldn’t read the questions, Dr. Barr said there will
always be rough spots on new testing programs, but it is important that
parents and teachers voice their concerns.

In response to the concern about kindergartners not having time to play
because they are having to focus on reading, he said he shares that
concern and we don’t want to take the fun out. He said birth to first grade
provides the greatest window for learning. Representative Block stressed
that you can do both, read and play in kindergarten.

In regards to different developmental skills and correlations between
students reading at below grade level and those with ADHD or other
disabilities, Dr. Barr said you can teach every child to read, but we need
to realize it may take longer for some students to achieve.

Regarding President Bush’s initiative to restructure Head Start to
incorporate reading, Dr. Barr said Head Start has been most effective in
better preparing students. It was pointed out that Idaho is the only state
that doesn’t put money into Head Start, and it was asked if it would be
beneficial if Idaho did support this and other early childhood development
programs. Dr. Barr responded that the long-term payoff is greatest with
early childhood intervention.

In response to a concern about reading scores going up, but math
scores are going down, Dr. Barr explained that Elementary Teachers are
not required to take upper level courses and very little math. He said
there is no reason that both math and reading scores can’t both improve
at the same time, but he feels it may take a comprehensive math
program for elementary teachers to make this happen.

Regarding a question about Reading First and the number of staff
being hired who are not attached to the classroom, and how you can get
people to understand the value of these positions when schools are
trying to reduce their FTE and costs are increasing, Dr. Barr said this is a
public relations challenge we face.

Chairman provided his perspective on this issue. He explained that if we
bring on a specialist and maybe add new programs at the same time we
really have no data to show what caused the improvement. He said there
needs to be a baseline established first and data collected ­ this has
been a problem with evaluating the benefits from federally funded
programs and projects sponsored by the Albertson Foundation.
Representative Nielsen said in talking with superintendents they had
stated they could deal with less money if they didn’t have all the
mandates to contend with. Chairman Tilman encouraged Representative
Nielsen to have them put together a list.
Representative Boe announced that the Joint Legislative Oversight
Committee would meet tomorrow, April 3, at 3:30 P.M. in the Gold Room.
She said the Office of Performance Evaluations was directed to begin a
study of public education.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:40 A.M.






DATE: April 3, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail
(Young)
, Bradford, Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon, Eberle,
Garrett, Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representative Lake
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 9:03 A.M. with a quorum
being present. He explained that Representative Young would be taking
Representative Trail’s place on the committee until the end of the session.
MOTION: The minutes of March 31 and April 2, 2003 were reviewed.
Representative Cannon made a motion to accept the minutes of March
31 and April 2 as written. The motion carried by voice vote.
S 1170 Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director of the Idaho Association of School
Administrators, introduced S 1170. Dr. Friend reminded the committee of
the previous presentation/demonstration presented by the Idaho Digital
Learning Academy (IDLA) and explained that this semester they have 600
students enrolled in about 1,000 courses. He pointed out that the IDLA
was established through legislation last year with no fees set for students
or the districts. Dr. Friend described the three areas where fees would be
set as (1) fees charged to school districts for student participation; (2)
fees charged for summer school; and (3) fees charged to students and
adults for professional development offerings (Section 33-5504, Item 11).
He pointed out the second part under Section 33-5505, Line 36, where it
clarifies that there will be no cost to the student unless the student enrolls
in additional courses beyond full-time enrollment. He also stated that
about 15% of students are currently considered “overload” students.



When asked if the “overload” student is clearly defined and understood,
Dr. Friend said he feels it is. Mr. Tim Hill clarified that for funding
purposes a fulltime student must take a minimum of six classes. Dr.
Friend admitted that at this time they do not know how many students
won’t take additional courses if they have to pay a fee.



Dr. Friend explained that the change on Line 41 was necessary to clarify
issues brought up last year regarding out-of-state and adult students, and
the change to Section 33-5508, starting on Page 2, Line 51, outlines that
funding for the infrastructure of the program shall be provided from an
annual budget request to the legislature. He pointed out the significant
change on Page 3, Lines 5-12 which directs the IDLA board to annually
set fees for course offerings, and those fees will be added to the IDLA
budget. He reviewed the fiscal impact and explained that as the fee
schedule is phased in the $600,000 state appropriation will decrease. He
said by blending funds the program can be maintained and grow.



Dr. Friend explained that the IDLA Board looked at three funding options:
chartering, table of divisors, and the fee structure, but when they looked
at the purpose for this program they determined that the fee structure is
the best way to go. When asked what will happen if the $600,000 is not
funded since the Governor didn’t recommend this in his budget, Dr. Friend
replied that they have been in contact with JFAC. He said if the legislation
passes, but does not get funded they will have the fee structure in place
and can seek new grant funds or shut the program down. It was clarified
that the IDLA does not receive ADA payments and students taking more
than six credit house are not charged fees. It was noted that the
infrastructure fees paid from the state would cover license fees, platform
fees, but not operation fees. Dr. Friend explained that chartering IDLA
would have resulted in significantly more funding, but most students are
taking just one or two courses. When asked about fiscal impact
decreasing, he said he feels it will, especially if they double their
enrollment.

MOTION: Representative Jones made a motion to send S 1170 to the floor with
a “DO PASS” recommendation
. He opened debate by reminding the
committee that this is all public school money, and he said he feels this is
a good proposal because it moves the burden to where it should be ­ if
districts are paying fees for students, they will make sure students go
online and do their work. He also feels this legislation will provide a more
stable funding source in the long-term. In response to additional questions
from the committee, Dr. Friend provided the following information:

If an adult wishes to take a course they can find the course offerings
and information on the IDLA website.

In the previous IDLA presentation Mr. Friend said he probably indicated
that they wouldn’t charge the school districts for fear that they wouldn’t
enroll students. IDLA realizes that they are taking a risk with the fee
structure because students have been taking courses for free for a
semester. Dr. Friend said the IDLA feels that by offering a reasonable fee
it will be much cheaper for students to take advanced courses rather than
for the districts to staff a class. Regarding fees for a full-time student, he
said that there would usually be circumstances if a student wanted to
attend full-time, and IDLA could qualify as alternative placement. He felt
IDLA is set up now to accommodate full-time students, and clarified that
right now they charge by course, but the IDLA Board could determine a
fee for a full-time student. Private school students could also enroll in
IDLA through their school district.

It was clarified that the $600,000 would be a line item in the public
school budget, if approved.

The IDLA was organized at the state level to provide services to all
districts and eliminate the cost of each district setting up and managing
their own programs.

The difference between the IDLA and the IDVA are that the IDVA is a
charter school and the IDLA was authorized through statute. When IDVA
gets the full K-12 curriculum they will be a competitor just like the digital
academy at Mountain Home and the university online course offerings.
These programs provide parents and students will a wide variety of
course offerings.

MOTION: There being no further debate, a vote was called for. The motion to
send S 1170 to the floor with a “DO PASS” recommendation passed
unanimously by voice vote.
ADJOURN: Chairman Tilman adjourned the meeting at 9:39 A.M.






DATE: April 9, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail
(Young), Bradford (Larsen), Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon,
Eberle, Garrett, Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representative Boe; Representative Young is serving for Representative
Trail and Representative Larsen is serving for Representative Bradford
GUESTS: Please see presenters highlighted below and the committee sign-in sheet.
MOTION: The minutes of April 3, 2003 were reviewed. Representative Rydalch
made a motion to accept the minutes of as written. The motion carried.
HB 320: Chairman Tilman explained that HB 320 had been before the committee
previously, and because there was no committee motion on the final
disposition of the bill, the bill is being revisited.



Representative Snodgrass introduced HB 320, stating that he feels the
Early Retirement Incentive Program has been good overall, but it seems
the administrative side of the program has become a detriment to the
program. He used Attachment 1 to show Cost Savings and Retirement
Payouts resulting from the early retirement of administrators and teachers
from 1997 to 2003. He pointed out that the Retirement Payout for
administrators has doubled while Cost Savings has decreased. He said it
appears we are not receiving the same benefits when administrators retire
as we are when teachers retire, because new administrators are hired at
the same salary level as those retiring.



Representative Snodgrass also explained the proposed amendment that
would change the effective date to September 1, 2003 to allow those
administrators who have applied for early retirement this year to still be
eligible.

When asked why the early retirement incentive is good policy for
teachers, but not administrators, Representative Snodgrass stated that it
is important to look at individual components of this system and if the
incentive for administrators is not a cost effective, viable option, When the
question was raised about how the salaries for incoming administrators
were calculated, it was explained that the State Department of Education
had good data from 1999 to 2003, but a model had to be constructed for
1997 and 1998. It was also pointed out that an average retirement index
was used.
CON Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, Idaho School Boards Association,
spoke in opposition to HB 320. Dr. Friend said he had two concerns about
this legislation when he spoke previously. The one concern has been
addressed by the amendment changing the effective date to September
1, 2003. He addressed his other concern about including “supervisory
staff” in the bill, explaining that there is no statutory definition for
supervisory staff, but the Department does have a prorating mechanism
for administrators who also teach part-time and the buyout is reduced
proportionately. Dr. Friend mentioned he was concerned about this
legislation’s affect on combining positions for efficiency.



Dr. Friend provided the following responses to committee questions and
concerns:

The work of Idaho’s MOST would make the requirements for
administrator’s look different, but not lessen them, and it is not anticipated
that these changes will make the administrative pool larger.

This legislation could possibly be a deterrent to highly qualified people
moving into administration, and it is possible that some administrators
might drop back into teaching to qualify for the buyout, but not likely.

There is nothing in the law that prevents districts from offering their own
retirement programs, and these programs could be used as recruitment
tools.

Dr. Bob Haley, Legislative Liaison, State Department of Education,
stressed that the Department has no position on HB 320, but they do
have a concern with the words “Supervisory Staff”. He explained that the
IBEDS data system has provisions for reporting classified, instructional,
and administrative staff. He said with this legislation it is unclear whether
supervisory staff means everyone not in a classroom. He explained that
districts may have supervisors of transportation, technology and
curriculum and some may have teaching/administrative certificates and
some may not. He suggested that if the this legislation is trying to target
administrators, the supervisory staff language should be dropped.
Representative Snodgrass addressed some of the concerns from his
perspective, stating that even with this legislation districts could still offer
incentives, only they would have to use local funds to do so. He said he
feels the key to what extent the supervisory positions would qualify for
early retirement would be based on whether the employee is being paid
from either the administrative schedule or the teacher schedule.
Chairman Tilman informed the committee that he would like to include this
item in a study group this summer and sending this legislation to the floor
would place an emphasis on this. Representative Andersen asked if the
vocational technical and the math supervisor from his district would be
excluded from this program. Mr. Tim Hill, State Department of Education,
clarified that the determination is made at the state level based on
information provided by the district. He said currently, employees qualify
based on the IBEDs data and a formula is used to weight the
instructional/administrative time to determine the amount received. He
said the grey area is whether supervisory staff is included.



Those who testified were asked if they were in agreement with a second
amendment to remove the words “supervisory staff” from the language of
the bill. They were in agreement, and Dr. Friend qualified that he agreed
this would “take care of the issue as it relates to the law”.

MOTION: Representative Rydalch made a motion to send HB 320 to general
orders with committee amendments attached that would change the
effective date to September 1, 2003 and to remove the words
“supervisory staff” on Page 2, Line 27. Representative Lake
seconded the motion. The motion carried by voice vote.
Representative Kulczyk wished to recorded as voting nay.
ADJOURN: The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 A.M.






DATE: April 16, 2003
TIME: 10:30 A.M.
PLACE: Room 406
MEMBERS: Chairman Tilman, Vice Chairman Lake, Representatives Jones, Trail
(Young), Bradford (Larsen), Barraclough, Block, Rydalch, Bauer, Cannon,
Eberle, Garrett, Kulczyk, Nielsen, Boe, Andersen, Naccarato, Sayler
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Representatives Lake, Bauer, Cannon, Boe, Naccarato, and Sayler
GUESTS: Dr. Mike Friend, Mr. Phil Homer
Chairman Tilman called the meeting to order at 10:43 A.M. with a quorum
being present.
MOTION: The minutes of April 9 were reviewed. Representative Nielsen made a
motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion carried.
Chairman Tilman thanked the committee and the secretary for their work
this session, stating there is a lot going on in education in Idaho. He said
they are to be complimented as a committee. Representative Young
announced that he is a member of the Accountability Committee.
Representative Nielsen raised the issue of school district audits, and
Chairman Tilman explained that performance audits are in the works.
ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:03 A.M.