2003 Education
[printfriendly]

January 8, 2003
January 9, 2003
January 10, 2003
January 14, 2003
January 15, 2003
January 16, 2003
January 17, 2003
January 21, 2003
January 22, 2003
January 23, 2003
January 24, 2003
January 28, 2003
January 29, 2003
January 30, 2003
January 31, 2003

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

March 4, 2003
March 6, 2003
March 7, 2003
March 11, 2003
March 12, 2003
March 13, 2003
March 14, 2003
March 19, 2003
March 20, 2003
March 21, 2003
March 25, 2003
March 26, 2003
March 27, 2003
March 28, 2003

April 1, 2003
April 2, 2003
April 3, 2003
April 4, 2003
April 8, 2003
April 9, 2003
April 25, 2003
April 29, 2003

May 2, 2003

DATE: January 8, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Senators Noh, Andreason, Noble
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Introductions –

Guests

He then asked the 12 guests in attendance to introduce themselves and
to briefly tell about the organizations they represent.



John Eikum – Executive Director, Idaho Rural Schools

Jerry Helgeson – Educator, President, Meridian Education Association

Anne Pasley-Stuart – Lobbyist, Idaho Nurses Association, and member of
Boise School District Legislative Committee

Steven Meade – Legal Counselor, Idaho School Boards Association

Cliff Green – Executive Director, Idaho School Boards Association

Tom Farley – Bureau Chief, Bureau of Federal Programs

Mike Friend – Executive Director, Idaho Association of School
Administrators

Phil Homer – Lobbyist, Idaho Association of School Administrators

Vikki Reynolds – Administrative Assistant, Idaho Association of School
Administrators

Bob Haley – Legislative Liason, Department of Education

John Watts – Lobbyist, Idaho School Boards Association

Jim Shakelford – Executive Director, Idaho Education Association

Introductions-

Staff and
Committee
members

Senator Schroeder told the committee members that as their chairman,
his responsibility to them was to provide enough information on issues so
they could make good decisions. He will bring in speakers and people to
testify to provide this information.



The Chairman introduced Juanita Budell, committee secretary and page,
Erin Darnell. Erin is a high school senior at Emmett High School and lives
on a ranch in Sweet. He then asked the committee members to introduce
themselves and to say a few words.



Senator Tom Gannon, Vice Chairman, Buhl

Senator John Goedde, Coeur d’Alene

Senator Ron McWilliams, Caldwell

Senator Elliot Werk, Boise

Senator Edgar Malepeai, Pocatello



Excused from this meeting were Senator Laird Noh, Kimberly; Senator
John Andreason, Boise; and Senator Jack Noble, Kuna.

Announcements Senator Schroeder asked that RS’s be turned into him as soon as
possible so that he can schedule them on the calendar. He also
announced that Mike Gilmore, Deputy Attorney General, will review the
status of the pending lawsuit regarding school facilities tomorrow. Tim
Hill, Bureau Chief of Finance, will speak on Public School financing
Friday. Next week will be Rules Review, with Vice Chairman Gannon in
charge.
Adjournment Senator Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 9 a.m.






DATE: January 9, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Senator Goedde
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and asked
the secretary to take a silent roll call.
Guest Speaker He then asked Mike Gilmore, Deputy Attorney General, to review the
status of the pending lawsuit regarding school facilities.



Mr. Gilmore gave a brief background of events leading up to the lawsuit
filed by Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity (ISEEO).



The plaintiffs in the suit are 25 schoolchildren and their parents; ISEEO, an
organization of school district superintendents; and 26 school districts who
contend that the State has not met its constitutional duty to establish and
maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common
schools in a safe environment conducive to learning.



The 1993 decision of the Idaho Supreme Court said they would look to the
legislative and executive branches to determine what the minimal
requirement was. They then looked at the State Board of Education’s rules
and determined there were three areas in the rules the State Constitution
would look to and that they needed to meet a certain minimum. They
were: curriculum and instruction; transportation; and school facilities.



After the 1993 decision, all of the State Board’s rules were repealed and
sunsetted over a two year period. The State Board was then charged with
implementing a new thoroughness standard, enacted by the Legislature in
1994. It soon became apparent that some schools did not meet the safety
standard (safe environment conducive to learning). Some districts have
been unable to pass school bond levies which would have helped them
build or repair their facilities. In 2000, an interest subsidy program was
implemented for bond indebtedness, which gave districts more of an
incentive to pass bond elections. The money from this program has now
been used, which was $15 million.






Mr. Gilmore said the State’s position was that there was only one district
that tried and could not provide safe facilities with the resources available
to them. They determined that a number of other districts had the
resources, but spent their money in other areas. Mr. Gilmore said the
District Judge disagreed and declared the entire system unconstitutional.
She reserved jurisdiction and started another series of proceedings last
summer.



In the meantime, the Division of Building Safety has been given some
additional authority. Imminent safety hazards – requires immediate steps to
be taken; serious safety hazards – the Division of Building Safety has a one
year window in which it can have repairs made.



The latest action by Judge Bail was to appoint a Special Remedial Master,
at an estimated compensation of $400,000 to report to the District Court
the conditions of Idaho’s school facilities. Charles Hummel has been
appointed to this position.



Mr. Gilmore provided the committee with the following material:
Memorandum In Support of Verified Petition For Writ of Prohibition and/or
To Exercise Appellate Jurisdiction Over Orders of the District Court and
Verified Petition For Writ of Prohibition and/or To Exercise Appellate
Jurisdiction Over Orders of the District Court. Both were filed December
23, 2002 in the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho.



The Writ of Prohibition is to prohibit the District Court and the District Judge
from exceeding the Court’s jurisdiction and intruding into the Executive and
Legislative Powers.



Senator Schroeder asked when the Supreme Court might respond. Mr.
Gilmore said the Supreme Court is very unpredictable and it could take
weeks or months. Mr. Gilmore also said the litigation could go on several
more years.

Other business Ms. Randi McDermott, Plans & Policy Officer for the Idaho State Board of
Education, gave each committee member a notebook containing the Rules
that are to be presented next week. By receiving the Rules now, the
members can review the material to be presented by Ms. McDermott.



Chairman Schroeder allowed time for the committee to hold an informal
discussion on a number of topics pertaining to their responsibilities.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10 a.m.






DATE: January 10, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

none
Call to order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 8:35 a.m.
Introduction of
Guests






Announcement

Jim Shakelford, Executive Director of IEA, introduced two teachers visiting
the area: Mike Anderson from Lewiston and Gary Holt, Genesee. Both
are Junior High School teachers.



Senator Schroeder announced that he needed to put a rumor to rest that
is circulating. The rumor is that the Senate leadership made a deal to
refer education bills to other committees. This rumor started in the House
and Senator Schroeder said he has talked to the Majority Leader about
this issue. This is the germane committee for education and education
bills will be referred to this committee. If leadership requests a hearing on
a bill, or if they indicate that a bill should be held, that is what will be done.
If the committee holds a bill, leadership will back up the committee’s
decision 100 percent. Senator Schroeder said he was told by leadership
that this is the way it is and by this announcement, it should put an end to
the rumor .

Guest Speaker Chairman Schroeder then turned the meeting over to Tim Hill, Bureau
Chief of Finance, who gave a power point presentation on public school
finance.



Tim said to help understand the complexity of school financing, the
presentation will help explain the following questions:



  1. Where do Public School Funds come from?
  2. How are the funds distributed?
  3. What is a Support Unit and how is it calculated?
  4. What is Salary-based Apportionment?
  5. How much is a Support Unit worth?
  6. What is Equalization and how is it applied?
  7. How much is the Distribution Factor and how is it calculated?
  8. What is the payment distribution schedule?
  9. How is a district’s foundation payment calculated?


Handouts of the presentation were provided to the members of the
committee and also to the audience. (Copy attached.)



To fully understand school financing, one needed to be present at this
meeting to see the charts, graphs, and statistics used in conjunction with
the verbal comments. Tim said he could be reached at his office if further
explanation was needed.



Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. by Chairman Schroeder.






DATE: January 14, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
Announcements The Chairman announced there is information in the blue folders on the
table that should be reviewed.



WWAMI has extended an invitation to a reception and dinner on January
21. If anyone wishes to attend, turn in your reservation to the committee
secretary.



Tomorrow from 8 a.m. to noon on the 4th Floor of the Rotunda, Service
Employees International Union Local 687, will be available to talk to.



A Bond equalization levy index calculation table has been made available
by the Department of Education. This table was requested by the
committee when Tim Hill made his presentation regarding school funding.

Rules Review

Chairman Schroeder said Idaho is one of a few states that has a legal
right, as stated by the Supreme Court, to review rules of the state
agencies. This process is held in January and according to tradition, the
vice chairman of the committee, chairs the rules review. He then turned
the meeting over to Vice Chairman Gannon.



Chairman Gannon welcomed Randi McDermott, Plans and Policy Officer
for the State Board of Education, who will present the requested changes
and Beth Weaver will address the Driver Education changes.

Docket number:

08-0203-0202

Assessment – The changes are essentially housekeeping in nature.
Removes the reference to require non-public students to participate in
state testing at their own expense. All newly adopted tests have been
renamed and are now referred to as Idaho Standards Achievement Tests.
Removed specific allowance for 9th grade students to take the high school
test. Clarifies that the SBOE will establish proficiency levels for the high
school ISAT. Minor clerical changes were also made.
08-0203-0204 Language Arts Standards – Minor changes include editing for wordiness
and clarity. Ensures that standards, content knowledge and skill are
aligned by grade level.
08-0203-0203 Humanities Standards – Changes made were minor clerical changes for
correctness and clarity.
08-0202-0203 Driver Education/Public Schools – The revisions regarding commercial
schools are not yet ready; however, the rule change related to public
schools is ready to go forward. It establishes minimum standards for teen
driver education. The last revision was in 1996.
02-0202-0201 Teacher Technology Skills – Adds a requirement that technology
competency must be demonstrated prior to obtaining a certificate.
08-0202-0202 Interim Certification – Provides a process for out-of-state certificate
holders to get an interim three year, non-renewable certificate in Idaho.
There were many questions by some of the new committee members.
However, Ms. McDermott and Ms. Weaver did a good job of explaining
the rules and the rules process.
Adjournment Senator Gannon turned the meeting back to Senator Schroeder who then
adjourned the meeting at 11 a.m.






DATE: January 15, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

none
Call to order Senator Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. He then
turned the meeting over to Senator Gannon to continue the Rules Review.
Rules Review Senator Gannon welcomed Sue Payne from the Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation. She will address the rule changes for that department. He
also welcomed Jana Jones from the Department of Education to address
the rules on Special Education.
Docket number:



47-0101-0201

47-0102-0201

47-0103-0201

Vocational Rehab – The reason for the change is to streamline and to
condense the rules from three sections to one. It will reduce duplication
of the Rehabilitation Act and federal regulations. There are also some
word changes, such as: from client to participant; and from Administrative
Review to Informal Dispute Resolution or Mediation.
08-0203-0201 Special Education – In order to receive federal funds to support the
education of students with disabilities in accordance with the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997, Idaho has to demonstrate
that it has met all required conditions. On March 15, 2001, the Idaho
Department of Education submitted the 2001 Idaho Special Education
Plan to the US Department of Education that it had complied with all
requirements. The US Department of Education contacted the State
Department requiring changes in state rules as a condition of approval of
the state plan. The changes to the rules reflect the recommended
changes.
Following the presentation of the Rules Review, time was allowed for a
discussion of various topics. Senator Gannon then turned the meeting
back to Senator Schroeder.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 9 a.m.






DATE: January 16, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Announcements He thanked the committee for their hard work the past two days regarding
the Rules Review. He announced that voting will take place Wednesday,
January 22.
Guest speakers The Chairman said there are representatives from four groups to present
their legislative agenda before the committee. He then welcomed the first
speaker, Julie Van Orden, President, Idaho PTA, Inc.
Ms. Van Orden said the Idaho PTA has six items on their legislative
agenda:



  1. Education funding
  2. Tax credits/vouchers
  3. Parent involvement
  4. State achievement standards
  5. Safe and nurturing environment
  6. Safe school facilities


Regarding funding, she said they will pursue all reasonable avenues to
ensure funding needed to provide a quality public education system for
the children of Idaho.



The Idaho PTA believes tuition tax credits/vouchers would be detrimental
in Idaho. If public funds are removed from public schools, tax increases
may be needed to compensate the local districts that lose funding.



The Idaho PTA believes that schools should incorporate parent
involvement into all aspects of education. It supports The National
Standards for Parent Involvement
. (Copies were given to the committee
members.)



Regarding state achievement standards, Ms. Van Orden said the Idaho
PTA is concerned about high stakes testing. It opposes the use of a
national, mandated standardized test as the sole criteria for measuring
progress. They feel an assessment system should use multiple measures
of performance, offer tests that are linked to student achievement
standards, and include other indicators of educational quality. The overall
goal of student assessment should be to identify how instruction and
learning can be improved.



Regarding a safe and nurturing environment, the Idaho PTA supports
initiatives that foster safety within our schools. This is by providing a
supportive climate and violence prevention measures, class size
reduction efforts, and after school programs.



The last item on the Idaho PTA’s legislative agenda is safe school
facilities. They believe that local school districts have the primary
responsibility for providing safe school facilities. When state assistance is
allocated, it should be distributed equitably to local districts.



In closing, Ms. Van Orden said she feels parental involvement is the key
factor to good schools.

Senator Schroeder thanked Julie for the good work that she is doing
through the Idaho PTA and for speaking to the committee today. He then
introduced Kathy Phelan, President of the Idaho Education Association.
Ms. Phelan said the IEA is an organization of almost 12,000 members
and it supports policy decisions that advance the interests of children and
public education. The IEA’s legislative goals are:



  1. Student Achievement
  2. Professional Development
  3. School and Community Relations
  4. New Teacher Support
  5. Professional Advocacy
  6. Adequate Funding


Regarding class size, they support reducing class sizes in grades K-6 to
no more than 20 students per teacher and in grades 7-12, to 25 students
per class.



In the Professional Development area, educators in Idaho who have
attained National Board Certification are awarded $2,000 each year up to
five years. Ms. Phelan said they would like for it to be for ten years.



The IEA knows how important it is for parents to be involved in their
child’s education. They are in support of legislation to provide incentives
for businesses to allow working parents to volunteer at least one hour per
month in their children’s school during the regular school hours.



The New Teacher Support program is critical to the success of the new
teachers and the IEA believes funding must be continued.



Professional Advocacy – the IEA believes that school district employees
should have the same employment securities as state employees when
serving as reservists in the military. They would be entitled to a leave of
absence, without loss of pay, time, or efficiency rating under the
provisions of the national defense act.



Regarding adequate funding, the IEA supports Dr. Marilyn Howard’s
budget request. The IEA opposes any funding taken away from public
schools to support private, parochial, and home schools.

Invited to speak next, following a 15 minute break, was Dr. Cliff Green,
Executive Director for the Idaho School Boards Association, which has a
membership of about 550 trustees.



Regarding their legislative agenda, Dr. Green said every year ISBA holds
a business session at the annual conference. Districts bring resolutions
to that meeting which are then presented and voted on. This year, nine
resolutions were passed at the business session. One was in opposition
to school vouchers and tuition tax credits. Another was funding for
summer school programs – using carried over funds. The Board is also
looking at certificated hiring practices. Another issue is identification of
unschooled children. Dr. Green said this does not mean home schooled
children, it is children not receiving any educational services and he is
looking for someone to sponsor this bill. ISBA is also asking for
additional funding for kindergarten and gifted programs.

Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director for the Idaho Association of School
Administrators, was the next speaker. He said IASA has four Legislative
priorities:



  1. Public School funding
  2. Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
  3. Technology Support
  4. School Facilities


Regarding funding, the Association supports a 2004 Public School Budget
request that provides the minimum resources to fund state and federal
mandates as well as other critical identified needs of Idaho students.
IASA supports efforts to provide a stabilization fund, reducing the impact
of underestimation of support units and other variables impacting public
school funding, as well as potential holdbacks in the future. They are also
opposed to all forms of educational tax credits and vouchers.



The IASA believes that the current standards, assessment, and
accountability initiative will improve the level of achievement of all
students. Full funding will be required in order for this initiative to be
successful.



The IASA supports the Idaho Legislature in its efforts to assist in providing
technology in all Idaho schools and ongoing funds dedicated to
technology must continue to be made available to every school district.
Accountability for the use of these funds must remain in accordance with
the locally developed technology plans.



Regarding school facilities, the IASA recognizes the need for the Idaho
Legislature to provide additional alternative funding mechanisms for the
construction of school facilities. They also support an amendment to the
Idaho Constitution that would lower the supermajority requirement.



Dr. Friend also presented the Association’s “Position Statements” on a
number of issues. These are identified in the handout provided to the
committee, Legislative Beat. He also provided a fact sheet regarding the
Idaho Digital Learning Academy. A presentation regarding the Academy
will be scheduled for a committee hearing.

Closing
comments
Senator Schroeder thanked the people that spoke to the committee today.
He said he also wanted to thank the people that continually attend the
meetings, as he can rely on their expertise and knowledge when he
needs an answer to a question.
Announcements Tomorrow’s meeting will be held in the Gold Room and the program is
“Education Reform Initiatives”.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 10:50 a.m.






DATE: January 17, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Senator Noble
Call to order Chairman Schroeder call the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
Announcements The Chairman made several announcements for the benefit of the
committee. He said the official clock for the Senate is in the Senate
Chambers. There are other clocks, but they may not be in sync. He also
explained the new sound system for the Gold Room and the on/off
buttons for the microphones. Next Tuesday, Vice Chairman Gannon will
be in charge of the committee meeting as Senator Schroeder will be
attending a panel discussion regarding education issues. He then
welcomed the associations who are presenting today’s program on
“Education Reform Initiatives”. They are the Idaho Education Association,
the Idaho Association of School Administrators, and the Idaho School
Boards Association. This presentation was made to the State Board of
Education and was well received.
Guest speakers Chairman Schroeder then turned the meeting over to Jim Shackelford,
Executive Director of the Idaho Education Association.



Jim said his presentation will provide a historical picture of how we got to
where we are. Dr. Friend, Executive Director of IASA, will provide
information about the various school improvement initiatives that are
underway in Idaho and Dr. Green, Executive Director of ISBA, will discuss
what that means.



Mr. Shackelford introduced nine people who have participated in this
project (Stakeholders). He said there are also six practitioners who are
available to answer questions and they were introduced.



A copy of Mr. Shackelford’s presentation is attached. Highlights from his
talk include:

  1. 1978 – the passage of the 1% Initiative brought a significant
    change in how our schools were funded.
  2. Mid-1980’s – greater state and federal involvement and control.
  3. 1997 – developed a comprehensive, whole-system reform initiative
    that envisioned three distinct elements ­student achievement
    standards, assessment system and accountability process.
  4. Present – the first two of these steps have been completed. A
    special task force has been appointed by the State Board of
    Education to create a draft accountability plan.
  5. Financial support – the Legislature has for the past two years
    provided general fund dollars to help schools realign their
    curricula, professional development strategies, and assessment
    processes. The Albertson Foundation has made generous
    contributions to every school district and their goal is to help Idaho
    public schools be successful.
  6. 2002 – No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), a sweeping reform plan,
    signed by President Bush.
  7. “MOST” – a special committee to look at the issue of teacher
    quality. How teachers are trained, certified, and re-certified.


Jim said it is a thrilling, exhilarating, and profound time for the teaching
profession, but also one of considerable confusion and anxiety. He then
turned the podium over to Dr. Mike Friend.

Dr. Friend said when the Stakeholder’s group met, they looked for ways to
improve the school initiatives. They devised a plan which they called a
“Conceptual Framework”. The outcome they hope to achieve is that all
schools in Idaho meet accreditation requirements to help ensure all
students in Idaho meet and/or exceed the Idaho Achievement Standards.
This framework consists of six areas: Standards and Assessment;
Accountability for Results; Focused Professional Development; A
competent, caring, qualified teacher in every classroom; A State Data
Management System to support data based Decision Making;and
Leadership in the State, District, School, Classroom and Community. The
next step was to compare how Federal and State Initiatives align. The
work plan has been aligned to the Conceptual Framework. (Handout
attached.)
Next to speak was Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director, Idaho School
Boards Association. Attached is his testimony. A brief summary of his
remarks are as follows:

  1. The ISBA remains committed to the goals and objectives of
    improving student achievement;
  2. The willingness of the education community to embrace
    accountability and they support the intent of reform;
  3. All parties involved are working collaboratively;
  4. NCLB came with promises of resources, which to date have not
    been realized;
  5. Education community applauds and fully supports the Albertson
    Foundation’s $35 million gift to create and implement a new
    student data tracking system;


In closing, Dr. Green said that “if we don’t work together and support each
other, I can assure you we will fail”. He also said that they want to
succeed because the goal is the right one for Idaho’s children and asked
that the committee stand with them.



Time was allotted for questions from the committee, as well as testimony
from the audience. The audience was comprised mostly of educators and
their main concern was time: time for teaching and time for complying with
the new requirements.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.











DATE: January 21, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Senator Schroeder
Call to order Vice Chairman Gannon assumed the duties of the Chair in the absence of
Senator Schroeder, who is testifying on a panel relating to education
issues. Chairman Gannon called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Introduction of
State Board
members
He then introduced Blake Hall, president of the State Board of Education
who is from Idaho Falls. Mr. Hall introduced the other members of the
Board. They are Dr. Marilyn Howard, State Superintendent of Public
Instruction, Boise; Darrell Manning, Boise; Paul Agidius, Moscow; Laird
Stone, Twin Falls; James Hammond, Vice President, Post Falls; Karen
McGee, Pocatello. Board member Rod Lewis was unable to attend. Mr.
Hall also introduced staff members – Randi McDermott and Randy
Thompson. Following the introductions, Mr. Hall made some brief
remarks.



Chairman Gannon thanked the Board for taking the time to visit and
suggested that perhaps they could return in the future for a “Question and
Answer” session.

Announcements Chairman Gannon announced that tomorrow the committee will be voting
on the Rules. Randi has provided a handout (in blue folder) for each
member regarding Drivers Education Rules, as there were some
concerns. This information should help to clarify those concerns.
Guest Speaker The Chairman then welcomed Robert Huntley, a local attorney for ISEEO
(Idaho Schools for Equal Education Opportunity).



Mr. Huntley had a handout for each committee member and it provides a
condensed overview of the 11 major issues, some of which he will briefly
talk about this morning. The 11 sections are as follows:

  1. Original decision of Judge Bail determining that the present
    funding system is unconstitutional and that deficiency is a
    statewide systemic problem.
  2. ISEEO’s proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which
    provide more specifics than the Court’s opening opinion.
  3. Decision of Judge Bail appointing Remedial Special Master.
  4. Order of Judge Bail dated December 19, 2002 confirming
    appointment of Master and providing additional detailed reasoning
    as to its merits.
  5. ISEEO attorney summary of reports on building conditions from
    approximately 85 school districts.
  6. Exhibits from ISEEO trial depicting basis of need for increased
    appropriation of $55 million per year.
  7. Statement of Purpose in RS being filed this week providing for
    removal of public utilities exemption from Sales Tax Act to gain
    $50.8 million to fund fix of public school facilities with any excess
    over $55 million to go to colleges and universities.
  8. Draft of Bill described.
  9. Hummel Architects Protocol.
  10. Offer for mediation.
  11. Petition for Writ of Prohibition against Judge Bail appointing
    Remedial Special Master.


(This document will be on file in the Senate Education office for review.)



Following Mr. Huntley’s presentation, time was allowed for questions from
the committee.

Adjournment Senator Gannon adjourned the meeting at 9:50 a.m.






DATE: January 22, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

none
Call to order The meeting was called to order at 8:35 a.m. by Chairman Schroeder.
Vote – Rules He said the first order of business would be to vote on the Rules
presented by the Department/Board of Education and the Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation.
Motion After a very brief discussion, Senator Andreason made the motion that the
Rules be accepted as submitted. The motion was seconded by Senator
Noble. A voice vote indicated that it was unanimous.
RS 12459 Senator Goedde said his RS points out the disparity in federal funding of
education in the Western states. It is his intent to have this RS printed,
then have a hearing at which time a PowerPoint presentation will be
made.
Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to send RS 12459 to print. The
motion was seconded by Senator Werk. A voice vote indicated that it was
unanimous.
RS 12405 Chairman Schroeder presented RS 12405 in Senator Davis’s absence.
This RS concerns the name change of Eastern Idaho Technical College.
Senator Goedde questioned the lower case c in the word county, page 1,
line 18.
Motion After some discussion, Senator Goedde made the motion to send RS
12405 to print, with the provision that Legislative Services check to make
sure it is written properly. The motion was seconded by Senator Gannon.
A voice vote indicated that it was unanimous.



Senator Davis arrived at the conclusion of the discussion regarding RS
12405 and was informed of the committee’s actions.

At ease Chairman Schroeder announced that Kelly Matthews, this morning’s
speaker, will not arrive until 9:30 a.m. and the committee will be at ease
until that time.
Reconvene The Chairman welcomed Mr. Matthews, Executive Vice President and
Economist from Wells Fargo Bank, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Guest Speaker Mr. Matthews thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak. He
introduced Brent Fery, who is a Government Relations representative with
the bank.



Mr. Matthews provided two handouts: Idaho Economic Forecast Summary
and Employers’ Education Coalition Report. He referred to the Summary
throughout his presentation and his talk consisted of four points.



  1. This year, we will begin to see a slight upswing in economic
    growth and just a little economic growth will be significant.


  2. We do not have enough strength to generate tax revenues
    sufficiently to hold budgets harmless or to hold at last year’s level,
    but enough strength that the size of revenue growth may not derail
    it.


  3. With all the states that are in the same situation that we are in right
    now, we need to ask ourselves where will the prosperity come
    from in the next decade. In the Boise area, it boils down to
    Micron. Technology is the reason for rapid growth. To be
    winners in the future decade, there must be a quality education
    environment. To loose education momentum would be a serious
    circumstance. If we have to have some new revenue to avoid
    losing the momemtum in the education environment, Mr. Kelly said
    he would be on that side, believing that the long run investment
    and advantages far outweigh the short run pain in terms of
    protecting that momentum and sustaining that growth.


  4. This relates to the Governor’s desire to rebuild some of the
    reserves. Regarding maintaining a good bond rating, if the state
    slips in its bond rating, it is very hard to reestablish that rating.
    Fiscal strength is very important.
The Chairman allowed time for questions from the committee.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. Matthews for speaking to the committee
and announced that they could hear him again at 3 p.m. when he
addresses the Local Government and Taxation Committee.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.






DATE: January 23, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

none
Call to order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 8:30 a.m.
He welcomed Dr. Dene Thomas, president of Lewis-Clark State College.
Guest Speaker Dr. Thomas had two handouts (attached) for the committee members.
One is a PowerPoint presentation, but she opted to do it in print form,
rather than to show it. The other handout is a fact sheet regarding the
college.



Some facts that were pointed out by Dr. Thomas: LCSC was founded in
1893 as a normal school and functions today as a state university. Its
programs include Academic, Professional-Technical, and Community.
This year’s growth increased 5%. Over the past 15 years, student
headcount has increased from 2,000 to over 3,000 academic and part-time students. The placement rate in 2002 is 95.8% for Academic
programs and 94.0% for Professional-Technical programs. The nursing
graduates’ exam pass rate was 100% in 2001.



The six emphasis areas are teacher education, nursing, social work,
justice studies, business, and professional-technical. In addition to
delivering credit courses to over 3,100 academic and Professional –
Technical students this year, the college provided non-credit, extended
programs to over 5,400 students in the region. It also provided support to
over 7,000 people at the Coeur d’Alene Center and the Outreach Centers.
There were 4,900 students in the workforce training programs.
Community Services (AmeriCorps, adult literacy, Senior Nutrition, family
education, corrections facilities programs, etc.) was provided for over
40,000 Idahoans.



The impact of FY03 budget cuts for personnel resulted in 16 FTE
positions lost; no raises; and unfilled vacancies. Low demand programs
were either down-sized or eliminated and some courses are offered less
frequently.



President Thomas said LCSC is meeting its mission and is operating
efficiently. Their strategic plan will enable them to continue their success
into the future. She stated that she appreciated the Legislature’s support.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Thomas for her presentation and
congratulated her for the good job she is doing. He then announced there
would be a 15 minute break.

Reconvene The Chairman called the meeting to order and said the next presenters
are from Pocatello School District #25 and they will demonstrate how they
use the products and services of Compass Learning. He then welcomed
Ms. Linda Powell, Superintendent, and her group of principals, teachers,
and representatives from the company.
Guest Speakers Ms. Powell said that in the second year of implementation, they are
seeing increases in student achievement across the district. Compass
Learning is an instructional intervention program comprised of
instructional software, management reporting and continuous
assessment. The software provides instructional lessons and activities
that address each of the Idaho Achievement Standards and associated
objectives, Grades K – Adult. A PowerPoint presentation was given
showing how students in one room, at various levels of learning, receive
the necessary help. Students move through their instructional plan based
upon their individual performance. Also addressing the committee and
participating in the PowerPoint presentation were Cheryl Charlton,
Principal; Evelyn Robinson, Principal; Brenda Scheer, teacher; Janelle
Arvas, teacher; and Mary Wallace, Compass Learning, Senior Vice
President.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder thanked everyone for their presentation, then
adjourned the meeting at 11:20 a.m.






DATE: January 24, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Senator Andreason
Call to order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 8:35 a.m.
Approval of
minutes
The Chairman entertained motions for the approval of minutes.
Motion Senator Malepeai made the motion for the approval of the minutes as
written for January 8, 9, 10. Senator Goedde seconded the motion. A
voice vote indicated it was unanimous.
Motion Senator Gannon made the motion for the approval of the minutes as
written for January 16 and 17. Senator Goedde seconded the motion. A
voice vote indicated it was unanimous.
Guest Speakers Chairman Schroeder said he had invited the student lobbyists from the
three universities to share some of their thoughts and concerns with the
committee. First to speak was Nate Flory, representing the University of
Idaho. Next was Richard Hachtel, Boise State University. Representing
Idaho State University was Jeremy Peirsol. Jerilynn Mecham, Idaho State
University student body president, also spoke. After hearing from the
student lobbyists, it was apparent they all were in agreement with the
Governor’s budget proposal.



Senator Goedde asked Ms. Randi McDermott from the State Board of
Education if she would provide the committee with a comparison of costs
for students of higher education in Idaho and surrounding states. Ms.
McDermott agreed to provide that information.



Senator Schroeder thanked the student lobbyists for their presentations.



Chairman Schroeder introduced Dr. Robert Hoover, President of the
University of Idaho, who was the next speaker.



Dr. Hoover said there were several areas he wished to address – UI’s
background, strategic priorities, budget reduction and the Governor’s
budget request. Following is a brief summary.



The University of Idaho was constitutionally established as the Idaho
land-grant institution in 1889. Its mission includes teaching, research,
and outreach. The outreach centers are located in Boise, Coeur d’ Alene,
and Idaho Falls. Research and extension services are in 42 Idaho
counties.



The strategic priorities are the strategic goals; residential campus of
choice; research/graduate education programs; outreach, economic
development; supporting infrastructure; and national rankings. The
institutional priorities are to grow enrollment and quality of undergraduate
programs; to grow research and graduate education programs; extend
outreach in mission areas; collaborate with other higher education
institutions; increase private fund-raising, contracts and grants; build
infrastructure to support all this; and emerge as a nationally ranked public
university.



The three role and mission goals are: residential campus of choice in
Idaho and the West; globally competitive center for selected high-quality
graduate, professional and research programs; and to expand capacity
and delivery of outreach programs. The infrastructure goals are
personnel, finance, facilities and infrastructure, and advancement. The
objective is to be in the top 50 public universities.



Regarding research, there was more than $88 million in research activity
in FY02. It has an economic impact of $110 million to Idaho’s economy.
The economic impact projected for FT03 is $140 million.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Hoover for speaking to the committee
today and for the good job he is doing at the University.

Approval of
minutes
Before adjourning the meeting, the Chairman said there was more
business before the committee.
Motion Senator Noble made the motion for the approval of the minutes as written
for January 14 and 15. Senator Noh seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated it was unanimous.
Announcements Senator Schroeder announced that our page, Erin Darnell, will be leading
the Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance today. He also asked that any
additional RS’s be given to him as soon as possible.
Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.






DATE: January 28, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Guest Speaker He then introduced Mike Rush, Administrator of the Idaho Division of
Professional-Technical Education, who will present his annual report.



Mr. Rush provided a copy of the Professional-Technical’s FY2002 Annual
Report to each committee member. In this report, Mr. Rush stated that
“budget holdbacks, increased public support and the single largest fall
enrollment increase in history for Idaho’s technical colleges made 2002 a
year of challenges and significant progress.” Also, the economic
downturn and a need for higher level work skills created significant
demand for professional-technical education in high schools and colleges.
In addition, an increasingly complex work environment and the new Idaho
achievement standards made program quality more important than ever.
To address that need, the system continued to improve curricula and
expand program options.



The mission statement for the Professional-Technical Education is to
provide Idaho’s youth and adults with technical skill, knowledge, and
attitudes necessary for successful performance in a highly effective
workplace.



The Professional-Technical Education system experienced significant
growth between 1997 and 2002. Two hundred forty-one new secondary
programs were activated and 108 programs were discontinued.



Three of the six technical colleges are part of four-year institutions, two
are part of community colleges, and one is a stand-alone technical
college. The state appropriation for funding was 86.5% and the federal
funding was 12.7%, with 0.8% coming from other funds. The Division of
Professional-Technical Education also fiscally administered the School-to-Work Grant.



Mr. Rush provided a PowerPoint presentation (attached), assisted by
Gerry Hostetler. Ann Stephens was available to answer any questions.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Mike for his report and also for the good job
he is doing. He then said there would be a 10 minute break.

Reconvene



Introduction of
guests



Guest Speaker

After calling the meeting to order, Senator Schroeder asked Rick Waitley
to introduce his guests. Mr. Waitley said the nine students are from the U
of I campus in Moscow and the campus in Idaho Falls and are on a public
policy tour.



Chairman Schroeder introduced Jeff Shinn, Analyst with the Department
of Financial Management, who will present the Governor’s budget
recommendations relating to Professional-Technical Education and Public
Schools, K-12. Mr. Shinn provided a copy of the Executive Budget
Recommendations to the committee members (attached) and he
referenced his remarks to this handout.



Senator Andreason inquired as to the growth of enrollment this year. Dr.
Bob West, Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, said the
over-all increase this year is about 2,000 students as compared to last
year. Tim Hill, Bureau Chief of Finance and Transportation stated there
has been an increase in enrollment over the past four years. Senator

Andreason requested information regarding this matter and Mr. Hill said
he would provide it for the committee.



In Jeff’s concluding remarks, he said there are three things to remember
in the budgeting process: (1) the agency request; (2) the Governor’s
recommendation; and (3) the legislative appropriation. These three steps
occur for all agencies, not just education. He also said that all information
regarding the budget can be obtained from the internet. The Department
of Financial Management molds the requests to the budget and the
Governor is required to present to the legislature a balanced budget.

Adjournment The Chairman thanked Jeff for his presentation. He then adjourned the
meeting at 10:55 a.m.






DATE: January 29, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Announcements He said there were several handouts (in the blue folder) for the committee
members. Tim Hill has provided the enrollment figures, as requested by
Senator Andreason yesterday. Tim will be available for questions for a
brief time, then has another meeting to attend. There are also handouts
from the two speakers, as well as a letter from a retired teacher.
SJM 101 Senator Schroeder said that Senator Goedde will present his bill, SJM
101. Senator Goedde had a PowerPoint presentation – The Apple
Initiative (Action Plan for Public Lands and Education). Following the
presentation and questions, Senator Schroeder read the definition of a
joint memorial from the Blue Book, which is: A petition usually addressed
to the President, the Congress, or some official or department of the
United States Government, requesting an action which is within the
jurisdiction of the official or body addressed. A Joint Memorial is acted
upon in essentially the same manner as a bill, and must be passed by
both houses. It is not signed by the Governor.
Motion Senator Goedde made the motion to send SJM 101 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Noh seconded the motion. After some
discussion, a roll call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously.
Senator Goedde will be the sponsor of the bill.
Guest Speaker Chairman Schroeder welcomed Dr. Charles Ruch, President of Boise
State University.



Dr. Ruch said he would talk about the following issues:

  1. How BSU managed the FY03 Budget reductions.
  2. Enrollment increases
  3. Strategies for managing enrollment growth
  4. Faculty and student honors and highlights
  5. BSU West – Growth at the current Canyon County Campus

Why the new campus

Governor’s recommendation to bond

  1. FY04 Budget Request

Dr. Ruch provided the committee two handouts (attached). One is a fact
sheet, the other a legislative report.



Highlights of his talk are as follows:

Boise State’s goal is to maintain the quality of its programs and services.
However, in 2003, student fees were increased, elimination of more than
40 jobs (including 22 faculty positions), cancellation in the purchase of
$600,000 in much-needed equipment, and a freeze on the development
of the Boise State-West campus.



BSU was founded by the Episcopal Church in 1932 as a Junior College,
and is now the largest institution in the state with more than 17,700
students and grows about two percent per year.



The Governor’s budget recommendation for FY ’04 is to provide funding
to restart more than $67 million in new construction and renovation
projects. Restored funding to this and other projects would provide an
important economic stimulus to the state.



The university offers courses in eight colleges: Applied Technology, Arts
and Sciences, Business and Economics, Education, Engineering,
Graduate Studies, Health Sciences, and Social Sciences and Public
Affairs. Besides the main campus, there are education centers in Canyon
County, Mountain Home Air Force Base, Gowen Field and Twin Falls. It
also delivers classes via the Internet, compressed video, microwave,
cable, computer conferencing and radio. The university has an extensive
evening program at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and the
summer session is the state’s largest.



Senator Schroeder thanked Dr. Ruch for his 10 years of leadership at
BSU and wished him well in his retirement.



Senator Schroeder announced there would be a 10 minute break.

Reconvene Following the break, Senator Schroeder introduced Jane McClaran,
analyst for Higher Education from the Department of Financial
Management.



Ms. McClaran provided a six page handout (attached) that listed the
general differences between the Agency request and the Governor’s
recommendations for FY 2004 and she reviewed this for the committee.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 10:50 a.m.






DATE: January 30, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senators Noh and McWilliams
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Guests & Guest
Speaker
He then introduced Carolyn Mauer, Bureau Chief of Curriculum and
Accountability, who will talk about “Charter Schools: Idaho’s Newest
Public School”. Senator Schroeder also introduced Dr. Bob Barr, BSU,
and Dr. Bob Haley, State Department of Education, who will assist Ms.
Mauer in answering questions.



Arriving in time to observe the Senate Education Committee in action and
to hear about charter schools were nine students and one teacher from
the Sandpoint Charter School. Chairman Schroeder asked their teacher,
Jennifer Greve, to introduce her class.



Ms. Mauer gave the committee members a five page handout with
pertinent information regarding charter schools (attached). She referred
to this material throughout her presentation.



Some highlights Ms. Mauer said regarding charter schools: There are
currently 13 charter schools in operation, with three more to open in the
Fall of 2003. Funding is based on average daily attendance. Local
school boards grant charters and they may renew and/or revoke charters.
Charter schools are required to employ Idaho certificated instructional
staff and they must undergo criminal background checks. The charter
schools must participate in the statewide assessment program, be
accredited, and conduct annual financial and programmatic audits to
present to trustees.



Following the presentation, time was allowed for questions from the
committee.



Chairman Schroeder asked several students from the Sandpoint Charter
School why they chose to attend a charter school. Their replies were that
they preferred the smaller class size compared to a regular public school.



Senator Schroeder thanked Ms. Mauer for her presentation and also
thanked the students for choosing to visit the Education Committee
meeting today.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder then adjourned the meeting at 9:30, as there is a
joint meeting with the House Education committee in the Gold Room at
9:40.
Joint meeting in
the Gold Room
Representative Tilman chaired the joint meeting and called it to order at
9:45 a.m. He welcomed Craig Olsen from the Albertson Foundation who
will present a program regarding Idaho Student Information Management
and Reporting System (ISIMS).



Mr. Olsen gave a PowerPoint presentation and furnished a notebook, with
copies of the slides, for all committee members. (Copies attached and a
copy is on file in the Senate Education Office.) Please see the notebook
for a full report. Following is a brief summary of the presentation.



The goal of ISIMS is for the standardization of Idaho student data. It is
funded by the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation. The Foundation
has provided $3.5 million for this project, which began November, 2001.
The mission statement of ISIMS is to equip the Idaho educational system
stakeholders with the most efficient and effective student information
management and reporting system.



Goals and benefits are:

  1. to improve student learning
  2. to enhance educational decision-making
  3. to support schools and teachers more effectively
  4. to facilitate student transfers
  5. to maintain an effective data gathering mechanism
  6. to comply with the NCLB requirements
  7. to improve security and privacy of student data.


Some of the issues that need to be resolved are:

  1. state funding of ongoing costs
  2. requiring districts to use centralized system
  3. state agency to manage system for all stakeholders
  4. a unique student identifier
  5. a common course code system
  6. cost of internet connectivity infrastructure.


Mr. Olsen said this offer is open until the end of the 2003 legislative
session.

Adjournment Chairman Tilman allowed a few questions from the joint committee before
adjourning the meeting at 10:50 a.m.






DATE: January 31, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order and
announcements
Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. He said the
meeting needed to be concluded by 11 a.m. and there would be a 10
minute break midway through the meeting. The first half hour will be
devoted to charter schools (a continuation from yesterday) and on
February 4, Bob Henry, Nampa School Board chairman, will present a
trustee’s perspective on Charter Schools. A half hour will be allotted to
Dr. Marilyn Howard to present her proposed budget, followed by Marybeth
Flachbart, Reading Coordinator, who will report on the Idaho Reading
Initiative (IRI).
Approval of
minutes
The Chairman entertained motions for the approval of minutes.
Motion Senator Werk made the motion that the minutes of January 21 and 22 be
approved as written. Senator Noh seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated it was unanimous.
Motion Senator McWilliams made the motion that the minutes of January 23 and
24 be approved as written. Senator Gannon seconded the motion. A
voice vote indicated it was unanimous.
Guest speaker Chairman Schroeder said Ms. Carolyn Mauer would continue her talk
regarding charter schools.



Ms. Mauer gave a recap of yesterday’s presentation, emphasizing that
charter schools are public schools, supported with public dollars. She
then explained reasons for revocation and the appeal process. Annually,
the charter school must report to the trustees of their district as to their
goals, fiscal expenditures and present other pertinent information.

Introduction of
guests
At the conclusion of Ms. Mauer’s presentation and before the committee
asked questions, Senator Schroeder said he would like for Kathy Phelan,
president of the IEA, to introduce her guests. Ms. Phelan said her eleven
guests are teachers attending meetings in Boise and they are from all
areas of the state.
Continuation Time was allowed for some questions from the committee. Chairman
Schroeder thanked Ms. Mauer for returning to talk to the committee and
said that perhaps he might need her to return again.
Guest speaker The Chairman then welcomed Dr. Marilyn Howard, Superintendent of
Public Instruction, who will present her budget request.



Dr. Howard had two handouts for the committee, Public Schools Budget
Request and the support program distribution factor sheet (attached).
She said the budget was developed based on recommendations of the
Public School Coalition. Members of the Coalition are: Idaho School
Boards Association; Idaho Association of School Administrators; Idaho
Education Association; Idaho Parent Teachers Association; and State
Department of Education.



State general account funds include state sales taxes, corporate taxes,
and personal income taxes are the largest sources of funds provided to
the public schools by Idaho taxpayers. In 2002, the Legislature
appropriated $852,200,000 for FY2003. This request is for a general fund
appropriation of $897,504,000 for FY2004.



The FY2004 request includes the Public School Coalition’s
recommendation to (1) increase salaries to make Idaho’s school districts
more salary-competitive with neighboring states, for both recruitment and
retention, and (2) increase the number of classified positions for which
districts may receive reimbursement.



Using the handouts provided to the committee, Dr. Howard reviewed her
proposed budget.



During the “questions and answers” session, a question was raised
regarding Idaho’s federal funds. Dr. Howard was asked to furnish the
committee with a letter from Secretary Paige regarding these funds.
There was concern as to what would happen if the budget is cut and there
are not funds for some of the required programs.



Following the budget presentation, Dr. Howard spoke briefly about “No
Child Left Behind”. Some of the topics covered were teachers’ credentials
and the definition of a “highly qualified” teacher, as required by NCLB.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Howard for her presentation and also
thanked her staff for all their hard work.



He then called for a 15 minute break.

Reconvene and
Guest Speaker
Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 10:15 a.m. and said
the committee would hear a report on the Idaho Reading Initiative (IRI)
from Ms. Marybeth Flachbart, the reading coordinator.



A copy of her report is attached.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder thanked Ms. Flachbart, then adjourned the meeting
at 11:05 a.m.






DATE: February 4, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Announcements The Chairman said there were a number of handouts (in the blue folder)
that provided useful information and suggested the members review
them.
Guest Speaker He then introduced Bob Henry, Chairman of the Nampa School Board,
who will talk about charter schools from a trustee’s perspective.



Mr. Henry provided a handout to the committee which he referred to
during his presentation (on file in the Senate Education Office).



Mr. Henry indicated there is some frustration of the Nampa School Board
with the Board of the Charter School. The lack of cooperation to provide
financial documentation seemed to be one area of great concern. Also,
after being threatened to be sued, Mr. Henry said the Nampa School
Board struggles with how far they back off and still make sure the Charter
School is abiding by Idaho Code. He asked the committee, “How can we
(the Board) do our job and not appear to be intrusive?”



The committee asked questions of Mr. Henry during his presentation.



Senator Schroeder requested a copy of the charter. Copies were
provided to the committee members by the State Department.



Bart McKnight, Chairman of the Charter School Board, was given an
opportunity to respond. During the questioning of Mr. McKnight, one
question that caused concern was the way Board members are selected.



Chairman Schroeder said the issue before the committee is how do we
make charter schools work, maintain the public trust, and also provide
opportunities for parents to have their children educated. The Chairman
stated that the charter school issue would be revisited at a later date.

RS 12578 Chairman Schroeder said the purpose of this RS is to provide a minimum
age requirement for attendance in prekindergarten in the districts which
conduct prekindergarten. It does not require districts to have
prekindergarten, just provides language to legally allow 4 year olds to
participate in the programs. Some schools are already doing this and
paying for the programs with private funds.
Motion Senator Noh made the motion to have RS 12578 printed. Senator Werk
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
RS 12696 Dr. Howard explained this RS. She said it would increase the classified
staff allowance from .375 to .385. The effect will be to increase the
number of positions for which districts will receive reimbursement from the
state.
Motion Senator Werk made the motion to have RS 12696 printed. Senator Noh
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.



Chairman Schroeder called a 10 minute recess.

Reconvene The Chairman introduced Keith Hasselquist, Chief Fiscal Officer for the
State Board of Education, who will address the equity issue for higher
education. This presentation is for information only and no testimony is to
be heard.
Guest Speaker Mr. Hasselquist reviewed the college and university equity issues. He
said the legislature provides the Board with a lump sum appropriation for
the LCSC, BSU, ISU, and UI. The Board uses a formula to allocate the
money to the four institutions, using a base plus process, then an add-on
of additional money. Mr. Hasselquist provided a handout (attached)
which helped explain his presentation. There was time for questions
following Mr. Hasselquist’s talk.



Chairman Schroeder made the following summary: The study revealed
that there needed to be necessary adjustments to enrollment, funding,
and research. The State Board put a value on those items, as well as
including the unfunded workload adjustment. He also asked Keith to give
the committee information regarding university funding in dollar amounts.

Announcements Chairman Schroeder went over the week’s agenda and also announced
that there will be a meeting Monday morning (2/10) at 10 a.m. for the
purpose of introducing RS’s.
Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m.






DATE: February 5, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator Noble
Call to order The meeting was called to order at 8:40 a.m. by Chairman Schroeder.
Guest Speaker Chairman Schroeder welcomed Mike Gilmore, Deputy Attorney General.
The Chairman said he asked Mr. Gilmore to talk about the Supreme
Court’s decision regarding the Boundary School District.



Mr. Gilmore provided three handouts for the committee. They included a
one page summary how the $10 million appropriation provided by the
2001 Legislature was distributed (to help schools with safety issues);
Article VIII, 3, of the Idaho Constitution (Limitations on county and
municipal indebtedness) and Idaho Code 33-804A (School plant facilities
reserve fund levy for safe school facilities); and a copy of Johnson and
Fairfield vs. Boundary School District #101; Boundary County
Commissioners; Boundary County Treasurer Wilma Devore; and Zions
First National Bank. Mr. Gilmore referred his remarks to these
documents (attached).



He said the Idaho Supreme Court has ordered a trial on a challenge to the
constitutionality of the Legislature’s initial attempt to help school districts
deal with unsafe buildings. It overturned Judge Hosack’s decision to
throw the legal challenge out on a technicality. The district won approval
in February 2002 of a $970,000 a year property tax increase to cover the
bill over 10 years. Under the 2001 state law, the levy needed only 60
percent majority approval instead of the 67 percent required for building
bonds. The four district property owners sued, claiming the levy
proposition was really a bond which needed two-thirds of the vote for
approval. The levy passed with 64 percent of the vote. The Johnson’s
and Fairfield’s claimed that the law authorizing the levy is in violation of
the state constitution.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. Gilmore for his presentation.

Guest Speaker The Chairman welcomed and introduced Dr. Michael Burke, President of
North Idaho College, located at Coeur d’Alene.



Dr. Burke had two handouts regarding the college. One is a summary of
the economic benefits generated by North Idaho College and the other is
a Fact and Information brochure. (Attached.)



He said NIC is Idaho’s oldest community college. It began in 1933. NIC
enrolls over 4,200 students in its academic programs and nearly 8,000 in
various non-credit courses. 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.
Students obtaining an associate of arts or associate of science degree
transfer with junior standing to all other Idaho public colleges and
universities.



The NIC Workforce Training Center is located in Post Falls and provides a
broad range of credit-free business, professional, special interest, and
personal enrichment programs.



Dr. Burke said the student placement rate for NIC Professional-Technical
graduates have had the No. 1 placement rate in the state for the last five
years. Nursing graduates for 2002 passed the national nursing
certification exam at 100 percent.



Dr. Burke said he felt that Idaho cannot afford to not invest in higher
education. He has eliminated some athletics, some classes, and offered
early retirement for eligible faculty members in order to cut costs and stay
within the budget.



Senator Goedde said he would like to thank Dr. Burke and the college, as
they work hard with business and the education community, to satisfy the
needs of the business people and create jobs so the kids can stay in
North Idaho. Senator Goedde said it was refreshing to see that kind of
positive effort.



Senator Schroeder thanked Dr. Burke for speaking to the committee.

Guest Speaker The Chairman welcomed Dr. Miles LaRowe, President of Eastern Idaho
Technical College, located at Idaho Falls.



Dr. LaRowe presented the committee with the college’s fact sheet
(attached) which he reviewed.



Some of the highlights are: EITC is a state supported technical college
and was created in 1969. It received $4.5 million in FY03 from the state
allocation and $4.4 million in additional revenues from grants, contracts,
and fees.



There is online instruction and Dial Up connectivity, as well as community
education centers in Arco, Salmon, St. Anthony, Rexburg, and Driggs. It
has literacy councils serving 11 rural communities.



The enrollment figures for FY02 were 1,399 for AAS/Certificate; 6,026 in
short-term training; 435 in the Center for New Directions; and 932 in
community education.



Dr. LaRowe said the budget strategies for FY04 would be to further
reduce operating expenses; discontinue two or more credit faculty;
increase credit enrollment; attract grants and contracts; and increase
student fees.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. LaRowe for his talk. He said the
committee would recess until 10:15 a.m.

Reconvene Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order, then welcomed Dr.
Bowen, President of Idaho State University, located at Pocatello.
Guest Speaker Dr. Bowen had two handouts, a 12 page “portrait” of ISU and a campus
profile for the Fall, 2002 (both are attached). His talk centered around the
information on these publications. Some pertinent information was: the
total enrollment for academic and technology in the Fall of 2002 was
13,350. Full-time students numbered 8,708 and part-time students
accounted for 4,642.



Dr. Bowen said the ten most popular majors of graduates were Secondary
Education, Elementary Education, Nursing, Biology, Social Work,
Management, Finance, Psychology, Zoology, and Mass Communications.



Senator Malepeai praised Dr. Bowen and the administrative staff of ISU
for their contribution to Southeast Idaho.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Bowen for speaking to the committee.
He also thanked the committee for their hard work. The meeting was
adjourned at 10:55 a.m.






DATE: February 6, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Gold Room and Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator Noh
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the joint meeting with the House Education
committee to order at 8:30 a.m.
Guest Speaker He welcomed the Idaho Parents Teachers Association (PTA) and their
president, Julie Van Orden. The meeting was then turned over to Ms.
Van Orden.



Several PTA members presented a skit, depicting the organization a few
decades ago (in their wearing apparel and passing out cookies). Their
message to the joint committee was that they do more than bake cookies.
They are actively involved in school issues at the local, district and state
levels.



Ms. Van Orden then presented the six Idaho PTA Legislative Priorities for
2002-03 and commented on each. Following is a summary of her
remarks.



  1. Education funding – they will pursue all reasonable avenues to
    ensure appropriate levels of funding needed.
  2. Tuition tax credits/vouchers – they believe these would be
    detrimental in Idaho.
  3. Parent involvement – they believe that schools should incorporate
    parent involvement into all aspects of education.
  4. State achievement standards – they are concerned about high
    stakes testing.
  5. Safe and nurturing environment – they support initiatives that foster
    safety within the schools.
  6. Safe school facilities – they believe that local school districts have
    the primary responsibility for providing safe school facilities.


Ms. Van Orden stated the Idaho PTA supports the Public Schools Budget
Request for FY 2004 as submitted by Dr. Marilyn Howard, State
Superintendent of Public Instruction.



Regarding parent involvement, Ms. Van Orden said according to the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), all schools that receive Title I dollars in
every school district in America, must have a written parent involvement
policy. The policy must be developed jointly with, agreed on with, and
distributed to parents of participating children.



Time was allowed for questions from the joint committee.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder thanked Ms. Van Orden and the Idaho PTA for their
presentation. He announced that the House Education committee would
remain in the Gold Room and the Senate Education committee would
return to Room 433 to conduct further business. He adjourned the
meeting at 9:10 a.m.
Reconvene Room 433



Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. and said the
remainder of the time would be spent discussing budget revenues.



After the discussion, the committee determined they would like more
information regarding:



(1) The Albertson Foundation’s program – Idaho Student Information
Management and Reporting System (ISIMS).



(2) Transportation services.



(3) School consolidation – with a map of the districts.



Chairman Schroeder said he would arrange to have the necessary people
provide further information to the committee.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m.






DATE: February 7, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m.
Treats Senator Jack Noble passed out bubblegum cigars to the committee to
announce the birth of a son.
RS 12640 Chairman Schroeder welcomed Senator Keough, a former member of this
committee, and asked her to tell the committee about RS 12640. Senator
Keough said it would create a religious exemption for non-public post-secondary educational programs and would like for the committee to have
it printed.
Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to send RS 12640 to print. Senator
Noh seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
RS 12832 Chairman Schroeder explained this RS and said it would authorize a
reduction in the number of hours of instruction time required when
distribution from the Public School Income fund is deficient. John Eikum,
who represents the Idaho Rural Schools Association, agreed with the
Chairman that it is necessary, should funds not be available.
Motion Senator Noh made the motion to send RS 12832 to print. Senator
Andreason seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Guest Speaker Chairman Schroeder welcomed Diane Demarest, Program Coordinator
for Parents As Teachers (PAT), who then turned the meeting over to
Harriet Shaklee, Family Development Specialist.



Ms. Shaklee provided the committee with a copy of the their state report,
written November, 2002. She said the Parents as Teachers is a parent
education program designed to help parents be the best teachers for their
children in the early years. The Born to Learn curriculum translates
information on early brain development into concrete “when,” “what,”
“how,” and “why” advice for families – taking neuroscience from the
laboratory into families’ homes. Components for this voluntary program
include: monthly home visits, group meetings, screening, and resource
referral. The curriculum supports and teaches parents how to provide the
kinds of experiences that give their children the best possible start in life.



This program serves 1332 families, 1889 children in 37 programs. Parent
educators get families in touch with community resources to help them
meet their many challenges including GED and continuing education,
housing and utility assistance, Head Start, library programs, mental health
and childcare programs.



After one year of PAT, parents report significant increases in knowledge,
confidence and skill level. There has been a significant increase in the
amount of time parents spend reading to their young children. Of the
children in the PAT program age 19-35 months, 97.3 percent are fully
immunized.



Ms. Shaklee introduced two mothers who testified as to the positive
effects this program has had on their families. They were Alice
Westerman and Britiney Slaughter.



At the conclusion of Ms. Shaklee’s presentation, she answered questions
from the committee. She also thanked Senator Schroeder for inviting her
to the committee’s meeting to present the program.



The Chairman said there would be a short recess before hearing Dr.
Farley.

Reconvene The Chairman called the meeting to order after a 10 minute recess.
Guest Speaker He then introduced Dr. Tom Farley, Bureau Chief of Federal Programs for
the State Department of Education, who will further explain the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB).



Dr. Farley provided a notebook of material relating to NCLB and he
encouraged the committee members to read it so that they may become
better informed of this Act.



He then said his presentation would focus on eleven major “points of
emphasis” (attached). They are as follows:



  1. Appropriations/Allocations
  2. Development of Standards/Assessments
  3. Meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
  4. Choice Options
  5. Highly Qualified Teachers
  6. Qualified Paraprofessionals
  7. Supplemental Education Services (SES)
  8. Research Based Programs
  9. Accountability Report Cards
  10. 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC)
  11. Persistently Dangerous Schools


The committee asked questions during the presentation.



Dr. Farley pointed out that a committee is working to establish Idaho’s
definition of a “highly qualified teacher”. The definition for a “persistently
dangerous school” will be finalized by June 30, 2003. Senator Schroeder
thanked Dr. Farley for his presentation.

Announcement Chairman Schroeder announced there will be a committee meeting on
Monday, February 10 at 10 a.m. for the purpose to hear RS’s.
Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m.






DATE: February 10, 2003
TIME: 10:00 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Goedde,
McWilliams, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senators Andreason and Noble
Call to order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 10:05 a.m.
RS 12548C3 Senator Schroeder said the purpose of this RS is to provide that General
Fund surpluses over a certain amount be transferred to the Budget
Stabilization Fund, The Idaho Millennium Fund, and The Public School
Protection Fund. It would create the Public School Protection Fund and
provide for the orderly management of surplus revenues.
Motion After some discussion, Senator Goedde made the motion to send RS
12548C3 to print. Senator Noh seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
RS 12579C1 Senator Schroeder said more work needed to be done on this RS and
withdrew it.
RS 12729 Dr. Mike Friend explained this RS. He said the purpose of this legislation
is to protect school districts from a shortfall of state appropriated dollars
per support unit. If the number of estimated support units is less than the
actual number of support units generated in any given year, the
appropriated support unit value will be less than the amount upon which
the school district budget is based.
Motion Senator Noh made the motion to send RS 12729 to print. Senator
Goedde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Announcements Chairman Schroeder announced that tomorrow’s meeting would start in
the Gold Room to hear from the Idaho School Boards Association, then
return to this room for a report from Rodney McKnight, Transportation
Supervisor, regarding transportation services.
Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.






DATE: February 11, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Gold Room and Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order Representative Tilman chaired the joint meeting of the House and Senate
Education committees. He called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and
welcomed Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director of the Idaho School Boards
Association (ISBA) and the trustees (approximately 100). Chairman
Tilman turned the meeting over to Dr. Green.
Guest speaker Dr. Green introduced ISBA’s Executive Committee. They are Janet
Orndorff, Wanda Quinn, Scott Tverdy and himself.



The ISBA is a statewide advocacy organization of over 550 publicly
elected officials representing 114 school boards with a focus on public
school governance. The vision of the ISBA is to be the driving force of
trustee leadership for excellence in public education. 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.



Dr. Green talked about the three roles of the trustee: authority – the right
to command or act; power – ability to act; and influence.



He then introduced Terry Schwartz, President of ISBA, who talked about
their resolutions and positions. (Copy attached.)



Mr. Schwartz then introduced his daughter, Samantha.



Samantha said she attends Arco High School and she presented a
student’s viewpoint of why the education budget should not be cut. Some
of her concerns were transportation, teachers, and loss of programs such
as art and music. She concluded her talk with a quote -“better an empty
purse than an empty head”.



Chairman Tilman thanked Samantha and ISBA for their presentation.

Adjournment He advised the House Education Committee to remain in the Gold Room
for another presentation and dismissed the Senate Education Committee.
He then adjourned the meeting at 8:55 a.m.
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order in Room 433 at 9:10
a.m.
Guest Speaker He welcomed Rodney McKnight, Transportation Supervisor, who will
address transportation issues. Mr. McKnight gave each committee
member a copy of his slide presentation, Idaho’s Pupil Transportation
Support Program, Report to the Senate Education Committee. In lieu of
showing the slides, he read his report from the hard copy (attached).



Before starting his presentation, Mr. McKnight gave a brief background of
busing. He said during FY02, approximately 2,643 school buses traveled
an estimated 28.7 million miles to transport 246,684 children to and from
school and school-related activities. The National Research Council’s
study re-affirms the State Department of Education’s position that school
buses represent the safest way for children to travel to and from school
and school related activities.



Several requests for information were asked of Mr. McKnight and they are
as follows:

  1. to provide the names of manufacturers of buses and the cost.
  2. data, newer than 1996, in comparing Idaho to contiguous states.
  3. data on sales of buses out-of-state.
  4. comparison charts.
  5. New Mexico’s busing information.


Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. McKnight for his presentation.

Announcements He then announced that discussion of the budget and making budget
recommendations will be on the agenda for the rest of the week, finalizing
the recommendations on Friday. They are to be presented to JFAC on
Monday, the 17th.
Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.






DATE: February 12, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Goedde,
McWilliams, Noble, Werk
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senators Andreason and Malepeai
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.



He then said he would like to present a gift to the committee’s Page, Erin
Darnell. The Chairman read the letter that was signed by the members of
the committee, citing Erin for her prompt, courteous and efficient manner
in which she served the committee. He then presented her with a Senate
watch. Erin thanked Senator Schroeder and the committee and said she
had enjoyed the experience of being a page.

Guest Speakers The Chairman welcomed Dr. Gerald Meyerhoffer, President of the
College of Southern Idaho (CSI), located in Twin Falls.



Attached is a copy of Dr. Meyerhoffer’s presentation. The committee
asked questions throughout the presentation.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Meyerhoffer for speaking to the
committee and also for the good work he is doing at CSI.



Dr. Bob West, Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, was the
next speaker. He had been asked to brief the committee regarding
school district consolidation. Attached is a copy of his presentation and
questions were asked during the presentation.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 10 a.m.






DATE: February 13, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order The meeting was called to order at 8:40 a.m.



The first order of business was to approve the minutes of previous
meetings.

Motion Senator Malepeai made the motion for the approval of minutes, as written,
for January 28 and 29. Senator Werk seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
Motion Senator Gannon made the motion for the approval of minutes, as written,
for February 4 and 5. Senator Noh seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
Guest Speaker Chairman Schroeder said there is to be further discussion of the Idaho
Student Information Management and Reporting System (ISIMS). A
presentation was given January 30 in the Gold Room and today, the focus
will be more on the technical aspects of the program. He then welcomed
Craig Olson from the Albertson Foundation.



Mr. Olson introduced Wayne Rush, program officer; Roger Widner,
consultant; Bryndon Joyce, program assistant; and Christi Rood,
consultant. All are with the Albertson Foundation.



At the meeting of January 30, a notebook was presented to the committee
members explaining the ISIMS program. Another handout was provided
today with more information.



Mr. Olson reviewed the mission of the Albertson Foundation regarding
this project. The mission is to equip Idaho’s education system and
stakeholders with the most efficient and effective student information
management and reporting system. The Foundation funding will total $35
million. The goals/benefits are: improve student learning; enhance
educational decision-making; support schools, teachers, parents
effectively; facilitate student transfers; maintain effective data gathering;
comply with NCLB requirements; and improve security/privacy of student
data.



Mr. Olson said there are two major components.

  1. Student Information Management System (SIMS) – teacher,
    student and administrative functionality and curriculum
    management for the day to day operations of the school/district.
  2. Reporting & Analysis/Data Warehouse (DW) – the data warehouse
    consolidates the school/district data and provides reporting and
    analysis to all stakeholders via standard report and analytical
    tools. The data warehouse also provides the facilities for
    combining data from other state and regional sources and
    provides a way to move data to post-secondary institutions.


After hearing from Mr. Olson, Chairman Schroeder directed specific
questions to specific people. Following is the dialogue:



Schroeder to Olson: Review the money commitment.



Olson: The AF will build, design, then turn over to the state to operate — to
a state agency. The state is to pick up funding after the $35 M is used.
This would be approximately $5-7 million a year . The money would
come off the top of the education budget each year.



Schroeder to Olson: Suppose we establish law, then future legislation
changes the law. What then?



Olson: AF is asking for contractual arrangements of the state and
agreeing that the system lives on for 10 years. Upgrades will be
automatically made. A centralized system and minimized issues at users
end. No money for tech people, as districts have their own tech people.
Expect state to provide servers for rural areas. Schools will rely on this
system. AF is looking to state to provide this system to districts and
require districts to use only this system for data. The focus is to help
teachers follow students, parents follow students, students know where
they are. Includes assessment data. Grade book on line, class work
planning, attendance, etc. Working on connectivity – to 114 districts – not
to individual buildings. AF is hoping there are not a lot of costs to
districts. Looked at four different models. This one seems most efficient –
a centralized system, lower ongoing costs.



Schroeder to Department of Administration: Conflict of bids?



Richard Elwood responded for the Department. He sees no red flags.



Schroeder to Gary Stivers, Executive Director, State Board of Education,
same question.



Mr. Stivers: OSBE can work through without any problems.



Schroeder to Stivers: Where should the system be located?



Stivers: OSBE has looked at various buildings. Took in consideration of
the flood plain, as well as locating the system out-of-state.



Schroeder to Olson: Will this system tie-in with data from federal
programs? Does AF expect boundaries?



Olson: It needs to be with an agency that involves education, under that
umbrella. AF wants to be lawful. Purchasing rules differ, and they need
to be clarified. It will tie-in with federal requirements.



Schroeder to Dr. West: Can the Department of Education manage this
system?



Dr. West, Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction: We are now
dealing with 17 different programs that are now in effect. The Department
can operate this system and it also understands purchasing.



Schroeder to Stivers: OSBE is a policy making body. What is the Board
doing?



Stivers: The Board has seen the presentation of ISIMS. The Board has
an oversight obligation. It (the Board) needs a development policy,
accountability, budgetary review, contract review, assessment and
accountability. Day-to-day left with the Department of Education, but
Board has oversight.



Schroeder to Stivers: Separation of policy and administration. What
discussions have taken place between the Board and Department of
Education?



Stivers: Lots of discussion.



Schroeder to Stivers: When will this be resolved? AF wants to know by
the end of this legislative session.



Stivers: We will definitely have something ready.



Schroeder to Stivers: Said he wanted three things. (1) Wants definitive
answers on contract aspect of law, in writing (competitive bidding on
contracts). (2) Need answers quick. (3) Wants weekly report from State
Board, Department of Ed, and Albertson Foundation on resolving issues
concerning ISIMS.



Mr. Olson’s closing remarks: AF frustrated by who will oversee this
system. Needs state policy. They also want to know if anything is in state
laws or rules that would prevent a state agency from overseeing the
system. It needs to be identified. Also want operating rules put in place
to last over time.



One last question asked of Mr. Olson was if school trustees had been
included in their talks. He indicated that at a stakeholders meeting, Dr.
Cliff Green, Executive Director of Idaho School Boards Association, gave
positive feedback.

Motion Before taking a 10 minute break, Senator Schroeder said there were more
minutes to approve. Senator Noble made the motion for approval of the
minutes for January 30 and 31. It was seconded by Senator McWilliams.
A voice vote indicated it passed unanimously.
Reconvene Calling the meeting to order, the Chairman said they would review the
budget in preparation for making recommendations to JFAC. He then
reviewed the information (handouts) that was provided to the committee
members at an earlier date. It included the Public Schools Budget
Request, Executive Budget Recommendations for Public School Support
and Professional-Technical Education and Post-Secondary Education,
and a Comparison Sheet of Public School Budget Proposals.
Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to recommend to JFAC the
Governor’s recommendations for colleges, universities, Professional-Technical education, and Community Colleges. It was seconded by
Senator Gannon.
Discussion In the discussion, Senator Andreason urged the committee to go with the
“do-able”. Senator Werk expressed concern about equity portion, and
Senator Noble had concerns regarding transportation. Senator Noh said
he shares the frustration that Senators Werk and Noble feel, but agrees
with Senator Andreason. He feels if the committee hangs together, this
budget might pass. Senator Malepeai was in agreement.



The committee then voted on the motion. A voice vote indicated it passed
unanimously.

Chairman Schroeder indicated he would review the budget proposals, as
outlined on the comparison sheet. He covered all items A 1-11.



Discussion revolved around A 10, the Early Retirement Program. It was
determined that not all teachers are adequately notified within the
required time frame. Senator Schroeder requested Dr. West to send a
letter to future eligible teachers, then send a letter to him to verify how this
notification was carried out.

Motion Senator Malepeai made the motion to keep early retirement in the budget.
It was seconded by Senator Werk. A roll call vote indicated it passed
eight to one. Senator Noble voted no.
Motion Senator Werk made a motion to have Dr. West see if there is a
mechanism that could be developed regarding early retirement. Senator
Goedde said he would like the motion to include the word economical.
Senator Werk said he had no objection.
Motion Senator Goedde made the motion to have the Department of Education
do a study to see if there is an economical way to track replacements of
teachers who retire early. Senator Noh seconded the motion. A voice
vote indicated it passed unanimously.



It was stated that there seems to be some concern over the number of
administrators in the school districts. Senator Noh urged that JFAC not
act precipitously.

Motion In discussing B1, Technology Grants, Senator McWilliams said a
“vigorous recommendation” should be given to JFAC to keep the
recommended amount for technology and to be closely guarded. He then
made the motion to retain the $8.4 million as recommended by the
Governor. It was seconded by Senator Andreason. A voice vote
indicated it passed unanimously.
Announcements Chairman Schroeder said the budget recommendations would continue
through Friday and he thanked the committee for their work thus far. He
then asked John Eikum to provide a letter as to what administrators do.
The Chairman said he will write a letter to the Department of Education
stating the motion and making a request.






DATE: February 14, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Senator Noh
Call to order The meeting was called to order at 8:40 a.m. by Chairman Schroeder.
Pages He announced that the chocolates are a gift from Erin, our departing
Page. The Chairman then welcomed the new Page, Alexey Chikanchil
from Nampa.
Guest speaker Chairman Schroeder welcomed Darrel Deide from the Governor’s office,
who will talk about the building projects the Governor has proposed. The
ten projects are: Lewis Clark State College campus activity center;
College of Southern Idaho fine arts addition; University of Idaho teaching
and learning center; Boise State University west campus building; Idaho
Historical Society museum project; Idaho State University classroom
building; North Idaho College nursing/life science building; Idaho State
Police training academy expansion; Department of Corrections women’s
community work center; and Eastern Idaho Technical College. All have
previously been funded by the Legislature but lost funding due to
holdbacks.



Dr. Deide asked the committee to endorse the Governor’s facilities
bonding proposal. The committee was given three handouts: Permanent
Building Fund Projects; Creating Jobs through Facilities Bonding; To
Bond or Not to Bond. Dr. Deide said there are several good reasons why
this is a good idea. The state can borrow money at a low interest rate; put
1100 to 1250 construction workers back to work; good for economy, as it
has a ripple effect; has been previously approved; great economic
stimulus package. The source of funds would come from the permanent
building fund and there would be some impact on the general fund. That
amount would be approximately $2.1 Million annually.

Introductions Dr. Deide’s presentation was temporarily interrupted to introduce some
guests. Senator Gannon introduced Rick Hill, Superintendent of the Buhl
School District. Senator Goedde introduced Coeur d’Alene
superintendent, Harry Amend.
Discussion Dr. Deide said there is growing support for the building projects around
state. He emphasized again that they are needed and will create
economic stimulus. There are no general fund dollars required. The $5
million annual bond payment comes from existing dedicated funds going
into the Permanent Building Fund.
Motion Senator Goedde made the motion to recommend the building fund
projects. It was seconded by Senator Werk. A voice vote indicated it
passed unanimously.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Deide for appearing before the
committee.



The Chairman said he would now continue with the discussion of the
budget proposals, using the Comparison Sheet (attached). He went over
items B2-10.



Senator Schroeder requested a 10 minute break, and said upon
reconvening, there would be more discussion regarding B7, Achievement
Standards Implementation and the $4 million involved.

Reconvene After calling the meeting to order, Senator Schroeder asked Dr. Bob West
to explain why the money for B7 (Achievement Standards
Implementation) needs to be with the Department of Education and not
with the State Board.



Dr. West provided the committee with a letter from Dr. Tom Farley,
Bureau Chief of Federal Programs, that explained this $4 million
appropriation. Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1, of the No Child Left Behind Act
authorizes a grant program through which States may receive funds to
assist in meeting the assessment requirements of the Act. Federal
FY2002 appropriations have provided the Idaho Department of Education
with approximately $4 million for this purpose. Dr. Farley writes – “While
we are in the early stages of putting the Idaho Standards Achievement
Testing program into effect, we must, at the same time, develop and
implement additional student assessments required by No Child Left
Behind. It is these additional, federally-required, assessments that are
the focus of Idaho’s funds from Title IV-A of the Act. In March of 2002,
the Idaho Department of Education entered into a Compliance Agreement
with the U.S. Department of Education. This agreement sets out clear,
step-by-step, obligations and time lines for activities that will allow the
State to meet the assessment requirements.”



Dr. West explained the letter, how funds are to be used, the compliance
agreement and consequences if used differently.



Chairman Schroeder requested Jeff Shinn, an analyst in the Governor’s
office, to comment on the Governor’s recommendation regarding this
item. Mr. Shinn said he could not speak for the Governor. The Chairman
asked Mr. Shinn and Dr. West to resolve this issue, so that the State
would be in compliance with the federal requirements.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder thanked the committee for their hard work. He then
adjourned the meeting at 10:55 a.m.






DATE: February 18, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m.
Guest Speaker The Chairman welcomed Brent Reinke, Director of Juvenile Corrections.



Mr. Reinke had three handouts for the committee: Q1 FY03 Fact Sheet,
Juvenile Corrections Legislative Update 2003; and Idaho’s Statewide
Report on Juvenile Recidivism.



One of the programs that has been highly successful is the Functional
Family Therapy (FFT). It is comprised of eight to twelve sessions with the
families over the course of three months. During the three months of
FFT, the youth remains in IDJC custody while returning to the home to be
part of the family, reducing the length of custody in a residential facility. It
focuses on the strengths of the families, while setting realistic outcomes.
The Department’s goal in FY03 is to serve 95 juveniles and their families.



The tracking system used by the Department is the Idaho Juvenile
Offender System (IJOS). It is tracking 36,000 juveniles in Idaho. The
Department is developing the infrastructure and data base for this system.
Three other systems feed information to IJOS.



There are 6,500 juveniles that are on county probation today. Last year
the number was 8,000. The ages of these juveniles are 10-19. If younger
than 10, Health and Welfare is responsible. Mr. Reinke said intervention
is needed at an early age, rather than waiting until later.



The average cost per day is $169.81 or $60,000 per year per juvenile.
The average stay is 12 ½ – 13 months. Of the 410 juveniles, 115 are
severely emotionally disturbed (SED). For every 10 juveniles committed
to IDJC: 5 will commit no further acts of crime; 2 will be adjudicated of a
new misdemeanor or felony; 2 will descend to IDOC; 1 will be re-committed to IDJC.



Senator Schroeder asked Mr. Reinke to furnish him with two pieces of
information. (1) The number of home schooled students that are in IDJC
and (2) the 39 thinking errors that kids make. Mr. Reinke said he would
provide that information.



Mr. Reinke introduced Ms. Glenda Rohrbach, who is in charge of the
education program for IDJC. Attached is a handout regarding the
education program which Ms. Rohrbach referred to during her
presentation.



Ms. Rohrbach has been with IDJC for 17 years and she is seeing the
increased need in range of services. She said 49% are special ed kids;
37% are emotionally disturbed; and 5% have low IQs.



The educational programs are accredited as Special Purpose Schools by
the Northwest Association of Schools and colleges. Meeting these
educational standards enables IDJC students to return to local education
agencies (LEA) and receive credit for work completed within the IDJC
education programs at St. Anthony, Lewiston and Nampa.



Ms. Rohrbach said the average stay is 11 months and the transition back
to regular schools is slow. During 2002, a total of 30 students met the
state graduation requirements and were awarded a high school diploma.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. Reinke and Ms. Rohrbach for their
presentations. He then said the committee would recess until 10 a.m.

Reconvene The Chairman called the meeting to order. He welcomed Mike Johnson,
a former Representative, and now the Deputy Warden of Operations with
Idaho State Corrections.
Guest Speaker Chairman Schroeder asked Mr. Johnson to tell the committee what has
been done in regards to the hold back that was requested by the
Governor.



Mr. Johnson said that two program managers were eliminated, four or five
support staff, but basically, the education program is intact. There are not
educational services at the maximum security facility. The main focus for
education is on the inmates who have one year left before their parole.



One out of every three people (who are incarcerated at the prison) do not
have a high school education or GED and are below 8th grade level
literacy. There are 73 who are special education qualified and there are
three staff members that deal with them. ISCI has nine certified teachers,
SCI has two instructional assistants, and three instructional assistants
who work in special education at all the sites.



Mr. Johnson said they have tapped into the Correctional Learning System
in Spokane, Washington which offers educational programs. There is no
cost involved in this.



In the past, education, programs and the parole board were all separate
entities and worked very poorly together. Now, all are working together.
There are 1,338 inmates at ISCI. The staff is making sure literacy, GED,
computer training, and, if needed, drug and alcohol training are all
available to those who have one year left before being paroled.



Mr. Johnson feels that the facilities at Cottonwood and Pocatello are
doing a good job also.



Time was allowed for questions from the committee.

Announcements Community Resource Workers will be speaking to the committee
tomorrow. Bills will be heard next week. The Chairman thanked the
committee for their work.
Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m.






DATE: February 19, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Motion He said motions were in order to approve some minutes. Senator Werk
made the motion to approve the minutes of February 6 and 7, as written.
Senator Gannon seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it passed
unanimously.
Motion Senator McWilliams made the motion to approve the minutes of February
10 and 11, as written. Senator Werk seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated it passed unanimously.
Motion Senator Malepeai made the motion to approve the minutes of February 12
and 13, as written. Senator Gannon seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated it passed unanimously. Senator Malepeai questioned the
attendance record and the secretary was instructed to make any
necessary corrections.
Announcements Senator Davis has withdrawn his bill and will reschedule it at a later date.
Tomorrow, we will hear Senator Goedde’s RS, then dismiss so that
anyone who would like may go to JFAC.
Guest Speakers Chairman Schroeder said he has asked Kathy Phelan, president of the
IEA, to introduce each of today’s speakers who will be updating the
committee on the Community Resource Workers’ Program in the Public
Schools.



Ms. Phelan gave a brief background of this program. She then introduced
Dr. Susan Williamson, principal of Taft Elementary, Boise.



Dr. Williamson has been at Taft Elementary for five years. She said 75%
of her students come from low income families. Taft Elementary has
been last or next to last in math and reading of the 36 schools. They are
now 9th from the top. She feels their Resource Worker has had a very
good impact on the school. Dr. Williamson gave many examples of how
the Resource Worker works with the families, and in turn, how that helps
the students.



Ms. Phelan introduced Mickey Harmer, Program Specialist with the Health
and Welfare.



Ms. Harmer said the Community Resources for Families (CRFF) Program
is a school-based child welfare collaboration between the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare and individual school districts
throughout the state. The program began in 1994 as a way of supporting
the physical and emotional safety needs of children in the Boise School
District. It has since expanded to include 90 school districts throughout
the state. It provides local school districts with program coordination and
funding to hire CRW’s who are placed in elementary schools. These
CRW’s work with school principals, counselors, and teachers to identify
children who are under-performing in school due to unmet physical or
emotional needs occurring outside of the school environment. Referral
reasons include unmet basic needs such as lack of food, clothing, or
shelter. Referral reasons can also include school failure resulting from
environmental or family issues. They work closely with families to resolve
issues that can affect attendance and/or behavior. A great deal of the
CRW’s time is spent helping families learn how to connect with existing
community resources to support the needs of family members. Ms.
Harmer stressed that the program is voluntary and in some cases,
families do not choose to participate.



There are two kinds of services: Assessment and Referral Services (AR)
and Emergency Assistance (EA). AR services are a 30 day intervention
designed to assess family needs, refer and assist in connecting the family
with community and school resources. EA services provide an additional
90 day intervention with the family.



Today, there are 22 participating school districts and 30 Resource
Workers.



Ms. Phelan introduced Sandra Stange, Community Resource Worker with
the Boise School District.



Ms. Stange said she works at three schools – Monroe, Jefferson, and
Whitney Elementary. The Boise School District currently has four CRW’s
at 11 elementary schools and one person working with the ELL program
(English as a second language) at Riverglen Junior High. Referrals come
from within a building who see children with barriers to school success.
Sometimes, self referral is evident.



Ms. Stange gave several examples of how the program works, once a
family has met the criteria for eligibility.



Ms. Stange was asked to identify the differences of a social worker, a
community resource worker and a school counselor. She said the social
worker works with at-risk students, one-on-one, and are in both the
elementary and secondary schools. CRW’s are in the elementary schools
and they do assessments and referrals, working mainly with the families,
not the students. Counselors at the elementary school go into the
classroom and provide education that is prevention based.

Ms. Phelan introduced the final speaker, Joan Parsons, who is a
counselor at Jackson Elementary.



Ms. Parsons said her role is to help children succeed successfully in the
school setting. To do that, sometimes she needs to deal with a mental
health issue, other times a behavior issue, or a self esteem problem. Ms.
Parsons said she becomes familiar with all the children in her building and
also works with the parents of the students who need her services. She
gave several examples of her role as a counselor.



Time was allowed for the committee to ask questions of the panel. The
Chairman thanked the ladies for their information and participation today.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 9:50 a.m.






DATE: February 20, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Werk, Ellis (Malepeai
)
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Senator Noble
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m.
The Chairman announced that Senator Malepeai will be out-of-town for a
few days and he introduced his replacement, Dr. Rulon Ellis, a former
school superintendent.
RS 13006 Chairman Schroeder then asked Senator Goedde to explain his RS.



The Statement of Purpose for RS 13006 states that current contributions
to transportation funding for public schools are based on expenditures
from the prior year for that district. This bill will place a cap on the amount
of reimbursement at 103% of the state average reimbursable cost per
mile or student, whichever is more favorable to the district. It also
provides for an appeal to the State Board of Education for justification of
excessive costs. The fiscal impact, based on the current compensation
model, a savings to the state general fund of $2.7 million would be
realized.



Senator Goedde provided the committee with a handout regarding
transportation and is from the State Department of Education. He said
this RS would put a cap on expenditures at 103%.

Motion Senator Goedde made the motion to have RS 13006 printed and
requested it to be sent to State Affairs for printing. The motion was
seconded by Senator Schroeder.



A roll call vote was requested by the Chairman. Voting aye were
Senators McWilliams, Goedde, Andreason, and Schroeder. Voting nay
were Senators Ellis (Malepeai) and Werk. The motion carried 4 to 2. Out
of the room at the time of voting were Senators Gannon and Noh.

Chairman Schroeder said the committee would recess until 9:05 a.m.
Reconvene Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order and said leadership
asked for a review of the intent language for the Public Schools Holdback
and also the intent language for the College and Universities.



The intent language for the Public Schools Holdback is as follows:
Section X. There is hereby established in the state treasury the Public
Schools Budget Stabilization Account, which shall contain such funds as
may be provided through legislative appropriations and transfers. Moneys
so deposited in the Public Schools Budget Stabilization account are
hereby continuously appropriated for the purposes stated in this act. The
state board of education is hereby granted the authority to authorize
transfers to requesting school districts, pursuant to the provisions of this
act. School districts may request that the state board of education
authorize disbursements from this fund, as provided in Section Y of this
act. Any school district requesting such funds shall cause the state
General Fund appropriation for the Educational Support Program for the
period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, and their share of such
appropriations, to be decreased by a like amount.



The State Controller shall transfer $18,400,000 from the General Fund to
the Public Schools Stabilization Account upon this act’s passage and
approval.



The Public Schools Budget Stabilization Account shall cease to exist on
June 30, 2003, and the State Controller shall transfer any remaining funds
in the account to the General Fund.



The Chairman summarized, by saying, what this plan would do is to
provide a 2% holdback for public schools, which amounts to $18.4 million.
The money would be put in a stabilization fund and if needed, the schools
may apply for it. If used, then it will be taken out of their 2004 budgets.



There was discussion from the committee, testimony from Dr. Mike
Friend, Tim Hill, Dr. Bob West, John Watts, Dr. Bob Haley, and Dr. Cliff
Green.



Chairman Schroeder called a five minute recess.

Reconvene The Chairman called the meeting to order and said he was withdrawing
the intent language for the College and Universities. He then distributed
new proposed intent language for Public Schools.



It reads: Section 2. It is legislative intent that school districts absorb their
share of the 2% reduction in General Fund appropriations to the
Educational Support Program by implementing economies and
efficiencies in non-instructional services. All school districts are hereby
exempt from the provisions of section 33-1004(3), Idaho Code, that
pertain to the requirement that school districts either utilize or revert state
funding for administrative staff, for the period July 1, 2002, through June
30, 2003. For school districts that are unable to absorb their share of the
reduction through such economies and efficiencies, it is legislative intent
that school districts utilize general maintenance and operations fund
balances.



The minority of school districts that are unable to otherwise absorb
their share of the reduction may request that the state board of examiners
authorize the transfer of funds, up to the limit of each school district’s
share of the reduction, from the Budget Stabilization Fund, which is
hereby continuously appropriated for such purposes, up to a limit of
$2,370,000. Any school district requesting such funds shall cause the
state General Fund appropriation for the Educational Support Program for
the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, and their share of such
appropriations, to be decreased by a like amount.



Chairman Schroeder suggested the insertion of the word “may” between
the words districts and utilize (last line, first paragraph).



The Chairman then said he would like to submit the following proposal to
leadership:

After listening to expert testimony and deliberations, the Senate
Education Committee has authorized me to provide you with the following
statement:

While the Senate Education committee finds this intent language
preferable to the previously proposed intent language, this statement shall
in no way be interpreted as an endorsement of the concept outlined in the
intent language or an endorsement of any education holdbacks.

Motion After some discussion, Senator Andreason moved that the statement read
by the Chairman be the position of the Education Committee. It was
seconded by Senator Gannon. More discussion followed. Voting was by
voice vote and it was unanimous.
Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m.






DATE: February 21, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Ellis (Malepeai
)
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

none
Call to order and
announcements
Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. He
announced that there would not be a discussion on the 2% holdback this
morning as indicated on the agenda. Next week, there could be an
informational hearing regarding this matter.
Guest Speaker The Chairman welcomed H. B. “Bicker” Therien, Director, Idaho Digital
Learning Academy (IDLA). Also welcomed were several students and
teachers involved in IDLA. Mr. Therien introduced Donna Vakili,
Curriculum Director for IDLA, who will talk about curriculum and
professional development and Wes Stoddard who will speak about
student/teacher interaction.



Mr. Therien presented a Powerpoint presentation on “How Digital
Learning Takes Place” (copy attached). Also attached is a copy of his
comments.



Some statistics regarding IDLA: The IDLA was created in the State
Department of Education by the 2002 Idaho Legislature and subsequently
not funded. The Albertson Foundation funded the implementation of IDLA
through a $1 million grant. There are currently 613 students representing
69 school districts enrolled in 1,008 classes. Geographically isolated or
medically fragile students have an opportunity to continue their education.
Districts that struggle with adequately covering all content areas have a
new option.



Following the presentation, the committee members asked questions of
Mr. Therien and Ms. Vakili. Testimony was taken from Jeffery Moos, a
parent, who indicated his daughter is a student at Capitol High and also of
IDLA. She is currently working as a model in Madrid and without IDLA,
she could not continue her education. He is very supportive of the
program.



A question arose as to the curriculum. Dr. Bob West, Chief Deputy
Superintendent of Public Instruction, stated that the State Department of
Education has scrutinized the curriculum.

The funding that is being requested for this program is $600,000. The
committee wants more time to pursue the financial aspects of this
program.

Introduction of
Guest
Chairman Schroeder announced that the former chairman of this
committee has joined them ­ former Senator John Hanson. The
Chairman introduced Mr. Hanson and welcomed him back. He then said
there would be a five minute break.
Reconvene Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order.
Guest Speaker He welcomed Ms. Carolyn Mauer, Bureau Chief of Curriculum and
Accountability, who will talk about Digital Charter Schools – the Idaho
Virtual Academy and the Idaho Virtual High School. She had notebooks
for the committee members which contained information regarding the
Digital Charter Schools.



Some facts regarding the Idaho Virtual High School: The charter granting
entity is Mountain Home School District #193 and was granted in 2002 for
a length of three years. It has grades 9-12 and operates from September
1 to May 31, and an alternative Summer School program that begins June
1 and ends August 1. It has 153 full-time equivalent students and 303
students taking at least one course. There are 274 students previously
home schooled. The student/teacher ratio is 23:1.



Facts regarding the Idaho Virtual Academy: The charter granting entity is
Butte County School District #111 and was granted in 2002 for a length of
five years. It has grades K-5 for the 2002-03 school year; K-7 for the
2003-04 school year and plans to add two grade levels per year until
serving K-12. The school calendar is from September 3, 2002 to June 10,
2003. As of 2/17/03, there were 949 students enrolled, with additional
students on a waiting list not yet enrolled. About 50% of the students
were previously home schooled. The student/teacher ratio is 50:1.



Other information pertaining to Charter Virtual Schools:



  1. The school calendar must comply with Idaho Code 33-512(1) by
    fixing the days of the year and the hours of the day when schools
    shall be in session and submit their calendars to the SDE.
  2. For the purposes of establishing Average Daily Attendance (ADA),
    virtual schools must document instructional hours weekly. This
    must be done by a certificated teacher and verified by the school
    administrator. Virtual schools will annually submit to the SDE a
    definition of what is counted as instructional time.
  3. Virtual Charter Schools must comply, as other charter schools,
    when receiving state foundation funds and special distributions.
  4. Statewide Assessments must be conducted in a place and manner
    that ensures testing material integrity. A certificated teacher or a
    trained proctor must proctor assessments. Assessments cannot
    be administered in the student’s home.
  5. An Extended Reading Program must be established for grades K-3 for students identified as below grade level on reading
    assessments. This program shall be the equivalent of forty hours
    of instruction.


Senator Schroeder asked Ms. Mauer to provide him the amount that is
being paid to K12.com for their services and how much is paid to
teachers, administrators, etc. Ms. Mauer said she had asked for that
information, but would request it again.

It was pointed out that home scholars are taking advantage of the
education offered by Charter Digital Schools.



The Chairman told Ms. Mauer that he may invite her back to provide more
information regarding the digital schools, as there are funding issues and
public policy issues that need to be addressed.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder thanked Ms. Mauer for speaking to the committee
and then adjourned the meeting at 10:45 a.m.






DATE: February 25, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

none
Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. by Chairman Schroeder.
Chairman Schroeder announced that Dr. Hoover will not be speaking to
the committee today, as he was requested to talk to JFAC. He has been
rescheduled on our agenda for tomorrow.
Discussion The Chairman said there would be a discussion today regarding the
budget and the suggested holdbacks. Several handouts were given the
committee members. They included H 293, relating to appropriations;
memo from Dr. Cliff Green relating to Idaho School District Fund Balances
and H 293; Proportional Budget Comparison; an e-mail to Senator
Goedde regarding the impact of a 2% holdback on the Coeur d’Alene
School District; and resolutions (regarding the 2% holdback) from the
Associated Student Association (UI, ISU, BSU). These documents were
discussed by the committee during the meeting and are attached.
Chairman Schroeder asked John Watts, lobbyist for the Idaho School
Board Association, to speak. Mr. Watts indicated that a document
reporting Idaho School District fund balances was distributed to
legislators. While many districts currently maintain fund balances, the
document revealed only a portion of the information needed about the
status and availability of these fund balances.



Mr. Watts explained why districts might have fund balances. Examples
are:

Districts receive five payments per year from the State Department
of Education. Many districts maintain a fund balance to pay the bills
between each of the payments. Those districts who do not have
adequate fund balances must apply at a local bank for tax anticipation
notes.

Districts have the option to use the state’s bond rating for issuing a
bond, the fund balances in district accounts may have an impact on the
state’s overall bond rating. If fund balances are drawn down to critically
low levels, the impact on the states’ Moody rating may decrease the
marketability of Idaho bonds, ultimately affecting the entire state.

Many times districts experience unexpected emergencies where
cash is needed to address vandalism repairs, furnace, sewer line breaks,
fire, etc. Ready access to resources is necessary for maintaining ongoing
operations.



Chairman Schroeder asked when the five payments are made to the
districts. Tim Hill, Bureau Chief of Finance, indicated they are made on
8/15, 10/1, 11/15, 2/15, 5/15, and 7/15 as a clean-up.



Others testifying to the negative effects of the 2% holdback were student
lobbyists Rick Hachtel, BSU and Jeremy Pierson, ISU; Ms. Kathy Phelan,
IEA President; and Ann Stevens, representing Professional-Technical
Education.

Adjournment The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:50 a.m.






DATE: February 26, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh,
Andreason, Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

none
Call to order: The Chairman called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
Announcements: Chairman Schroeder said the confirmation hearing for Milford Terrell to
the State Board of Education has been postponed until tomorrow.



He then welcomed Dr. Bob Hoover, President of the University of Idaho.

Guest speaker Dr. Hoover said he had been invited to speak to the committee regarding
the Idaho Water Center/University Place and the $10 million dollar loan
made to the Foundation by the University. He provided a nine page
hand-out to the committee members, from which he addressed his
remarks and those documents are attached.



Dr. Hoover introduced Roy Eiguren, University of Idaho Foundation;
Wayne Meuleman, Idaho State Building Authority; Bud Tracy, also from
the Idaho State Building Authority; Robin Dodson, representing ISU’s
programs in the Treasure Valley; and Gary Stivers, Executive Director,
Office of the State Board of Education. Dr. Hoover said these people are
available to answer questions, also.



Also speaking to the committee was Mr. Eiguren.



Time was allowed for questions from the committee members.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Hoover for the job he is doing at the
University and also for talking to the committee today. He then
adjourned the meeting at 9:40 a.m.






DATE: February 27, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m.
Guest speaker He then welcomed Mr. Jim Hammond, Vice President of the State Board
of Education, who will talk about “Idaho’s MOST”.

(Maximizing Opportunities for Students & Teachers).



Mr. Hammond reviewed the history and background of Idaho’s MOST.
Two important facts are that it is an advisory to the State Board of
Education in areas of teaching policy and is funded by grants from the
Albertson Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education.



The mission of MOST is to maximize opportunities for student learning by
putting a competent, caring, qualified teacher in every Idaho classroom.



The goals are (1) get serious about standards for both students and
teachers; (2) reinvent teacher preparation and professional development;
(3) overhaul teacher recruitment and put qualified teachers in every Idaho
classroom; (4) encourage and reward teacher knowledge and skill; (5)
create schools that are organized for student and teacher success.

Mr. Hammond provided an eight page brochure which included graphs
supporting research. The brochure also listed recommendations that will
be presented to the Legislature during the next legislative session. They
are: (1) Proposed Tiered Licensure Model

  1. Initial License (3 years teaching – must move to Professional)
  2. Professional License (5 years)
  3. Advanced License (7 years)
  4. Opportunity for career advancement or to maintain Professional
    License for career.
  5. Specific verifications & assessments for Initial License.
  6. Performance-based requirements for licensure renewal &
    advancement.
  7. Performance-based requirements for out-of-state teachers,
    alternative route teachers, & non-active teachers.


(2) Proposed Professional Development Model

  1. Focused on student learning needs.
  2. Linked to district/school plans & individual goals.
  3. Essential for continuous improvement.
  4. Performance-based.
  5. Comprehensive accountability system.
  6. Aligned standards, curricula, assessment, and accountability.
  7. Aligned with “No Child Left Behind” requirements.


(3) Recommendations for Middle Level Preparation

  1. An optional middle level certification is recommended to be
    developed by the end of the 2005-2006 school year for those with
    elementary, secondary, exceptional child, and 7-12 occupational
    specialist certifications who will teach middle level students
    (grades 5-8)
  2. The certification will be based on Idaho’s middle level teacher
    standards, drafted in 2002.


The committee asked questions throughout Mr. Hammond’s presentation.

Chairman Schroeder inquired about the issue of the Nez Perce language
being taught in Lapwai by the tribal elders and how that might be affected
by federal laws. Mr. Hammond said the kind of issue Senator Schroeder
brought up should not be taken away from the children and ways would
be found to legally allow those kinds of opportunities.



The Chairman said to Mr. Hammond, ” In tough fiscal times, and with
everything that is going on at the State level, and then you throw NCLB on
top of it, where are we headed?” Mr. Hammond replied that he felt these
changes could be implemented, and by doing it gradually over a long
period of time, if it made a major difference for children, it will be
affordable because it will be done incrementally.



Chairman Schroeder asked Mr. Hammond about his service on the State
Board and if the Board was (1) a policy/decision-making board; (2)
administrative board; (3) implementation body; (4) all of the above, part of
the above or which one? Mr. Hammond replied that he viewed the Board
mainly as the policy arm/decision-making.



The Chairman thanked Mr. Hammond for his presentation of “MOST”.

Confirmation
hearing
He then welcomed Mr. Milford Terrell, who has been appointed to the
State Board of Education by the Governor, the term commencing on
January 22, 2003 and expiring March 1, 2007.



Mr. Terrell introduced his wife, daughter, and two grandsons. He then
told the committee about his family, his business, and civic and religious
activities.



As to his role on the State Board, he views the Board as a policy-making
body and compared it to his business. As the owner of DeBest Plumbing
& Mechanical for 30 years, he said he makes decisions and then
delegates to the people he has hired and expects them to carry out those
decisions.



Chairman Schroeder then read from the State Constitution the duties of
the State Board. He said the intent is not to have the Board administer,
but to make the decisions, and certainly not to have the Board involved in
the implementation or operation of schools.



The Chairman thanked Mr. Terrell for appearing before the committee and
told him the committee would vote on his confirmation Friday.



He then announced there would be a ten minute break before discussing
SCR 106.

Reconvene Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order. He then said he would
brief the committee as to what has transpired in regards to SCR 106.



SCR 106 was on the third reading yesterday. He sent a letter to the Pro
Tem, signed by himself, Senator Noh, and Senator Andreason (and would
have had the vice chairman sign it, as well as Senator Goedde, but they
were unavailable) asking that SCR 106 be referred to the Senate
Education committee for consideration as it is an education issue.



The Chairman then referred to the information (single page) that was
provided by Randi McDermott, Plans and Policy Officer for the State
Board of Education. He said it would delete rule 08.02.01 Section 100.



Chairman Schroeder said the state law says that the State Board is
designated as a state educational agency which is authorized to
negotiate, and contract with, the federal government, and to accept
financial or other assistance from the federal government or any agency
thereof, under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by
congressional enactment designed to further the cause of education. The
Chairman went on to say the Board rule says the State Board of
Education designates the State Department of Education to implement
specifically federal funded programs that may include participating
elementary and secondary schools. The State Department will develop
and disseminate guidelines, provide technical assistance, monitor
programs and aid in complying with federal requirements.



Chairman Schroeder said SCR 106 would delete this rule.



He then asked Dr. Bob West, Chief Deputy Superintendent for the
Department of Education, to let the committee know what effects this
would have.



Dr. West indicated that this would nullify a practical arrangement of 35
years between the State Department of Education and the U.S.
Department of Education with regard to the administration of elementary
and secondary public school federal funds. The effect of this would take
away from the Department the control of NCLB funds, as well as other
funds. Dr. West read from SCR 106, starting with the second WHEREAS
WHEREAS, it is the finding of the Legislature that a certain rule of the
State Board of Education relating to rules governing administration and
federally funded programs is not consistent with legislative intent and
should be rejected.



Dr. West questioned as to why it was felt the Department was not
consistent with legislative intent when they have complied with federal
requirements. He said, “If that is not legislative intent, then what is?” Dr.
West provided a four page handout which included SCR 106, the rule to
be rejected, Idaho Code, Sections 33-110; 33-102; 33-107; 33-125; an
excerpt from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; statistics
regarding funds for state formula-allocated and selected student aid
programs for Idaho; and a Summary of Federal Education Assistance
from NCLB. He went over these documents with the committee and
explained the Department’s responsibilities.



Chairman Schroeder asked Ms. McDermott if she knew anything about
SCR 106 and she indicated that she did not.



Chairman Schroeder said the argument seems to be where the NCLB
money should go.



Randi McDermott said if the rule should be rejected, the Board would
have to sit down, take 33-110 and come up with a new policy. Chairman
Schroeder said they would just be writing another rule.

Adjournment The Chairman said there would be more discussion regarding SCR 106.
He then adjourned the meeting at 10:45 a.m.






DATE: February 28, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Werk
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Senators Noble and Malepeai
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
RS 12831C1 He then asked Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director of the Idaho School
Boards Association, to talk about this RS.



Dr. Green said that last November at the annual conference of ISBA,
Meadows Valley School District brought to them a resolution regarding
unschooled children. He said it passed overwhelmingly. This RS is a
result of that resolution.



Dr. Green said that this concurrent resolution, if passed, would authorize
the appointment of a committee to study the best methods to identify and
determine the number of unschooled children in Idaho and recommend
steps to initiate outreach strategies to bring these children into recognized
school settings.

Motion Following a discussion, Senator Noh made the motion to print
RS12831C1. Senator Gannon seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated it passed unanimously. Chairman Schroeder said he would
send the RS to State Affairs for printing.
Consideration of
Gubernatorial
Appointment
The Chairman said there would now be a discussion regarding Mr.
Terrell’s appointment to the State Board of Education.



Senator Andreason led the discussion. He then made a motion to accept
the Governor’s appointment of Milford Terrell to the State Board of
Education. Senator Goedde seconded the motion. There was no further
discussion. A voice vote indicated it passed unanimously. Senator
Andreason will be the floor sponsor.

Chairman Schroeder called for a two minute break to allow the secretary
to obtain printed material for the committee.
Reconvene Calling the meeting back to order, the Chairman read a letter from the co-chairs of JFAC regarding the reorganization being discussed by the State
Board of Education (attached). Chairman Schroeder distributed a five
page handout that included the following information: Page 1 – Regarding
SCR 106; Page 2 – Article IX of the Constitution – the role of the State
Board; Page 3 -Title 33, Section 33-110 and Board rule 08.02.01, Section
100; Page 4 – Idaho Code, Sections 33-110, 33-102, 33-107, 33-125;
Page 5 – Title IX – General Provisions (excerpt from ESEA, 1965 and
amended by NCLB, 2001). All are attached.



Chairman Schroeder read Page 2, pointing out the term “shall be
prescribed by law”. He said that means that the legislature, who makes
the laws, prescribes what the State Board will or will not do. They have to
obey the laws that the legislature passes. The Chairman then read Pages
3, 4, and 5. On Page 5, Chairman Schroeder noted that the State
Department of Education was defined as the State education agency by
federal law.



Chairman Schroeder said he feels the committee should discuss the role
of the Board. Is it a policy and decision making Board or is it someone
who administers more and more education programs and even implement
programs? The Chairman said this issue must be addressed before
responding to the letter from the co-chairs of JFAC.



Senator Noh asked if the author of SCR 106 was known and Chairman
Schroeder responded that at this time it is not known. Senator Noh said
he feels there are two issues – one that deals with federal money and
NCLB and the other is moving two agencies under the umbrella of the
State Board.



Chairman Schroeder then asked Gary Stivers, Executive Director of the
State Board of Education, to address the proposed restructuring by OSBE
regarding Professional Technical and Vocational Rehabilitation. The
Chairman said that what they hoped to accomplish after hearing from Mr.
Stivers, Mike Rush, and Ms. Blackstead is to arrive at a decision to
respond to the letter of the JFAC co-chairs.



Mr. Stivers said before starting his presentation, he’d like to comment that
SCR 106 is an issue that has not been brought to the Board. Chairman
Schroeder asked for his help to get to the bottom of this situation.



Mr. Stivers provided a handout to the committee which included his talk,
the existing functional structure, the proposed functional structure, as well
as the intent language. (Attached).



Mr. Stivers said the intent of this restructuring is to improve
responsiveness and services with no increase in cost. The Board is
requesting flexibility in its budgetary authority for addressing the
administrative dollars of OSBE, PTE, IDVR to facilitate the sharing of staff
and office resources in fiscal, HR and administrative support. Mr. Stivers
said after talking with the analysts, and it was determined the Board would
not be moving money or positions, they would just have the authority to
share resources.



Chairman Schroeder asked Mr. Stivers if the co-chairs of JFAC had
signed off on the intent language. Mr. Stivers said they had not.



Senator Gannon asked Mr. Stivers to provide the number of employees in
each of the organizations. Mr. Stivers said OSBE has 20; IDVR has 148,
with 17 in the Boise office; DPTE has 36; and CIS has 9.



After a discussion, Chairman Schroeder suggested that the intent
language could be improved upon. He then called for a short recess.

Reconvene Calling the meeting to order, Chairman Schroeder said he would continue
to take testimony on this issue.



Testifying next was Mike Rush, Administrator for DPTE. One of Mr.
Rush’s comments was that he thinks the proposal is going in the right
direction, with the sharing of resources.



The Chairman requested the number of FTE’s be provided to Senator
Gannon, who will pursue this proposal more in depth and announced that
no decision will be made today. Senator Goedde also requested that
numbers be provided for the OSBE Teams, as listed on page 4 of the
handout.



Ms. Maggi Blackstead testified next in support of this restructuring. She
stated that by sharing some of the resources, that would free-up some of
the personnel time for other projects.

Adjournment The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:05 a.m.






DATE: March 4, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator McWilliams
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
S 1062 The Chairman gave a brief history regarding this bill, saying a few years
ago, there was a study on early childhood development and the value of
Pre-K programs. The normal school age for children is five years old,
except for special needs children which can be three. Some schools
have programs for Pre-K that are funded privately and they allow four
year olds. Chairman Schroeder said that this bill would legally allow four
year olds to participate in prekindergarten programs in public schools.



Former Senator Darrel Deide said this bill would do several things, such
as close the disparity gap, make it legal for the kids to be in school, and
also help to reach the reading goal.



Also testifying to the advantages of this bill was Harriet Shaklee (testifying
as a private citizen), Brenda Breidinger, a consultant and YMCA
administrator, and Karen Mason, Executive Director for Idaho AEYC.
They all pointed out it is a voluntary program, just as kindergarten is a
voluntary program in Idaho. They provided a handout with information
supporting their testimony. (Attached.)



Dr. Bob West, Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Schools, also
testified that this bill would make it legal for four year olds to be in the
public schools.

Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to send S 1062 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Werk seconded the motion. After some
discussion, it was determined that it should be stipulated as to when a
child is eligible. It was suggested that for a child to be eligible for the Pre-K program, they should be four years old on or before September 1st.
Senator Andreason said he would amend his motion to send S 1062 to
the 14th Order and have an amendment prepared. This was agreeable
with Senator Werk. A voice vote indicated the motion passed
unanimously.



Regarding the restructuring and consolidation of OSBE, Chairman
Schroeder provided to the committee a copy of a letter (attached) from
Vice Chairman Gannon informing him of the results of a meeting with
Gary Stivers (OSBE), Mike Rush (DPTE), and Maggi Blackstead (IDVR).



Chairman Schroeder referred to the third paragraph and the 10% transfer
of appropriations. He asked Senator Gannon and Senator Andreason to
work on the intent language that is before them (attached). Chairman
Schroeder said perhaps the intent language could incorporate the spirit of
Senator Gannon’s letter (referring to the 10%). He then directed Senator
Gannon to prepare a letter to the co-chairs of JFAC, then it will be
reviewed by this committee before being sent to them.

Announcements Chairman Schroeder announced there would not be a committee meeting
tomorrow (Wednesday). Thursday, Senator Goedde’s transportation bill
will be heard and Friday, there will be several RS’s relating to Charter
Schools.



There was discussion relating to SCR 106. The Chairman gave the
committee members a copy of the dialogue between Randi McDermott
and himself on 2/27 and between Gary Stivers and himself on 2/28. This
conversation was a direct question asked by Chairman Schroeder to them
if the State Board was involved in SCR 106. Both indicated the Board
had not seen this legislation.



The Chairman said he was concerned about ISIMS and the Albertson
Foundation, as well as the federal money involved and hoped (because of
SCR 106) there would be nothing to jeopardize the ISIMS project.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 a.m.






DATE: March 6, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Anderson (Noble), Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
Introduction The Chairman welcomed Ms. Linda Anderson to the committee. She is
substituting for Senator Noble.
Guest Speaker Chairman Schroeder welcomed Brent Reinke, Director of Juvenile
Corrections. The Chairman said that when Mr. Reinke spoke to the
committee on February 18, several questions were raised that required
him to do some research. Mr. Reinke will address those requests today.



Mr. Reinke provided the committee with a handout that provides statistics
concerning the questions asked as related to Juvenile Corrections. Page
one has a break-down of the total cost per day per juvenile, which is
$169.81. Senator Noble had inquired earlier as to the costs of
Administration. That cost is $26.41, which is included in the total cost.



Other research done by Mr. Reinke, as requested by the committee:

21.8% of the juveniles, after being released from Juvenile
Corrections, end up in prison.

The average time between DJC release and DOC commitment is
18 months.

The average age of the DOC commitment is 19 years old and this
age group is 4% of DOC population.

Special Ed juveniles, on the average, stay 19% longer, or about
three months.



Also included in Mr. Reinke’s handout was the Table of Contents for
“Thinking For A Change”. It listed the 22 lessons, a cognitive-based
program utilized in all state juvenile facilities. Problem Solving Steps and
36 Thinking Errors were also included in this handout. Mr. Reinke
explained how all this material is used for the benefit of the juveniles.



Mr. Reinke then introduced Mr. Chuck Halligan, Bureau Chief of Family
Services for Health & Welfare, who will address the mental health issue
pertaining to DJC.



Mr. Halligan’s handout, Idaho Council on Children’s Mental Health –
Community Report Card – provides an overview of the services provided.
These services are targeted toward children with a serious emotional
disturbance (SED) and their families.



The Department of Juvenile Corrections is now tracking indicators to
better identify the juveniles in state’s custody who are defined as SED.
The number of youth committed as of August 19, 2002 was 421. Out of
this number, 114 were identified as SED.



Mr. Halligan also made available to the committee an Idaho update on
Children’s Mental Health, and a national pamphlet, Children’s Systems of
Care
.



The Chairman thanked both Mr. Reinke and Mr. Halligan for their
presentations and making the information available to the committee.

S 1134 Chairman Schroeder said Pro Tem Geddes would present his bill, S 1134.



Pro Tem Geddes said the purpose of this legislation is to change the
name of the Idaho Promise Scholarship Program to the Idaho Robert R.
Lee Promise Scholarship Program. There would be no fiscal impact
regarding this change. Senator Geddes said that Senator Lee worked
three or four years to get this scholarship in place and had a great desire
to make this available for the youth of this state.



There was no testimony against this bill.

Motion Senator Werk made the motion to send S 1134 to the floor with a do pass
recommendation. Senator Gannon seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated it passed unanimously. Senator Geddes will be the sponsor
and consideration will be given to other Senators who would like to co-
sponsor this bill.
Introductions of
Guests
Chairman Schroeder welcomed several Bishop Kelly High School
students and asked them to introduce themselves.
S 1129 He then said Senator Goedde would present his legislation, S 1129.   



Senator Goedde explained his legislation saying that funding for public
schools are based on expenditures from the prior year for that district.
This bill will place a cap on the amount of reimbursement at 103% of the
state average reimbursable cost per mile or student, whichever is more
favorable to the district. It also provides for an appeal to the state board
of education for justification of excessive costs. Based on the current
compensation model, a savings to the state general fund of $2.7 million
would be realized.



Testifying in favor of the bill was Jeff Miles, Transportation Director for the
Bonneville School District #93. He stated that he has been able to save
the district money without sacrificing safety. Some things implemented:
bell schedules were adjusted because transportation is the only area that
impacts all schools; routes were restructured; no buses taken home by
drivers; and full bus loads for activities. Mr. Miles said it was a team effort
to accomplish this. His district had 51 buses. It now has 46 and is
operating far more efficiently. One reason Mr. Miles feels things are out
of check is because the rising cost of education is 3%, while the rising
cost of transportation is 7%.



There was some discussion regarding contracts and Mr. Miles said the
contracts he has been involved with has some flexibility. Senator Goedde
pointed out that School Boards can only enter into a contract for one year
at a time and cannot obligate future school boards.



Testifying in opposition of the bill was A. J. Balukoff, a trustee for the
Boise School Board. He said Boise uses all 178 school days to calculate
the average cost, while other districts use other ways for their
calculations. He said there is one district that has two buses going to one
school, while Boise has 162 buses going to 51 school sites.



Rodney McKnight, Transportation Director for the State Department,
responded to questions regarding audits. He said the reason that audits
are not more often is because of the staffing issue. Also, there is no staff
position related to fiscal capability.



Testifying in opposition to the bill was Sarah Stobaugh, Transportation
Supervisor for the Boise School District. She feels the comparison figures
used for cost savings are somewhat overstated. She also feels the May,
1996 study done by the Office of Performance Evaluation was flawed,
relating to cost per mile and cost per student. She said using averages is
not a valid way of basing pupil transportation reimbursement. Ms.
Stobaugh also addressed the contract period. She said the Boise District
recently signed a contract for a three year period on a per bus per day
use. Senator Goedde asked if she might provide him with a copy of the
contract and she said she would.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder said discussion regarding this bill would continue
tomorrow. He then adjourned the meeting at 10 a.m.






DATE: March 7, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
Approval of
minutes:

Motion

He said he would entertain motions for the approval of minutes.
Motion Senator Werk made the motion to approve the minutes as written for
February 21 and 25. Senator Goedde seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated the motion passed unanimously.
Motion Senator Gannon made the motion to approve the minutes as written for
February 19, 20 and 28. Senator Noh seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated the motion passed unanimously.



Senator Malepeai made the motion to approve the minutes as written for
February 14, 18, 26 and 27. Senator Werk seconded the motion. A voice
vote indicated the motion passed unanimously.

H 261 Chairman Schroeder said that H 261 would be heard, with Representative
Tom Trail explaining the bill.



Representative Trail said this legislation, if passed, would increase the
fees paid for certification required to hold professional positions in Idaho
Public Schools. It also places a limit on the portion of fees collected that
may be used by the Department to defray costs to the office of
certification. Representative Sayler also testified in regards to what this
bill will provide.



Testifying in support of this bill was Randi McDermott from the State
Board of Education. She said the Board is in support of this bill.



Dr. Bob West, from the Department of Education, said the Department
supports this bill. He said it increases the fee from $7.00 per year to
$15.00 per year. This is the first increase in 15 years. A copy of his
remarks, plus a handout, are attached.



Also testifying in support of this bill were Jim Shackelford, IEA; Patty
Toney, MOST; and Janet Orndorff, ISBA.

Motion After some discussion by the committee, Senator Andreason made the
motion to send H 261 to the floor with a do pass recommendation.
Senator Noble seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated the motion
passed unanimously. Senator Andreason will be the sponsor of this bill.
Introduction of
Guests
Chairman Schroeder said there were some Republican Women in the
audience and he asked them to stand and be recognized. Today is “A
Day on the Hill” for Republican Women and they are dressed in red.
S 1129 Chairman Schroeder said discussion would continue on S 1129. He
asked Ms. Sarah Stobaugh, who testified yesterday in opposition to the
bill, to continue her testimony.



Ms. Stobaugh said she was asked yesterday if she had contacted the
Meridian School District regarding this issue. She said she contacted
them after leaving the meeting and was told they are not in support of this
bill. She also contacted 18 districts and asked them how they reported
their mileage and student count. It appears to her there is not
consistency around the state regarding reporting.



Jeff Miles, Boundary County School District, testified in favor of the bill.
He stressed that reporting should be done accurately.



Testifying in opposition to the bill was Armand Eckert, retired trustee of
the Buhl School District. He said Buhl would realize a loss of $81,000.



Rick Vertrees, Caldwell Transportation, testified in opposition to the bill
also. He suggested that more enforcement was needed, as well as better
record keeping.



Ms. Dawn Justice, IACI representative, said IACI feels this bill is good
public policy and they support this bill.



Testifying in opposition was Vic Koshuta, Superintendent, Garden Valley
School District #71. Their bus services are contracted and should this bill
pass, his district would lose $48,000.



Ms. Janet Orndorff, Boise School District, testified in opposition to this bill.



Rodney McKnight, Bureau Chief of Transportation for the Department of
Education, answered questions regarding audits and spot checks. He
also had handouts regarding cost per mile and cost per student. In
regards to this bill, Mr. McKnight said his position is neutral.



Written testimony was submitted by John Eikum, Executive Director of the
Idaho Rural Schools Association, who was unable to attend today’s
meeting. Thirty one school districts belong to the IRSA. Of these
districts, Mr. Eikum wrote that seven would be negatively affected by this
legislation. He also feels that if the department had sufficient staff to
monitor the districts there may be a method to reduce the overall
transportation costs and in the process aid local districts in finding ways to
be more efficient. Should this bill be approved, he suggested that it
should be phased in over a three year period.



Chairman Schroeder said testimony on this bill will continue next week.

Announcements He then announced there is a letter in the folder from the State Board with
regards to SCR 106. Also, items on the agenda that were not heard
today will be heard next week.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 10 a.m.






DATE: March 11, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
S 1129 The Chairman said S 1129 was before them for discussion and action.



Senator Noh requested clarification and a definitive answer to the
question Senator Goedde asked yesterday regarding if the state is
reimbursing 85% of the capitol costs for athletic trips.



Mr. Rod McKnight, Transportation supervisor, said the state does not
reimburse for athletic costs. But they do support a reimbursement of 85%
for the buses used by activities. Senator Noh requested an estimate of
those costs. Mr. McKnight responded by saying it would be difficult to do
at this time. However, there is an administrative rule that will be in effect
on July 1 that will enable his department to obtain more data, based on
individual routing and the types of trips taken.



Chairman Schroeder then asked Senator Goedde, sponsor of the bill, to
speak.



Senator Goedde said this bill is about efficiency and pointed out that for
the last decade this problem has been discussed. Now, it is time to do
something. Senator Goedde also stressed the need for more accurate
data and said it is subject to abuse. He said that he felt strongly enough
about this issue that he would be willing to send the bill to the 14th order
and increase the cap from three percent (3%) to ten percent (10%).

There was more discussion prior to motions made.

Motion Senator Noble made a motion to send S 1129 to the floor without
recommendation. There was not a second.
Motion Senator Werk made a motion to hold S 1129 in committee. Senator Noh
seconded the motion.
Substitute
Motion
Senator Goedde made a motion to send S 1129 to the 14th order.
Senator McWilliams seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was taken on the substitute motion to send S 1129 to the
14th order. Voting aye were Senators Noble, McWilliams, and Goedde.
Voting nay were Senators Malepeai, Werk, Andreason, Noh, Gannon, and
Schroeder. The motion failed, three to six.



A roll call vote was taken on the original motion to hold S 1129 in
committee. Voting aye were Senators Malepeai, Werk, Andreason, Noh,
Gannon, and Schroeder. Voting nay were Senators Noble, McWilliams,
and Goedde. The motion passed, six to three.

H 263 Chairman Schroeder said Representative Garrett would explain her bill.



Representative Garrett said H 263 was a very simple bill, changing the
name of the Idaho Association of School Trustees to the Idaho School
Boards Association. This change will correctly identify the entity required
to sit on the Professional Standards Commission.



There was no testimony in opposition to this bill.



Testifying in support of this bill was Ms. Janet Orndorff, trustee for the
Boise School District.

Motion Senator Noble made a motion to send H 263 to the floor with a do pass
recommendation. Senator Andreason seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated it was unanimous. Senator Noble will be the sponsor.
Chairman Schroeder said there are several RS’s regarding charter
schools. He explained that a charter is a contract with local boards of
trustees. There have been several issues that have come up this year.
One issue is the election of the boards of charter schools. The Chairman
said that public money is involved and with that, comes accountability.
Public money is not an entitlement – it is given for a purpose. Another
issue is the selection of students. Also, some students enrolled in the
Digital Charter School may be also enrolled in public school. This issue is
– are these students counted twice? He said it appears that the state has
the right to know. Another issue is that of a charter school not following
its charter.



Chairman Schroeder asked Tim Hill, Finance Bureau Chief, to inform the
committee as to the costs of the charter schools. Mr. Hill provided a
handout which listed information (ADA, Divisor, Support Units) of all
charter schools. He explained this document, which is attached.

Chairman Schroeder said his intent, regarding the four RS’s listed on the
agenda, is to discuss them, then vote on them Friday.
RS 13127C1 The Chairman said Mr. Bob Henry, chairman of the Nampa School Board,
will explain RS 13127C1. Mr. Henry deferred his time to Dr. Cliff Green,
Executive Director of the Idaho School Boards Association.



Dr. Green said he wanted to state ISBA’s position on charter schools.
The ISBA is not opposed to charter schools and they have a position
statement that recognizes charter schools as another public school choice
for parents.



Dr. Green said the reason for this RS is to clean up some language in the
current law and to facilitate the local boards who grant the charters the
necessary authority and infrastructure to enforce the charter agreement.



The Statement of Purpose for this RS states that it sets out requirements
for a charter school board of directors to include a school district board
member, and further requires that elections be held for charter school
board of director membership conducted like a school board district
trustee election. It provides that the charter incorporate the school’s by-laws, articles of incorporation and governance structure. It clarifies
requirements for charter school students enrolled to be selected by a
lottery conducted by a neutral third party, and that the charter may be
suspended or placed on probation rather than revoked if the school is
found to misrepresent the charter, by-laws, articles of incorporation or
fails to follow election laws set out in Idaho Code.



Chairman Schroeder announced that there was time for a few questions
from the committee and that discussion on the remaining RS’s would
continue tomorrow.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 a.m.






DATE: March 12, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Rouse,
(Andreason), Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
Introduction He then introduced Ms. Lori Rouse, Senator Andreason’s daughter, who
will be replacing him while he is out-of-state on education business.
Announcement Chairman Schroeder announced that if H 325 makes its way to this
committee, he will conduct two evening hearings and they will be held in
the Gold Room.
Motion Senator Gannon made a motion to approve the minutes of March 4, 6,
and 7 as written. It was seconded by Senator Goedde. A voice vote
indicated it passed unanimously.
RS 13127C1 The Chairman said discussion would continue on RS 13127C1. He then
called on Mr. Bob Henry, who deferred his time to Dr. Cliff Green,
Executive Director of the Idaho School Boards Association.



Dr. Green said he wanted to read from ISBA’s 2003 Resolutions &
Legislative Policies book (page 10), the Board’s position on charter
schools.



“ISBA recognizes “charter schools” as another public school choice
available to parents. ISBA supports charter schools provided that the
school board:



(a) retains sole authority to grant the charter;



(b) determines the ways in which charter schools will be held
accountable, such as determining the criteria that will be used in
establishing the charter;



(c) retains authority to decertify or not renew the charter of any school that
fails to meet criteria set forth in the charter or as otherwise specified by
the local school board, including but not limited to a requirement that
charter schools demonstrate continuous student achievement;



(d) has the authority to endure that a charter does not foster racial, social,
religious or economic segregation or segregation of children by disability;



(e) determines that funding for the other schools under its jurisdiction is
not adversely affected.



ISBA Position – ISBA recognizes “charter schools” as another public
school choice for parents.”



Dr. Green stated that there have been two complaints filed by the Office
of Civil Rights against charter schools in this state. He said the district in
which that charter school resides is responsible for that complaint. Dr.
Green said that ISBA feels that if they are to be held accountable for
charter schools, there should be some structure set up to monitor the
schools effectively.



In regards to RS 13127C1, Dr. Green said his executive committee had
one issue they would like changed, and that is the election of the board of
directors. They would like it amended to have only the parents of charter
school students, rather than district wide.



Dr. Green stressed that they are willing to meet with charter school
officials to rework this RS.



Some of the issues raised by the committee are as follows:

  1. Discussion as to the word “parents”. It was felt that it should be
    more broad and perhaps also use the term “legal guardian”.
  2. Lottery selection, so as to assure it is fair.
  3. Number of children of employees of a charter school.
  4. Digital Charter School. Charter granted by Butte County, with the
    office in Blaine County. Also, the number of students has not
    been reported, as requested.

RS 13123

Chairman Schroeder said this RS would direct the legislature to establish
a study committee to undertake and complete a study of the statutes
governing charter schools.
RS 13122 The Chairman said this one would provide a period from April 1, 2003 to
July 1, 2004 when no new charter school shall be authorized.
RS 13128 This RS provides for election of members of a charter school board of
directors.
RS 13161 This RS relates to admissions to charter schools and amends Section 33-5205. It would require public notice of the date, time and place of a lottery
for admission and announcement of application procedures.
Chairman Schroeder said discussion on these RS’s would continue
Thursday and Friday. He said his office is always open to anyone who
wishes to talk to him about these issues.
Adjournment He then adjourned the meeting at 9:25 a.m.






DATE: March 13, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Rouse
(Andreason), Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Guest Speaker The Chairman welcomed Ms. Shirley Silver, Special Projects Coordinator,
for the Displaced Homemaker Program.



Ms. Silver provided the committee with copies of the annual report of the
Idaho Displaced Homemaker Programs. The report and a copy of her
presentation is attached.



Ms. Silver gave a brief history of this program. The 1980 Idaho Legislature
passed the “Equal Opportunity for Displaced Homemaker Act” to serve
single parents and displaced homemakers. In 1982, S 1306 increased the
divorce fee by $20 to establish a dedicated fund for the Division of
Professional-Technical Education to operate counseling centers for
displaced homemakers. These fees, plus federal funds, enabled the
Division to have centers in each region.



Ms. Silver said the mission of this program is to help participants become
economically and personally self-sufficient.



The number of people served in FY2002 was 1,994. Of that number, 475
entered employment or improved their employment status; 760 entered,
continued or completed a training program; 341 graduated from a pre-employment class; and 67 completed GED’s.



Ms. Silver related several success stories regarding participants of this
program.



Time was allowed for questions from the committee. Among the
questions, Senator Gannon asked if people, who are eligible, are turned
away from this program. Ms. Silver said they are not turned away, but
might be put on a waiting list if the programs are at capacity. Another
question asked was the amount of the annual budget for this program. Ms.
Silver responded by saying it was $237,000. Fees collected from divorces
contribute $170,000 and the balance comes from the general fund. Ms.
Silver pointed out that for every dollar invested to help people in this
program to become gainfully employed, a return of $12.82 is realized.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Ms. Silver for her presentation.

RS 13127C1 The Chairman said discussion would continue on RS 13127C1. He then
announced that some revisions had been made to the RS and it had been
rewritten and it is now RS 13127C2. Copies were given to the committee.



He then asked Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director of ISBA, to speak.

RS 13127C2 Dr. Green said first he wanted to say that he appreciated the opportunity to
sit down with Mr. Paul Powell, (representing the Idaho Charter School
Network) and review the RS. Dr. Green said Mr. Powell provided
meaningful input and listened to ISBA’s concerns. Suggestions and
modifications were made and that resulted in the RS being revised.



Dr. Green then addressed the agreed-upon changes.

  1. a member of the board of trustees or board designee shall be a
    nonvoting member of the governing board of the charter school.
  2. revocation of tax exemption of schools put on probation has been
    deleted.
  3. election language changed from all electors in the school district to
    include only district electors who have children attending the
    charter school.


An issue not resolved was a remedy for the probation period. Dr. Green
feels the ISBA needs to have a way to get the attention of the charter
schools and that would be to withhold funds. However, he suggested
lowering the amount from ten percent to five percent.



Chairman Schroeder asked Mr. Powell what his position was on RS
13127C2. Mr. Powell replied that he did not support it, but feels great
progress was made. He objects to the five percent probation and feels
some of the independence is taken away. As to the election process, he
feels the stakeholders are broader than just parents. He would include not
only parents, but teachers and volunteers. When asked about the
nonvoting member of the school board, Mr. Powell said he didn’t have a
problem with that. When asked about the lottery of selecting students, he
said he didn’t have a problem with that either.



Chairman Schroeder said he was trying to “flush out” what is agreeable
between the parties involved. He then asked Mr. Powell and Dr. Green to
meet with him at 1 p.m. today to continue to resolve the problem.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 a.m.






DATE: March 14, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Rouse
(Andreason), Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m.
RS 13127C2 Chairman Schroeder said this RS had undergone more changes since
yesterday’s meeting, and it is now RS 13127C3.



He then called on Dr. Cliff Green to update the committee on the changes
made. These changes were agreed upon by Paul Powell, representative
from the Idaho Charter School Network, Bob Henry, chairman of the
Nampa School Board and Dr. Green, Executive Director of the Idaho
School Boards Association.

RS 13127C3 Dr. Green said they made some changes to the RS. The first change
relates to elections and now reads as follows: “All Idaho electors who
have children attending the charter school or who are founding charter
members, board members or full-time employees of the charter school
may vote in the charter school election and shall receive notice of
elections as notice is provided for other school district elections.”



The second change relates to the selection of students (lottery). The RS
now states that “the entire lottery process shall be conducted by a party
chosen mutually by the board of trustees of the school district and the
charter school.”



The third change was a technical change with regards to “placed on
probation”. The paragraph was reworded to flow better.



Dr. Green said they had discussion as to using the term “material violation
or material misrepresentation”. They agreed to leave it as “material
violation”.

Discussion Senator Goedde asked Dr. Green how these changes would affect the
existing bylaws of charters. Dr. Green stated that he doesn’t have an
answer right now; however, his understanding is that the existing charters
would play out in the time period that they were set up for. Senator
Schroeder asked Dr. Green to ask the bill writers for the answer to this
question and to have it next week.



After the discussion, Chairman Schroeder reviewed the changes to make
sure everyone understood them. He then entertained a motion for
printing this RS (with changes made before submitting to the privilege
committee) and RS 13123, which directs the legislature to establish a
study committee to undertake and complete a study of the statutes
governing charter schools. The Chairman said these RS’s would need to
be sent to the State Affairs Committee for a print hearing, then returned to
this committee.

Motion Senator Noh made the motion to send RS 13127C3, (with appropriate
changes it becomes C4), and RS 13123 to print. Senator Gannon
seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it was unanimous.
RS 13178 Chairman Schroeder then asked Dr. Mike Friend to introduce RS 13178.



Dr. Friend said this RS would amend two sections of Chapter 55. The
amendments provide for a district fee structure and provide clarity
regarding tuition payments. These issues relate to state funding. Prior
funding was provided by the Albertson Foundation.

Motion After a brief discussion, Senator Noble made the motion to send RS
13178 to print. Senator Goedde seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated it was unanimous.
Guest Speaker Chairman Schroeder introduced Ms. Maggie Blackstead, Interim
Administrator for Vocational Rehabilitation.



Ms. Blackstead provided the committee with copies of her PowerPoint
presentation (attached).



Following are some highlights:

  1. The goal of VR is employment.
  2. Last year VR served over 12,000 people with disabilities.
  3. Last year VR assisted 1,711 to achieve employment outcomes.
  4. For every $1 invested, $2.50 is returned to the Idaho economy and
    reduction in public assistance payments is realized.


During the discussion following the presentation, Senator Gannon asked
if the tracking of clients reveals the cost to the state, per client. Ms.
Blackstead said she would provide that information to him.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Ms. Blackstead for her report.

Guest Speaker The Chairman introduced the next speaker, Ned Parrish from the Office of
Performance Evaluations. Mr. Parrish also presented a PowerPoint
program (copy attached). He was accompanied by Rakesh Mohan,
Director of the Office of Performance Evaluations.



Mr. Parrish said in February, legislative leadership (JLOC) requested an
evaluation of public school districts. The request called for a
comprehensive and overall evaluation of three districts and a review of 17
specific issues. His office determined they would conduct a multi-phase
evaluation.

Phase 1 would be a statewide review of district revenues and
expenditures released during the 2003 session. Phase 2 would be a
district-level review of programs and expenditures released during the
2004 session, with select districts and key issues to be reviewed.



Phase 1 of the statewide review will be a comparison of district revenues
by source – general, dedicated, and federal funds. District expenditures
will also be compared.



The Joint Legislative Oversight Committee (JLOC) has approved this
proposal and they have issued a directive for OPE to proceed with Phase
1 and to report the results during the 2003 session.



Questions were asked of Mr. Parrish and Mr. Mohan during the
presentation.



The committee was assured that the OPE works independently. Topics
are selected, then they do their work and issue a report, which is factual.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 9:35 a.m.






DATE: March 19, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator Noble
` Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
Announcements The Chairman announced that there are several letters of
correspondence in each member’s blue folder. The information provided
are answers relating to questions asked in previous meetings. Two
letters are from Dr. West. One concerns the enrollment of students in
Idaho charter schools and the other addresses home schooled children.
There is a letter from the Attorney General’s office regarding charter
schools’ admission of students of employees. The final letter is from Ms.
Shirley Silver, Special Projects Coordinator for the Displaced Homemaker
Program.
RS 13190 Chairman Schroeder asked Dr. Bob Haley to explain this RS.



Dr. Haley told the committee that a similar RS failed in the House
Education Committee. He felt there were two reasons: (1) the negative
fiscal impact was not stressed strongly enough and (2) there was an
omission regarding colleges and universities.



The United States Congress has passed legislation requiring high schools
to provide to military recruiters access to a list of secondary school
students and their student directory information. Dr. Haley said that on
page 1 of the RS, lines 10-23 spells out what cannot be done, then
starting at line 24, it lists the exemptions.



Dr. Haley said he felt it was not a big issue, just a compliance issue.
When asked what was in the directory, Dr. Haley said it includes the
name, address and phone number of the students.

Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to send RS 13190 to the Judiciary &
Rules Committee for printing. Senator Noh seconded the motion. A voice
vote indicated that it was unanimous.
Guest Speaker Chairman Schroeder welcomed Dr. Bob Barr from Boise State University
who will present a status report on Idaho’s Charter Schools Initiative.



Dr. Barr provided a 14 page booklet to the committee members (attached)
which he and Dr. William Parrett co-authored. Dr. Barr referenced his
remarks to this booklet. It has seven sections, and all were discussed,
except the final section.

  1. Charter Schools: National Review
  2. Research on Charter Schools
  3. Status Report: Idaho Charter Schools
  4. Modification of Idaho Charter School Legislation Since 1998
  5. Idaho Charter School Network (ICSN)
  6. Idaho Charter Schools: Observations/Issues
  7. References


Regarding the National Review, Dr. Barr reviewed the summary of
national issues. They are: facility funding continues to be a major barrier
and challenge; conflicts with local school boards continue to persist; some
charters lack external evaluation and assessment; authorizing agencies in
many states lack the necessary resources to provide adequate oversight,
technical assistance, evaluation and assessment; occasional problems of
fiscal mismanagement have been reported; while some charter schools
have closed, no accurate accounting of these events is available. Some
charters have been approved but never opened.

Dr. William Parrett, Boise State University, reviewed the growth of charter
schools. He also noted that the Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory reported positive findings regarding Idaho’s charter schools.
Ms. Kerri Whitehead, Accountability Project Coordinator for Idaho Charter
School Network, reviewed ISCN’s mission and role. Ms. Whitehead said
that at the upcoming Annual conference with the State Department, they
will focus on board relations, partly because of the discussions that have
been held with this committee.
One of the questions asked was regarding funding. The Department of
Education has received two federal grants for charter schools totaling
more than $5.5 million during the past four years, with two years
remaining on their second grant. These funds provide assistance to
Idaho charter schools for start-up and dissemination activities.
Because of the one year delay for reimbursement costs of transportation,
charter school students must provide their own transportation the first
year the school opens. Senator Schroeder asked Dr. Bob Haley if he
would provide some recommendations regarding this issue for the next
legislative session. Dr. Haley said he would.
Answering questions posed by the committee were Dr. Barr, Dr. Parrett,
Ms. Whitehead and Ms. Carolyn Mauer, Coordinator for Charter Schools.
Announcements Chairman Schroeder announced that the second part of Dr. Barr’s
presentation, Idaho Technology Initiative Status Report, will be
rescheduled.
Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m.






DATE: March 20, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator Noble
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
He then welcomed Representative Gagner to the Education Committee
meeting and asked him to explain his bill, H 301.
H 301 Representative Gagner said this bill will act as an incentive to cause
doctors to want to serve in rural communities when a need is
demonstrated. A fee would be assessed to students preparing for the
medical profession which would be deposited in the rural physician
incentive fund. Physicians who have paid the fee shall be given a
preference over other applicants when applying for practice in a
predetermined rural area. The maximum amount of educational debt
payment that a rural physician may receive is $50,000.00 over a five year
period.
Discussion There was discussion regarding the amount of assessed fees, the
definition of “rural”, and physicians who receive their education elsewhere
and have not contributed to the incentive fund. Also discussed was the
consideration of a medical board, working in conjunction with the State
Board of Education and the Board of Regents of the University of Idaho.
Motion Senator Goedde made a motion to send H 301 to the floor with a do pass
recommendation. Senator Gannon seconded the motion.
Discussion There was more discussion regarding this bill and some questions were
left unanswered.
Consent Senator Noh asked for unanimous consent to hold H 301 for one day.
The request was granted.
Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 a.m.






DATE: March 21, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Senator Noble
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Approval of
Minutes
The Chairman entertained motions for the approval of minutes.
Motion Senator McWilliams made the motion that the minutes of March 11 and
12 be approved as written. Senator Goedde seconded the motion. A
voice vote indicated it was unanimous.
Motion Senator Werk made the motion that the minutes of March 13 and 14 be
approved as written. Senator Gannon seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated it was unanimous.
Guest speakers Chairman Schroeder welcomed Mr. Robert Huntley who will update the
committee regarding the School Facilities Task Force Recommendations.
Mr. Huntley provided a 13 page handout (attached) that he referred his
remarks to.



Page one is the computation of the first ten years’ cost to the state, with
the average per year of $20,907,274.



Mr. Huntley said the Task force met four times and found the following:



  1. The supermajority threshold of 66 2/3 affirmative to pass a school
    bond levy is in some cases prohibitive.
  2. On occasion, serious safety hazards exist in schools and there is
    no fail-safe method for local school district’s board of trustees to
    remediate the hazard.
  3. There is a huge disparity among school districts in their ability to
    retire long-term debt on their own.
  4. Two of the leading causes of school facility deterioration are
    inadequate and neglected maintenance.


These four points summarize the Task Force’s findings and they have
made four recommendations. Each recommendation requires that
legislation be drafted in more detail. Should all facets of the four
recommendations provided be enacted into law, the ISEEO lawsuit should
be withdrawn.

Chairman Schroeder welcomed Mr. Mike Gilmore from the Attorney
General’s office, who represents the State in the lawsuit.



Mr. Gilmore provided a news release from the Governor and
Superintendent of Public Instruction Marilyn Howard regarding the
recommendations made by the Task Force. Mr. Gilmore feels the second
recommendation is the most important part of the package and that is
providing a way for districts to impose emergency safety levies without
voter approval.



Chairman Schroeder asked Dr. Deide, education liaison for the
Governor’s Office, to comment on the Governor’s press release regarding
the facilities recommendations.



Following Dr. Deide’s remarks, Senator Goedde made two requests. He
asked Mr. Huntley if he would provide a breakdown of each of the
recommendations and to Dr. Deide, if he would provide copies of the
computer model for the past five years of bond elections passed in the
state. Both Mr. Huntley and Dr. Deide said they would provide this
information.



The committee asked a few questions of Mr. Huntley, Mr. Gilmore, and
Dr. Deide.



Chairman Schroeder thanked the three gentlemen for their information
regarding the Task Force’s findings.

H 301 The Chairman said that Representative Gagner would continue the
discussion of H 301.



Representative Gagner said that Dr. Jim Blackman, Assistant Dean at the
University of Washington, is available to answer questions and he turned
his time to him.



Dr. Blackman said the incentive is to do something about the debt load
that the medical students have accumulated over the length of their
education.



Discussion centered around several items: Montana’s program, fee
charges, an oversight committee, and student consideration.



Representative Gagner recommended that the committee send this bill to
the 14th order so that some changes can be made.



Chairman Schroeder suggested to Representative Gagner that he work
on some amendments to this bill, bring them back next week so that the
committee knows what the amendments are, then they will discuss it
further.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10 a.m.






DATE: March 25, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Announcement The Chairman announced that he had received a packet of letters from
fifth grade students attending Centennial Elementary in Nampa and has
distributed the letters among the committee members. A letter of
response has been written to the students and the committee members
are invited to sign it.
H 301 Chairman Schroeder called on Representative Gagner to explain the
suggested amendments that he and Senator Lodge have proposed for
this bill.



Representative Gagner suggested that:

Section 1, line 14 remove “and board of regents of the University
of Idaho”.

Section 1, line 18 change eight percent to four percent.

Section 1, line 19 change individual to average, so that it reads
“annual average medicine support fee.

Section 2, line 28 remove “and board”.

Section 2, line 29 remove “of regents of the University of Idaho”.

Section 2, line 30 after code, add “The State Board of Education
will identify an oversite committee made up of knowledgeable
individuals or organizations to assist in the administration of this
fund. Members of this oversite committee should come from the
Idaho Hospital Association, Idaho Medical Association, Office of
Rural Health, Idaho Rural Health Education Center, Medical
Student Program Administrators and others as appropriate.

Section 3, line 36 remove “and Board of Regents of the University
of Idaho”.

Section 3, line 5 add after board, “through its oversite committee”.

Withdrawal of
motion
After some discussion, Senator Goedde requested that his motion made
last Thursday (to send H 301 to the floor with a do pass recommendation)
be withdrawn. Senator Gannon, who seconded the motion, was
agreeable with the request.
Motion Following more discussion, Senator Goedde made a motion to send H
301 to the 14th Order with the amendments discussed. Senator Gannon
seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated that the motion passed.
Senator Lodge is the sponsor of this bill.
S 1169 Chairman Schroeder asked Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director of the
Idaho School Boards Association, to talk about this bill.



Dr. Green said this bill is the result of four changes made to an RS
regarding charter schools. He reaffirmed the Boards’ position stating that
“ISBA recognizes ‘charter schools’ as another public school choice for
parents”.



The areas of concern were the election process, the selection process,
and the probation period if corrections were needed.



Working on these changes with Dr. Green were Paul Powell, Idaho
Charter School Network, and Bob Henry, Nampa School Board Chairman.
Both Mr. Powell and Mr. Henry testified that they supported this bill.

Motion After some discussion, Senator Goedde made the motion to send S 1169
to the floor with a do pass recommendation. Senator Werk seconded the
motion. A voice vote indicated that it passed unanimously. Senator
Goedde will be the sponsor of this bill and Senator Werk is the co-sponsor.
S 1170 Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director of the Idaho Association of School
Administrators, was asked to explain this bill.



He stated that during the last legislative session, Chapter 55, creating the
Idaho Digital Learning Academy, was enacted. The purpose of this
legislation is to amend two sections of this chapter. The amendments
provide for a district fee structure and provide clarity regarding tuition
payments.



Dr. Friend said that as fees are phased in, the fiscal impact will decrease.
This service is voluntary to the school districts.

Motion Senator Gannon made the motion to send S 1170 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. Senator McWilliams seconded the motion. A
voice vote indicated that it passed unanimously. The sponsor of this bill
will be Senator Gannon.
Recess Chairman Schroeder called for a five minute recess.
Call to order After calling the meeting back to order, the Chairman said the next order
of business would be to discuss the effect of the public school education
budget if less than $943 million.



A handout (prepared by Tim Hill, Bureau Chief of Finance and
Transportation) shows the amount of change for each school district if the
budget was $920 M, $930 M, or $943 M.



Testifying as to the effect were Dr. Mike Friend, Dr. Cliff Green, and Ms.
Janet Orndorff.



The Chairman said this discussion would continue tomorrow.

Adjournment He then adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m.






DATE: March 26, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator Noble
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Discussion The Chairman said discussion would continue regarding the effect a
budget reduction would have on public school education, if less than $943
million. He then called on Tim Hill, Bureau Chief of Finance and
Transportation for the State Department of Education.



Mr. Hill had four handouts (attached). A budget of $920 million (blue
paper); a budget of $930 million (green paper); a budget of $940.4 million
(ivory paper); and a budget of $943 million (yellow paper). Mr. Hill
reviewed these figures for the committee.



One of the questions asked was regarding the obligation of contracts. Mr.
Hill said his understanding was that school districts were not financially
relieved of their obligation regarding contracts.



Following the committee’s discussion, Ms. Kathy Phelan, President of the
Idaho Education Association testified. Part of her testimony included the
need for districts to have enough money to meet their legal obligations.
She also emphasized to the committee to think about what happens to the
children, if programs are cut.



John Eikum, representative for the Idaho Rural Schools Association, said
if a lot of the programs are cut, and fund balances are used, there could
be strikes and other repercussions. He said it is not a pretty picture and
he is hoping that “greater minds will prevail” and come together with the
Governor’s numbers, or at least close to it. In the smaller rural districts
when a teaching position is eliminated, a program is usually lost.



Senator Andreason requested information regarding the effect any budget
cuts would have on the early reading program. Dr. Bob West, from the
Department of Education, said he would provide that information for him.



Chairman Schroeder said a comment was made on the Floor that it would
be helpful if the Senators knew the consequences of actions on some of
the budget bills. That is why he invited Tim to brief the committee. The
Chairman said he feels that it is important to know what the impact will be
when voting on school issues.

H 366 Chairman Schroeder welcomed Representative Lake who will explain

H 366.



Representative Lake said this legislation was brought to him by a State
Board of Education member. It will give the State Board of Education the
authority to determine the specifications for a basic bus. Also, the state’s
share of the transportation support program for bus purchases shall be 85
percent of the cost of a basic bus and optional features shall be paid by
the respective school districts.



There was much discussion as to what features might be optional, what is
required, “one size fits all”, white roof, tinted windows, air-ride, and special
tires. Also, it was felt that the fiscal impact was questionable and the
Chairman requested more detailed information as to how this impacts
each district. Another area of concern was regarding districts that
contract bus service.



Testimony of Mr. Rod McKnight, transportation supervisor, indicated that
a committee reviews the purchases of buses. He was asked to provide
the names of the committee members. Mr. McKnight said he would
research the questions asked and have the answers for the committee
tomorrow. He also stated that there are some rules being drawn up that
will apply to this bill.



Senator Noh said that with only three bus manufacturers, perhaps there
should be an anti-trust investigation of the school bus industry.



Chairman Schroeder announced that more discussion regarding this bill
will continue tomorrow. He thanked Representative Lake and Mr.
McKnight for their comments.

H 270 Presenting H 270 was Representative Eberle. He said the purpose is to
amend the section of the Idaho Code that relates to the purchase of
property by the school district board of trustees. This amendment will
increase the amount from $15,000 to $25,000 that can be spent without
going out to bid. It also will eliminate prior approval by the State Board of
Education.



Randi McDermott, Plans and Policy Officer for the State Board of
Education, testified that the Board supports this bill and explained that
because the Board does not need to be consulted, they wished their
name removed.



Also testifying in support of this bill was Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director
of the Idaho School Boards Association and Dr. Bob West, Deputy
Superintendent, State Department of Education.

Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to send H 270 to the Floor with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Werk seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated it was unanimous. Senator Andreason will be the sponsor of
this bill.
H 319 Explaining this bill, H 319, in the absence of Representative Denney, was
Jason Hancock. He said this bill makes technical corrections in the timing
of appropriations for school districts and it will make it easier to administer
S 1474. Schools must pass bonds by January 1 to ensure that funds are
available.



There was no testimony pro or con regarding this bill.

Motion Senator Noh made the motion to send this bill to the Floor with a do pass
recommendation. Senator Andreason seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated it was unanimous. Senator Noh will be the sponsor of this bill.
H 326 Mike Gilmore, Deputy Attorney General, opened testimony for this bill.
The purpose of this legislation is to clarify 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. Mr. Gilmore provided a handout which was the Idaho
Constitution Article VIII, Section 3. It says, in part, that no school district,
or other subdivision of the state, shall incur any indebtedness, or liability,
in any manner, or for any purpose, exceeding in that year, the income and
revenue provided for it for such year, without the assent of two-thirds of
the qualified electors. Any indebtedness or liability incurred contrary to
this provision shall be void. This section shall not be construed to apply
to the ordinary and necessary expenses authorized by the general laws of
the state.



He said he was asked to write a bill that clarifies legislative intent. The
first section states the legislative intent; the second section deals with
funding; and section three declares an emergency and applies to all
proceedings pending before the courts of Idaho.



Representative Eskridge, co-author of this bill, said there is a legal
dispute in his district and clarification is needed.



There was no other testimony.

Motion Senator Goedde made the motion to send this bill to the Floor with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Gannon seconded the motion. A voice
vote indicated it was unanimous. Senator Goedde will be the sponsor of
this bill.
Announcements Chairman Schroeder announced that the ISIMS bill will be heard next
week. There will also be some facility bills that will be coming before this
committee in the next few days, and they will be scheduled as soon as
they are received. These bills are in regards to the pending lawsuit.
Adjournment The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:55 a.m.






DATE: March 27, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
H 366 He said discussion would continue on H 366. Representative Lake,
sponsor of this bill is in a meeting, but if needed, he is willing to be
summoned to answer any questions.



The Chairman called on Mr. Rod McKnight, Transportation Supervisor, to
address the fiscal impact on individual school districts



Mr. McKnight provided a handout to the committee with regards to the
prices and sizes of buses; however, this information is not listed by
districts. Senator Schroeder requested that district information be
provided to the committee members so that they will know how their
district is affected.



Mr. McKnight has alluded that his department is working on some Board
Rules relating to this legislation. Senator Goedde asked if this legislation
was needed if Rules would be in place to take care of the problem. Mr.
McKnight said he is moving forward with the Rules, whether this
legislation passes or not. This legislation, if passed, would just be an
endorsement.

Motion Following the discussion, Senator Andreason made the motion to hold

H 366 in committee. Senator Gannon seconded the motion.

Substitute
motion
Senator Goedde made a substitute motion to send H 366 to the Floor with
a do pass recommendation. Senator Noble seconded the motion.



During the discussion, Senator Noh made the observation that perhaps
more auditors are needed, rather than legislation.



The Chairman called for a roll call vote on the substitute motion. Voting
aye were Senators Noble, McWilliams, and Goedde. Voting nay were
Senators Malepeai, Werk, Andreason, Noh, Gannon, and Schroeder. The
substitute motion failed 3 to 6.



The roll call vote on the original motion showed Senators Noble,
McWilliams, and Goedde voting nay. Voting aye were Senators
Malepeai, Werk, Andreason, Noh, Gannon, and Schroeder. This motion
passed 6 to 3.



Senator Andreason asked that the State Board of Education scrutinize the
use of buses more closely in the future. Gary Stivers, Executive Director
of the State Board of Education, indicated it would be taken care of.

S 1174 Chairman Schroeder called on Darrel Deide to present S 1174. Mr. Deide
said that Jason Hancock, analyst, is available to answer questions also,
regarding this bill.



Mr. Deide said a task force was created in January by the Governor and
State Superintendent Marilyn Howard to look for ways to try to settle the
school building lawsuit. They were given until the end of February to
recommend settlement options to the state and the school districts. On
the task force was former State Schools Superintendent Jerry Evans;
Mike Friend, director of the Idaho Association of School Administrators;
Nick Hallett, superintendent of Minidoka County Joint School District; Stan
Kress, superintendent of Cottonwood Joint School District and president
of ISEEO (the districts suing the state); Randy Nelson, president of the
Associated Taxpayers of Idaho; Milford Terrell, Boise businessman who
headed the 25 member committee that looked into the school building
problem three years ago; Geoffrey Thomas, superintendent of Madison
County School District; and Mr. Deide, retired school superintendent and
former state senator.



He said the four issues were:

  1. the supermajority threshold of 66 2/3rds affirmative to pass a
    school bond levy.
  2. serious safety hazards exist in schools and there is no fail-safe
    method for local school district’s board of trustees to remediate the
    hazard.
  3. a huge disparity among school districts in their ability to retire long-term debt on their own.
  4. two of the leading causes of school facility deterioration are
    inadequate and neglected maintenance.


Mr. Deide said there are four bills to address these needs and he will
present two of those bills in this committee today. As for the other two
bills, one is in the House Rev and Tax committee and the other is in the
Senate State Affairs committee.



He said there are some differences in the four bills than what the task
force recommended and therefore, they are not totally congruent. SJR
101 calls for two election dates every year where a 60 percent majority
would approve a bond levy. The recommendation from the task force was
four days per year.



Mr. Deide said there is no difference between the task force’s
recommendation and H 389 that is in the House Rev and Tax committee.



The difference of what was recommended by the task force and S 1173 is
in the fiscal impact. Mr. Deide plans to introduce a lesser fiscal impact.
In S 1174, which is before the committee now, also has a lesser fiscal
impact than what the task force recommended.



Last year, S 1474 provided for the use of market value, unemployment,
and per capita income as the support amount factors. This bill would give
another option that would allow for the use of free and reduced lunch
price data to be used as an alternative to unemployment and per capita
income, whichever is most advantageous to the district.

Motion After some discussion, Senator Goedde made the motion to send S 1174
to the Floor with a do pass recommendation. Senator Andreason
seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it was unanimous. Senator
Goedde will be the sponsor of this bill.
S 1173 Mr. Deide said S 1173 would require that each school district shall have a
maintenance fund each year that is equal to the number of square feet of
buildings used for teaching, multiplied by “$74” by 1 ½ percent. This
legislation also requires that the state will participate in this fund by
contributing 1/3 of the cost, which will be phased in over 10 years. He
said there would be no fiscal impact in FY04, in FY05 $1 million, in FY06
$2 million, and increasing $1 million each year to the 10th year when the
fiscal impact will be approximately $10 million.



Mr. Deide said the district’s amount will be reduced each year as the
state’s participation goes up. The task force recommended that the state
provide half of the cost and phase it in over a five year period. Mr. Deide
said he changed the figures from the task force’s recommendation
because he felt their request would be impossible to meet and he wanted
some legislation that would be possible.



There was much discussion by the committee on this bill. Due to lack of
time, no action was taken on S 1173. Discussion will continue tomorrow.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m.






DATE: March 28, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator Werk
Call to order The meeting was called to order at 8:35 a.m. by Chairman Schroeder.
Confirmation
Hearing
The Chairman welcomed Laird Stone and his family to the committee
meeting. He then asked Mr. Stone to briefly tell the committee about
himself and to also express his views regarding education.



Following questioning by the committee, Chairman Schroeder thanked
Mr. Stone and announced that the committee would vote on the
appointment of Mr. Stone to the State Board of Education at the next
meeting, which will be Tuesday, April 1.

SCR 115 Chairman Schroeder said this resolution, SCR 115, will direct the
legislature to establish a study committee to undertake and complete a
study of the statutes governing charter schools. There will be no impact
upon the state general fund as a result of this resolution, as it would be
paid from the existing legislative appropriation to the Senate and the
House of Representatives.
Motion Senator Noh made the motion to send SCR 115 to the Floor with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Andreason seconded the motion. A
voice vote indicated it passed unanimously. Senator Andreason will be
the sponsor of this bill.
S 1173 The Chairman asked Darrel Deide to refresh the committee on this
legislation, S 1173.



Mr. Deide had two handouts pertaining to S 1173. One is an amendment
inserting “and section 33-1019, Idaho code” on page 1, line 20, following
“this section”. Another insertion is on page 1, line 37, the word “school”
following “district”. The other handout is a “School District Facility
Maintenance Spending Analysis” prepared by Jason Hancock, analyst for
the Legislative Services Office.



Mr. Hancock reviewed the spending analysis of the districts. Mike
Gilmore said that the smaller districts sometimes use their janitorial staff
in the summer months for maintenance repair and that cost is not always
reflected in the proper category due to bookkeeping resources.



Senator Goedde asked Mr. Gilmore if this legislation is passed, would it
settle the lawsuit or would there be more lawsuits, as Mr. Huntley
suggested at a prior meeting. Senator Goedde also asked if something
definitive could be obtained from the group that is suing the state. Mr.
Gilmore responded by saying there should be some commitment in
writing to assure that.



Testifying next was Stan Kress, Superintendent of Cottonwood School
District, President of ISEEO, and also a member of the Task Force. He
provided a copy of the report from the School Facilities Task Force to the
Governor and Dr. Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction.



Mr. Kress indicated that the legislation presented to the committee was
not what the Task Force had endorsed and he learned of the changes
late yesterday. He said he felt the Task Force had been “doublecrossed”
and this legislation, if passed, would not end the lawsuit. Upon
questioning by the committee with regards to the lawsuit, Mr. Kress said
that had the legislation been written as directed by the Task Force, he felt
it would have ended the lawsuit.



With regards to the changes made to S 1174, Mr. Kress said there were
two differences. The first difference was the Task Force recommended
changing the index from 1.0 to 1.15. The second recommendation was
making it retroactive to September 15, 2002 so there wouldn’t be two
different programs for the same purpose.



The changes made to S 1173 are as follows: the replacement value was
changed from $86.20 per square foot to $74.00 per square foot; the
phase in was changed from five years to ten years; both the State and
Local Education Districts were to phase in on an equal basis over the five
years – the change placed the entire burden on the Local Districts and
have the State slowly take over their share; the State participation was
changed from fifty percent to one-third; and it was not distributed as
recommended.

Adjournment The Chairman said discussion of this bill would continue next Tuesday.
He then adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m.






DATE: April 1, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator Noble
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
Announcements The Chairman announced that due to the Senate convening earlier, that
leaves less time for committee meetings. Therefore, it will be necessary to
circulate buck slips for some of the legislation. For the freshman
members of the committee, a sample of a buck slip was placed in their
folders for review.



Also in the folders is information from Stan Kress, president of ISEEO and
a member of the Governor’s Task Force. This information is in regards to
the changes made in legislation (S 1173, S 1174) that are not congruent
with the Task Force’s recommendations.

Consideration of
Gubernatorial
Appointment
Chairman Schroeder said the committee would now consider the
appointment of Laird Stone to the State Board of Education.



Senator Noh made the motion to recommend the confirmation of Mr.
Stone to the State Board of Education. It was seconded by Senator
Andreason. A voice vote indicated it was unanimous. Senator Noh will
be the sponsor.

H 367






Chairman Schroeder said that H 367 would be heard next and it is in
regards to the Idaho Student Information Management System (ISIMS).



Dr. Mike Friend gave a brief review of the statement of purpose, fiscal
impact and text of H 367.



(The committee was first introduced to the ISIMS project at a joint meeting
with the House Education Committee in the Gold Room, January 30,
2003. A meeting involving the more technical aspects of the program was
presented to this committee on February 13, 2003.)



Dr. Friend stated that ISIMS is a statewide system and must be used by
all 114 school districts to be effective. It is a partnership with the J.A. and
Kathryn Albertson Foundation, with the Foundation paying up to $35
million. A handout was provided to the committee. (Attached.)



The Idaho Student Information Management System (ISIMS) means a
secure, centralized data system where public school information is stored,
accessed and analyzed. The system is comprised of two parts: the first
part includes a uniform package of software applications used by all
public schools in Idaho for student related administrative functions. The
software applications shall handle such functions as student scheduling,
grade reporting, attendance, recordkeeping, student achievement and
teacher resources; the second part is a data warehouse where public
school data are stored and contains a number of report-generating
software applications.



Craig Olson, Executive Director for the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson
Foundation, was the next speaker. He said the mission is to equip the
Idaho educational system stakeholders with the most efficient and
effective student information management and reporting system. He also
reviewed where the Foundation has been with this project, then
addressed some issues raised by the committee. Mr. Olson said the
Foundation needs to have an answer from the Legislature by April 30, as
that is when their Board meets and will make a determination.



Testifying in support of this bill were the following:

Gary Stivers, Executive Director, State Board of Education

Jeff Shinn, representing Governor Kempthorne

Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director, ISBA

Kathy Phelan, President, IEA

Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, IASA

Dr. Bob West, representing Dr. Marilyn Howard, State Superintendent
of Public Instruction (copy of written testimony attached)

Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to send H 367 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Werk seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated it was unanimous. Sponsors of the bill will be Senator
Schroeder, Senator Gannon, and Senator Werk.
Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 a.m.






DATE: April 2, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator McWilliams
Call to order The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. by Chairman Schroeder.
Approval of
minutes



Motion

The first order of business was to approve the minutes of previous
meetings.



Senator Malepeai made the motion for the approval of minutes, as written,
for March 19, 20, and 21. Senator Werk seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Guest speaker Chuck Winder presented an informational program on “Statewide
Construction Projects”. Attached are two handouts that he provided the
committee. One is a fact sheet and the other handout is a copy of the
slides viewed in the PowerPoint presentation.



There are eight projects and they have previously been provided some
level of funding by the Legislature, but lost funding due to holdbacks.

  1. NIC at Coeur d’Alene – nursing/life science building
  2. U of I at Moscow – teaching and learning center
  3. LCSC at Lewiston – campus activity center
  4. BSU West at Nampa – campus building
  5. ISP at Meridian – training academy expansion
  6. CSI at Twin Falls – fine arts addition
  7. ISU at Pocatello – classroom building
  8. EITC at Idaho Falls – nursing building


The total project costs are $68,471,000 and the economic impact is
calculated to be $188,219,279. If approved, this would help to replace
4,200 construction jobs lost last year and would create 2,468 jobs
statewide.



There would be no general fund dollars used for bond payments. Existing
dedicated permanent building fund revenues would be used. Other
pertinent facts are: interest rates are near record lows; high bond rating
for State Building Authority; Idaho’s per capita public debt is lowest in
nation; and competition for contracts helps ensure low construction costs.



Following Mr. Winder’s presentation, an inquiry was made as to where the
legislation is, in the legislative process, regarding these projects. Marty
Peterson, a staff member of the U of I, responded by saying HCR 30 will
be in the House State Affairs tomorrow. Only a few questions were
asked, due to lack of time.

Adjournment The Chairman thanked Mr. Winder, then adjourned the meeting at 8:55
a.m.






DATE: April 3, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator McWilliams
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
He then entertained motions for the approval of minutes.
Motion Senator Werk made the motion to approve the minutes of March 25 and
26, as written. It was seconded by Senator Malepeai. A voice vote
indicated it passed unanimously.
Motion Senator Goedde made the motion to approve the minutes of April 1 and 2,
as written. Senator Werk seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it
passed unanimously.
Motion Senator Gannon made the motion to approve the minutes of March 27
and 28, as written. It was seconded by Senator Andreason. A voice vote
indicated it passed unanimously.
Announcement Chairman Schroeder announced that JLOC (Joint Legislative Oversight
Council) would be holding a meeting in the Gold Room from 12 to 2 p.m.
with regards to a study of the school districts.
S 1173 The Chairman said the next order of business would be to take action on
S 1173, which has been discussed the past few days. There was no one
signed up to testify on this bill.
Motion Senator Gannon made the motion to hold S 1173 in committee. It was
seconded by Senator Noh. A voice vote indicated it passed unanimously.
Guest Speaker Chairman Schroeder welcomed Dr. Bob Barr, BSU, who will present a
status report on the Idaho Reading Initiative.



Dr. Barr said the more research that has been obtained and completed in
the field of reading, the more it is recognized as the foundation of all other
learning. If a child does not learn to read quickly, they cannot do their
schoolwork and homework, their self concept declines over time, and
there is a direct relationship between lack of literacy skills and dropout
rates in the public schools. Half the people incarcerated have very limited
literacy skills. It now appears that if a child does not learn to read quickly
and well, there is a strong possibility that they will drop out of school and
live out their lives in the following ways: Unemployed; under employed; or
unemployable. Dr. Barr also said the more that is learned about reading,
the more important it is.



Dr. Barr provided the committee with copies of the status report. On page
1, the “Overview”, it states “since the mid 1990’s, members of the Idaho
Legislature have become increasingly concerned about the effectiveness
of the state’s public school systems in teaching young children to read.
This concern grew out of a growing body of national research that
documented reading as the primary, foundational skill associated with
success in school as well as success later in life. This concern prompted
a number of actions: formation of two interim legislative reading
committees, testing the reading levels of Idaho K-3 students, a legislative
allocation of a million dollars to improve reading instruction, adoption by
the State Board of Education of a Comprehensive Literacy Plan and
passage in 1999 of a legislative package called the Idaho Comprehensive
Literacy Act. Additional legislation was passed into law in 2001 that
established interim goals culminating in a requirement that schools
ensure that a minimum of 85% of all students will be reading at grade
level by the end of the third grade in 2006.



The Comprehensive Literacy Act represented a significant shift in
educational policy in Idaho. In addition to providing funding for local
school districts to improve reading instruction, the Literacy Act held
schools and school districts accountable for reading education. The Act
required the assessment of K-3 students’ reading levels and the public
reporting of the results of these assessments. It required additional
training in reading for all elementary teachers and it held teacher
education programs accountable for documenting that preservice
teachers were able to effectively teach reading. No other state has
established such a comprehensive reading education/accountability
program.”



With regards to “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) found on page 2 of the
status report, it states “in addition to state laws regarding reading, the
federal government has passed the No Child Left Behind legislation that
provides additional emphasis on reading education. This set of policies
focuses school districts’ attention on those students most in need
educationally. The new federal policies require each state to establish
Standards for what every student ‘should know and be able to do.’ It also
required school districts to document the ‘adequate yearly progress’ of
each student. A comprehensive new program, Reading First, is part of
No Child Left Behind and is designed to ensure that all children learn to
read well by the end of the third grade. Idaho has received a $3.3 million
Reading First grant. The No Child Left Behind legislation also ties federal
Title I funds to schools’ success in effectively educating the most needy
students. If a Title I school does not meet state standards, students and
their parents may choose to leave that school and attend a more effective
school. If a Title I school fails to meet standards for three years in a row,
students are eligible for a variety of remedial and/or supplementary
services.



The Idaho Reading Initiative places Idaho well ahead of most other states
in complying with the federal legislation.”



In the summary on page 8 of the status report, it indicates that a small
number of schools in Idaho are currently under-performing, but a number
of others are making solid gains. Close monitoring of the number of
schools in mandatory school improvement will be necessary.



Dr. Barr said the five most important factors in readying children to read
are pre school, early childhood education, Head Start, Kindergarten and
all day Kindergarten.



Chairman Schroeder asked Dr. Barr to tell the committee three things that
need to be done to get to the next step. Dr. Barr said there needs to be
focus on Native Americans and Hispanic students. His second
recommendation to the committee was “stay the course”. Third, he asked
that Higher Education make certain that the assessment of beginning
teachers is accurate and valid, so that we can be assured that graduating
students entering the teaching profession are well prepared.



The Chairman thanked Dr. Barr for his presentation on the reading
program. The status report on the Technology Initiative will be heard at a
later date.



Chairman Schroeder announced that H 186 will be heard next Tuesday,
rather than tomorrow, as Dr. Marilyn Howard will be reporting on the
assessment test.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 a.m.






DATE: April 4, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Goedde,
Werk
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senators Andreason, McWilliams, Noble, Malepeai
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Guest speaker He then welcomed Dr. Marilyn Howard, Superintendent of Public
Instruction who will inform the committee about state testing.



Chairman Schroeder said he was especially interested in knowing if the
tests that are given are the correct tests. When the tests were developed,
were they subject to a scientific analysis? Do they provide the best
information? The Chairman said he hopes his questions can be
answered.



Inserted in these minutes is a copy of Dr. Howard’s talk.



Comments to Senate Education Committee by Dr. Marilyn Howard



Senator Schroeder and committee members:



A year ago, the State Board of Education proposed, and the Legislature
approved

through the rule-making process, a state-testing plan that, in a nutshell,
continued some of the state’s existing tests and replaced one multiple-choice test
with another.



For years, we used the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, which measured reading,

language arts, math, social studies, science, and research skills of students in
grades 3 through 11 once a year .



Under the new plan, we discontinued the Iowa Test and substituted the ISAT, a

multiple-choice test that assesses reading, language arts, and math twice a year
for students in grades 2 through 10. Essentially, what the state did was to swap
one “off-the-shelf, pre-constructed” test for another “off-the-shelf, pre-constructed” test.



As its testing contractor, the State Board of Education picked the Northwest

Evaluation Association. The idea was to modify the NWEA’s “levels” test for use
in Idaho schools.



Let me take a moment to talk about a “levels” testing. This is a test that adapts to

each student’s level of performance. For instance, a fifth grader who answers a
question correctly will be given a more difficult question, and if he answers
correctly again, he gets a tougher question, and so on until his “level” or plateau
is found. The same would be true for the 5th grader who misses a question; he
gets an “easier” question and so on. A 5th grade teacher may learn that she has
students performing at an 8th grade level, others who may be at a 3rd-grade
level, and others who are right where they should be at a 5th-grade level.
Because the test adapts to the level of individual student, every test is

different.



This choice -working with the NWEA’s levels testing -was popular because

more than 30 school districts already were using their local funds to buy the
“level” test in addition to the state-paid-for ITBS. At that time, a little over half our
student population was taking the level test.



So the idea was to use the levels testing as the basis for the new ISAT, and for

students to take the test twice: once in the fall to give teachers a way to plan
instruction based on each student’s needs, and again in the spring as a year-end
evaluation of how effective instruction had been.



Then we hit our first problem. The U.S. Department of Education would not

accept the adaptive testing format selected by the State Board.



That’s because the federal focus is on making sure every student is meeting

grade-level standards. In other words, every student should be asked the same
questions so that we know which 5th graders are reading at the 5th grade level
and which are not. The levels test, on the other hand, doesn’t measure that.
Instead, it measures where the student really is. You can think of the federal
requirement as a “yes or no” answer, whereas levels testing gives you a “where
are you” kind of answer.



The U.S. Department of Education’s stamp of approval is critical. That’s because

the No Child Left Behind Act requires states to set standards for students and
then measure whether students are meeting those standards. Since most of our
money for programs for disadvantaged students comes from the federal
government, we have to comply with the federal act.



During the year, the then-State Board of Education President made repeated

attempts to approach federal officials, including U.S. Department of Education
Under Secretary George Hansen, with the hopes of having the adaptive testing
model approved. The Northwest Association also spoke to federal officials about
its levels testing. Those efforts were unsuccessful –in fact they led to an official
statement that the “adaptive” model (the levels testing) would not be acceptable.



All of this came to a head last spring. To make sure that Idaho would continue to

receive federal education aid, the State Department of Education entered into a
three-year compliance agreement with the U.S. Department to create tests that
would be acceptable and ultimately bring the state into compliance with No Child
Left Behind. That meant the State Department had to sign a separate
memorandum of understanding with the Northwest Association to make sure it
would help us meet those federal requirements.



That’s an overview of the past year. Where are we today?



The State Board of Education bought the NWEA’s test, which means that we buy

access to the items in the NWEA test bank. When the test is delivered
electronically, every child’s test could be different than that of his or her
classmates. The items are the ones that NWEA has used in other schools in
various states, and NWEA has determined the level of difficulty of the items so
the computer can do a form of random access of items. The goal is to see if
students answer more difficult questions in the winter than they did the previous
fall and if, in the spring, the computer is able to place even more difficult
questions before them. If learning is progressing, the students’ scores should

have a higher numerical value each time the test is given if learning is
progressing.



When the student takes this test in Idaho, we call it an ISAT .



Then, as required by our compliance agreement with the feds, we began

developing the federally-required tests, which we will pilot this spring. The
compliance agreement gives us three years to construct and phase in the tests.
This year we will test fourth, eighth and l0th graders and in the ensuing years
third, fifth, sixth, and seventh will be added.



Last, we were able to satisfy both objectives -the state’s need for levels testing to

see whether students were making progress, and the federal need to find out
whether students are meeting our standards for their age and grade -without
over-testing students. The solution was to take advantage of the computer
format and create what we are calling a blended test.



Ultimately, this one blended test, given in the spring to grades 3-8, will include

both components: the standards measurement and the levels testing. The result
should be good information to the extent of which students are meeting our
standards and good information on student progress during the school year.



Bob West said Senator Schroeder asked for information about how the tests
were

created, how the tests are being evaluated, and what the tests are suppose to
measure. Since the spring ISAT is really two tests blended into one, I’ll talk about
both parts.



I’ll start with the part of the spring ISAT that is being developed to meet federal

requirements. This is the piece of the ISAT for which the State Department of
Education is directly responsible.



The questions for l0th, 8th, and 4th, grade tests are being written or reviewed by

Idaho teachers and the department’s experts in reading, language arts, and
math, all of them working with the Northwest Association. These questions are
linked directly to Idaho’s Achievement Standards.



The same process will be used to develop the “federal” tests for 3rd, 5th, 6th, and

7th grades during the next two years. This will give us the information the feds
want – that is, reliable information about whether Idaho students are meeting
Idaho’s academic standards for their grade and age.



As for the fall ISAT and “non federal” portions of the spring ISAT, it is important

to remember that the state bought a preexisting test that was originally developed
by the Northwest Association for a different purpose. Its questions are drawn
from the Northwest Association’s bank of questions and they are aligned to the
association’s learning continuum -in other words, to the association’s own
expectations of what students should know, and when they should know it.



That raises an obvious question: Does the NWEA continuum match the Idaho

achievement standards?



No, not exactly. That’s one of the reasons the department has contracted with the

Northwest Association to create a customized document called the “Idaho
Learning Continuum.” This will be available to districts in the next few weeks.



That and other aides developed by the State Department will be powerful tools to

show the connections among the standards, the assessments, local curriculum,
and instruction. It is our hope that these will help teachers recognize that our goal
is not to teach the “test” but really to measure a student’s mastery of the
standards.



The next question had to do with how we are evaluating the ISAT.



Again I’ll start with the “federal” portion of the spring ISAT.



Under the compliance agreement I signed last spring, the State Department must

provide the federal department evidence that the test is reliable and valid,
meaning it consistently predicts student achievement and accurately measures
whether students are meeting a standard.



The tests also must be free of bias. Test questions can’t be written in a way that

could limit the performance of specific groups of students.



The questions must be cognitively complex. The students have to do more than

just regurgitate facts and figures. They must show they can apply what they know
to solve problems, analyze information, and so on.



The test must be suitable for use with special needs students and if not,

appropriate accommodations such as large print or Braille tests must be made
available.



In addition, we must have the data disaggregated so we can report on the

performance of each subgroup.



To do all this, the State Department of Education is working with a Technical

Advisory Panel of national experts, and with the Northwest Regional Educational

Laboratory, and with the Northwest Evaluation Association to produce the studies
and research required.



As for the state portions of the ISAT, the State Board of Education has not

discussed pursuing reliability, validity and bias studies. This has been of some
concern to the department, because the federal rules require that all tests given
to all students must meet the criteria I just mentioned: be reliable and valid, free
of bias, and cognitively complex. Eventually I believe we will have to deal with
this for the state portion of the ISAT, just as we have for the federal portion.



The State Department has asked the vendor, NWEA, to provide tests that meet

these expectations and proof that they do so. This is asking the company to
provide assurances and products that they have not had to provide in the past.
The result has been revealing both of the capacity of the vendor to deliver and
the willingness of the vendor to meet our needs -which are outlined in the signed
memorandum of agreement with the company.



Bob West said you also want to know how we administer the ISAT. The State

Board of Education’s goal is for all students who are able to do so, to take the
test on the computer. The computer really is the best format for this type of test
because it adapts quickly to the student’s responses and immediately scores the
test. It’s quicker and more efficient.



During the fall, the majority of students took the ISAT on computer, but a

sizeable chunk also took a paper form of the test because of technology
difficulties. This spring, we expect to have about 96 percent of all students taking
the test on computer. Soon, I hope, we will use paper tests only to help special
needs students who may need that option.



Finally, Bob said you also wanted me to talk about my concerns about the cut

scores or proficiency levels the State Board of Education adopted for the ISAT
earlier this month. You probably know that I was unsuccessful in asking for the
board to delay this decision. In fact, the vote was 7 -1, and I was the cheese
standing alone.



A “cut score” is a way we categorize students according to how they did on the

test. You all know this from your own school days. In most classes, a 93 or above
was an ” A “, 85 to 93 a “B” and so on. ISAT cut scores should tell us which
students are considered below basic, which are basic, which are proficient, and
advanced.



This is old hat to us: we did the same thing for the Idaho Reading Indicator to

decide which students were below grade level, which were above grade, and
which fell in between.



The reason I was the lone vote against adopting cut scores for the ISAT is that I

don’t have the information I need to say with confidence that these scores will tell
us what we want to know about student performance. You may have been told
that my reluctance to set cut scores is some philosophical distinction between
norm reference testing and standards based testing. That is not true. Rather, I
believe the board skipped essential steps that would help to ensure a thorough
and thoughtful decision on ISAT scores.



This is a complicated issue and I’ll skip the long explanation and just say this: At

the end, what we really want to know is whether our students are meeting our
standards. I don’t think we have enough information yet to answer that question.



As I summarized the test development and blending of state and federal

requirements, it may have sounded like a neat and tidy package, but the reality is
that implementation has been messy and many areas are still “under
construction.”



In launching a new test, we expected challenges, but in the interest of full

disclosure, I want to share some of the difficulties we faced and continue to
wrestle with as we assist schools in meeting state and federal testing
requirements.



One obvious problem has been trying to decide which decisions are policy and

which are implementation.



The State Board has pretty much taken charge of the testing program, selecting
a

contractor and adding people to its staff.



Still, the State Department has had to provide more technical and supplemental

services than we anticipated to support the state’s testing contractor. NWEA is a

fledgling company and is having to create products new to them. We have to fill
in the gaps with our own experts.



For example, the department has provided technology support for everything
from

directly helping districts get their computers online to give the test, to creating the

“electronic” formats for reporting data and ensuring the security and privacy of
data transmitted from district to the testing contractor.



Another example: the department’s reading, language arts, and math specialists

have been called on to develop test items, lead teacher workgroups, proofread
and edit test questions.



And our special education staff also has done significant work to help address

concerns for special needs students. We do see some relief in sight because the

Northwest Association has recently added staff who are knowledgeable in these
areas. This should ease the workload on the department’s staff.



The other wrinkle this past year has been the mixed messages and in some
cases a complete 180-degree change in direction in the “oversight” of the State
Board of Education.



Early on, the department was told to work with the Northwest Association to

implement the ISAT. No problem: that just meant the department would be doing
what it had been successfully doing for more than 20 years –running the day-to-day operations of the state’s assessment plan.



And keep in mind that the state’s assessment plan included not just the new
ISAT, but also a couple of old-timers: the Direct Writing and the Direct Math
assessments.



We scheduled meetings with superintendents, principals, testing coordinators,

created brochures for parents, provided materials to support school districts in

communicating with parents and the public, prepared joint news releases, and so
on.



But since about last mid-fall, the board began shifting from oversight to day-to-

day operations. Our staff has been told to quit scheduling training and meetings
with educators. And we refer all ISAT questions to the board office.



My assumption can only be that the board intended for the department to
manage

this program only until it could get other staff on board -which it has done. The
board’s academic officer, a position that has traditionally provided oversight for
higher education academic programs, now is overseeing K-12 issues including
the ISAT. The board has replaced its achievement standards coordinator with an
assessment program manager, who among other duties, has been directed to
organize the training and meetings the department has traditionally done. In fact,
I had to write a special memo asking to have the state department’s testing
expert added to the board’s assessment commission -and, frankly, I still don’t
know whether that’s going to happen.



No wonder school districts are confused about who is doing what. School

districts -teachers and administrators and testing coordinators- are used to
calling the department for assistance or advice or direction. But now when they
call to report problems or ask questions, depending on what test they are asking
about, we might be able to answer- if the question is about direct writing or direct
math or maybe about the federal testing requirements -or we might have to refer
them to the board office if the question is about the state portion of the ISAT.



We’ve always taken it for granted that Idaho had an efficient system for K-12

issues, but it’s not working that neatly anymore.



I didn’t come here today to ask you to sort through these differences. But you’ve

all seen the newspaper reports and you know we’ve had problems.



The reality is that you can’t drive a car with two sets of hands on the wheel and

perhaps that’s why we have seen swerves in the past year. In time, I hope, we
will get a clearer picture of what constitutes policy, which is clearly the board’s
purview, and what constitutes program implementation, which is what we have a
state department of education for.



Last but not least, I also have concerns about the costs of this testing.



I mentioned earlier that school districts were happy about the levels testing

decision, because about half of the state’s students- in 33 districts and 3 charter
schools-were already using them. The cost for about 140,000 students, from
local funds, was about $600,000.



Now, the State Board of Education is paying about $3 million to test about

177,000 students.



I want to stress that is just for the state’s portion of the ISAT -the levels testing

portion. It does not include the federal portion of the test, which measures the
extent to which Idaho students are meeting Idaho standards.



I can’t report to you on how that money was spent since it is a State Board of

Education responsibility. I requested a detailed accounting of how state funds
were used because the department must assure the U.S. Department of
Education that we are not spending federal funds to “operate” our state
assessment system.



The $4 million in federal funds that the department receives has to be spent on
the federal portion, and not on the state portion. That $4 million will pay for the
federal portion of the spring ISAT -both the tests we have now and the ones we
will be developing- and for the federally-required assurances on reliability,
validity, cognitive complexity, and on whether the tests are free of bias, and for
federally required tests to track progress of limited English proficient students,
and for three new science tests that are required by 2005. We’re making that $4
million stretch as far as we can.



In other words, the federal piece -how the state department is using the $4

million- is pretty clear. I don’t have enough information to evaluate the state’s
portion, although I’m sure the board’s staff could give you all the information you
need. As we move forward, I will be watching this intently. The State Department
has a good track record of getting a lot of bang for our buck, and I believe that
should extend to contracts with test vendors.



Now, despite the problems I’ve mentioned, and despite how complicated all of

this seems, I want all of us to keep an eye on our real goal, which is to use all of
these tools to improve student learning and to ensure that students who struggle
get the help they need when they need it.



We may be hitting a few bumps along the way, but I’m convinced that in the end

we’ll have a meaningful, relevant, sensible and defensible testing program.



Thank you for your time and I’m here to answer any questions you have.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Howard for her presentation and said
there would probably be more discussion regarding this subject next
week.
Page
appreciation
The Chairman presented the Senate Education page, Alexey Chikanchil,
with a letter signed by the committee members and a Senate watch.



Alexey thanked Senator Schroeder and the committee and said someday
he hoped to return as a Senator.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 a.m.






DATE: April 8, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Werk, Kumm (Malepeai)
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator Noble
Call to order The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. by Chairman Schroeder.
Announcements He announced that future meetings would be subject to the call of the
chair.



The Chairman thanked Juanita, committee secretary, for all of her work
and in her honor, everyone is invited to dinner at the Stagecoach,
Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. A bouquet of flowers has been delivered to her
office, also.



Chairman Schroeder welcomed Senator Kumm, an attorney from
Pocatello, who is representing Senator Malepeai during his absence.

Chairman Schroeder welcomed Representative Jim Clark to the
committee meeting. He then asked him to explain his legislation, H 186.
H 186 Representative Clark said the purpose of this legislation is to establish a
public school stabilization fund. This is accomplished by amending
Chapter 9, Title 33, of the Idaho Code relating to the Public School
Educational Support Program. It will create a new section of code, Public
School Stabilization Fund, which will provide a mechanism that will be
used to help stabilize the variability in public school support units. This
legislation will make state support for school districts more predictable,
enabling districts to better plan their financial commitments.



Representative Clark stated that on page 1, line 20 of the bill, it defines
the public school stabilization fund. On page 3, line 27, it defines the
public school support units variability.



Representative Clark provided a handout to better explain this bill.



Testifying in favor of the bill was Dawn Justice, IACI representative. She
said IACI supports the bill as it is good public policy.



Also testifying in support of H 186 was Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director
of the Idaho School Boards Association (ISBA)



Testifying in opposition to the bill was Kathy Phelan, President of the
Idaho Educators Association (IEA).



Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director of the Idaho Association of School
Administrators (IASA) testified in favor of the bill.



Due to lack of time for more testimony, the Chairman asked
Representative Clark to return tomorrow. Further discussion will be held
on this bill, as well as more testimony will be taken.

Buck slips As announced in the meeting of 4/1, due to time constraints, it has been
necessary to place some legislation on buck slips. Following are the
results:



S 1092 was held in committee pursuant to committee action noted on the
attached buckslip.



H 185 was held in committee pursuant to committee action noted on the
attached buckslip.



H 346 was held in committee pursuant to committee action noted on the
attached buckslip.



H 262 was held in committee pursuant to committee action noted on the
attached buckslip.



H 271 was held in committee pursuant to committee action noted on the
attached buckslip.



H 287a was held in committee pursuant to committee action noted on the
attached buckslip.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 9:10 a.m.






DATE: April 9, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Kumm (Malepeai
)
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senators Noble and Werk
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Minutes Senator Gannon made the motion to approve the minutes of April 3 and 4,
as written. Senator Goedde seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated
the motion passed unanimously.
H 186 Chairman Schroeder then said the next order of business would be to
finish hearing testimony on H 186.



There was no one signed up to testify, other than Representative Jim
Clark, sponsor of the bill, and Dr. Mike Friend, who was available for
questions.



Senator McWilliams said that while the bill has elements worthy of
consideration, it is late in the session and it does remove money from
districts. Because of that, Senator McWilliams moved that H 186 be held
in committee. The motion was seconded by Senator Kumm. A roll call
vote was requested by the Chairman. Voting aye were Senators Kumm,
McWilliams, Gannon and Schroeder. Voting nay was Senator Goedde.
The motion carried, four to one. Out of the room at the time the voting
was held were Senators Noh and Andreason.



Representative Clark said he would be back early next year with another
bill.

Guest speakers Chairman Schroeder said JLOC had approved a multiphase evaluation of
public education and the Office of Performance Evaluations will present a
PowerPoint presentation showing the results of their findings for the first
phase.



Attached is a copy of the presentation given by Ned Parrish and Chris
Shoop.



The Executive Summary states the following:

Idaho’s 114 school districts spent $1.47 billion in fiscal year 2002 for the
day-to-day costs of educating 246,415 students and operating schools.
This equated to a cost of nearly $6,000 per student. School district
funding came from a variety of state, federal, and local sources. The
state contributed approximately $987 million to support Idaho’s public
schools in fiscal year 2002. The state’s share of school district funding
was higher than the national average and most neighboring states.



About a third (39) of the school districts had enrollments of 500 or fewer
students. Together, they served less than four percent of all students
statewide. Smaller districts generally spent more per student than larger
districts, particularly for services such as instruction, administration, and
pupil transportation. Some individual district expenditures are very
different from comparable-sized districts and may suggest a need for
follow-up work.



The OPE used the State Department of Education’s revenue and
expenditure data for fiscal year 2002. Idaho was also compared with
neighboring states and national averages as reported by the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES), a unit of the U.S. Department of
Education.



Following the PowerPoint presentation, Senator Schroeder made the
following requests of OPE:



  1. Identify charter schools in all future analysis.
  2. Identify a more fair way to tax property for schools.
  3. Is there a relationship between the amount of money spent and
    the results we get from that expenditure? (With results meaning
    test scores.)
  4. Do not dwell on the costs of the very small districts.
  5. Need to know where we are at with results with the money spent
    on technology. (Where we are at and what the needs are.)
  6. Don’t rehash what the State Department of Education is doing, but
    work closely with them.
  7. Respectfully requests that when recommendations might be
    politically delicate, leadership could counsel OPE on the matter.


Senator Goedde requested that consolidation, as related to efficiency, be
considered.



Senator Noh asked if it would be useful to look at “time on task”.



Senator Andreason said the NCLB issues need to be recognized in all of
the considerations. He suggested that the OPE staff become familiar with
the NCLB program.



Chairman Schroeder told the committee to make recommendations to
JLOC (between now and the end of the session) as to “where do we go
from here” and any other suggestions they might have.

Adjournment The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:10 a.m. and announced that
future meetings are subject to the call of the Chair.






DATE: April 25, 2003
TIME: 8:00 am
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senators Goedde, McWilliams, Noble
Call to order The meeting was called to order at 8:00 a.m. in the Gold Room by
Chairman Schroeder. He requested that a silent roll call of the committee
members be taken by the secretary.
Announcements The Chairman announced that this meeting is an informational meeting
and the purpose of the committee is to review the history of the
thoroughness lawsuit – the portion of the lawsuit that was voted on
relating to thoroughness. Also, there is a need to review the statutory
language that was put in code as a result of the settlement from that
period. Some of this language has been in place since 1994. Testimony
will also be taken on the House Appropriations budget committee’s
recommendations and intent language. Chairman Schroeder said after
reading the 25 pages of intent language, the issues are interwoven.
People testifying on the history may also comment on the intent language,
as it is difficult to do one without the other. The Chairman told the
audience of approximately 40 people that this is a public hearing and
anyone can sign up to testify.
Handouts for the
committee
Chairman Schroeder identified two handouts that are before the
committee members. (1) The Idaho School Superintendents’ Association
has provided information – “Idaho’s Funding Formula, Senate Bill 1560,
Nearly a Decade Later”, which will be helpful to follow as comments are
received. (2) A news release from the Lewiston Morning Tribune, April
24, 2003 relating to the intent language of public education budgets
passed by the House Appropriations Committee.
Testimony Dr. Bob Haley from the State Department of Education was the first to
testify. Inserted in these minutes is a copy of his testimony.



In 1990 the first public school funding lawsuit filed was ISEEO vs The
State of Idaho. A few weeks later Frazier vs The State of Idaho was filed.
The plaintiffs’ position was that under Article 9, Section 1 of the Idaho
constitution, the state was required to provide a uniform and thorough
system of public free common schools.



The ISEEO group was made up of about 33 school districts that were
mainly small and rural.



Frazier was a parent in the Meridian School District and the group was
lead by Meridian and had about 15 other school districts involved. Nick
Hallett, superintendent of the Meridian school district was the chairman of
this group. In1992, Hallett left to work for the U of I and I became
Meridian Superintendent and co-chair along with Steve Norton who was
then superintendent of the Blackfoot School District.



After loosing in district court, an appeal was made to the Idaho Supreme
Court and in March 1993 the Supreme Court ruled that the issue of
Uniformity had been settled in “Thompson vs Engleking” in 1975.
However, on the issue of “Thoroughness” the Supreme Court remanded
the case back to district court for trail.



Why were these lawsuits filed?



  1. For fifteen years after Thompson vs Engleking, numerous
    pieces of legislation aimed at solving the disparities were
    attempted. Each piece created winners and losers and
    therefore was usually defeated.


  1. Property poor school districts could not generate the same
    revenue per pupil as property rich school districts.


The funding formula favored rich school districts.

  1. No one seemed care that all students deserved an equal
    opportunity to a quality education.


Following action by the Supreme Court a “Select Committee on
Thoroughness” was created by the legislature to define “thoroughness” and
look for solutions to the public school funding problems. As a result of
this committee’s work, I.C. 33-1612, defining “thoroughness” was
enacted. This group was not successful in finding a solution to the school
funding issues. In addition, Governor Andrus and State Superintendent
Jerry Evans appointed a committee to define “thoroughness” and find a
solution to the lawsuit. I was on that committee along with Senator
Schroeder and Mike Friend. The recommendations from the Governor’s
committee were never used.



In the fall of 1993, Speaker Mike Simpson and President Pro Tem Jerry
Twiggs asked Steve Norton and I to come up with a solution to the
lawsuit. They said that if we would draft legislation that 90% of the
superintendents could support, then they would guarantee us a hearing of
the floor of each house. In addition, they agreed to push for an increase of
$95 million in the FY95 appropriation to fund a new public school funding
formula. They were able to get us $92.5 million in new money.



Steve and I asked Jerry Evans to mediate a meeting between the plaintiff
groups to see if we could come to agreement on a piece of legislation.
After a very tense meeting it turned out that all the plaintiffs wanted
almost the same thing out of the lawsuit. At that point we began working
together.



This started a tremendous amount of research into how other states funded
public schools. We liked the approach used in the state of Washington and
decided to take the best of their formula and the best of ours. Major
changes included:

Eliminate the off the top line items that created disparities.

  1. Establish an equitable process for allocating staff to each
    district.

Establish an equitable process for allocating salary and
benefits to districts including base salaries for teachers,
administrators and classified personnel.

Fully equalize the state allowable local property taxes.

Make an adjustment to the table of divisors.

  1. Provided enough discretionary funds to adequately operate
    the district.

Include a statewide salary schedule.

  1. Require that the average salary for Idaho teachers be 82%
    of the previous years national average teacher salary.


In the old formula, after the off the top lines items were funded then
everything else went out to the districts as discretionary funds. Under the
old formula there was too much discretion and all kinds of disparities
occurred: There was a wide range in class sizes, salaries and programs and
as a result, students and teachers were not treated equability across the
state. In addition, to meet all of our needs, we had to hire the cheapest
teacher we could find. Under today’s formula we can hire the best-qualified teachers for our students.



The allocation of staff and allocation of salary to districts was very
carefully developed around the minimum staff needed and the new dollars
we had to work with. Senator John Hansen cautioned that developing the
allocation indices around information taken from the 1992-93 school year
might result in problems later on. It was an equable distribution based on
the number of support units in each district. Each part of the new formula
was carefully thought out and presented to all stakeholders for their
support.



After thousands of hours of work and dozens of meetings SB 1451 was
introduced and held in committee. It was held because of two reasons. One
­ legislators did not want a statewide salary schedule and when asked why
“they said they did not want to negotiate annually with the IEA. Second ­
the requirement that the average salary be 82% of the national average.



After many more hours of meetings and negotiations these two items were
removed and several items designed to meet the new “thoroughness”
definition were included. The largest of which was $10.4 million for
technology. The result was SB 1560 which was introduced and easily
passed both legislative bodies.



This formula has served us well since 1995. Only three amendments to
the original statues have been made, which is unusual for a piece of
legislation that is this complex. In comparison, charter school legislation
has been amended about 20 times, with several amendments being
proposed.



Maybe it is time to make some adjustments to this formula. But don’t you
think it should be done openly with all stakeholders having a part in the
process, just like in 1993-94. Today, we have a small group working
behind closed doors and without the knowledge necessary to see the
consequences of their changes. What happened to hearings and testimony
to find out the affect on our students and teachers?



If we aren’t careful we will be back to where we were prior to 1995 with
all kinds of disparities and our students will be the losers.

Testimony Next to testify was Dr. Terrell Donicht, Superintendent of District 411,
Twin Falls County. Inserted in these minutes is a copy of his testimony.



I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and
provide information about the impact of the public school appropriation
bill. Though this bill is always a critical piece of legislation for the
students of the state of Idaho, it appears even more important this year.



It has been very difficult to analyze how this bill might impact my district
because of the way it has been created and the extremely short time I have
had to make the analysis. I only received a copy late Wednesday
afternoon. Though I am no stranger to the world of Idaho school finance, I
must say that the way this appropriation is concocted is puzzling to say the
least, and bizarre to be more accurate.



The number of unknown impacts that this bill might have on my district in
particular or public schools in general can only be estimated at this time
because of the way that this bill is put together and the way that legislative
intent has been substituted for Idaho statutes. Nevertheless, I will attempt
to go through the bill and outline the impacts that I can ascertain and
merely mention the possibilities of those impacts I cannot ascertain at this
time.



First of all, the appropriation bill seems to be segregated into five different
divisions, each one of which incorporates certain revenues and outlines
expenditures differently than you are accustomed to seeing and differently
than school administrators are accustomed to seeing.



The easiest division, facilities, is the one I will start with. This division
simply combines the lottery money into the education appropriation for
some reason. I suppose it may be because it makes it look like more effort
is being made to support education than is really the case. However, the
bill also removes money from the lottery and places it into the Bond Levy

Equalization Fund. Money from this Fund is given to a limited number of
districts who have successful bond levies and who qualify as being less
affluent than most.



This bill will cost my district approximately $22,852 of our lottery funds.
Even though our district has maintained our facilities well, has passed
bonds when necessary, and is currently paying back our 1992 bonded
indebtedness without state help, we will lose facility money to other
districts. Sounds fair to me.



The second division, children’s programs, is one into which the largest
cosmetic change has been made. This segment is the channel through
which more than $96 million federal dollars flows. Its incorporation into
the public school appropriation also makes it look like more effort is being

put into public education than is the case. One can almost see the editorial
in the Times News: “$96 million more spent on public schools, yet
achievement scores remain the same.”



State programs funded within this division are the Reading Program,
Limited English Proficiency Program, Border Contracts, and
Tuition/Exceptional Child Contracts, and Substance Abuse Prevention.
Amounts in these programs are fairly stable, though funds from border
contracts have been reduced and exceptional child contracts increased, but
in large part the amounts do not recognize the increasing costs of
sustaining the programs themselves. Putting constant dollars into programs
like LEP, where there are more children every year and where inflation
needs to be taken into account, means we will be doing a little less in this
area than we are doing this year. I cannot tell how much less we will be
doing because the amount of money my district gets in each of these
programs depends upon my share of an increasing number of children in
the state who qualify for each of these programs.



Language in SECTION 9 of this program gives the State Department of
Education the authority to transfer funds between these five divisions as
might be necessary. I cannot find where local school districts have been
given that same authority .



The Administration Division breaks out the salaries and possibly benefits
of school administrators in the state, though I am not quite certain what is
included. Nowhere in the appropriation language are the parameters of this
division made clear. Within this division, there are a few federal dollars
flowing through, but the main reason for separating out this division seems
to be so that we can identify, and therefore restrict dollars going to
administration.



Within this bill, the administrative salary index is capped at the current
state average of 1.86643. This reflects the fact that half of the
administrators in this state have more than a dozen years of experience and
graduate degrees above a Masters plus 36, while the other half have less
than this amount of experience and these degrees. It means that the State
of Idaho will pay for all the salaries and increments for districts who have
inexperienced, newly graduated administrators, while the state payment
will not cover salaries paid in those districts where the most experienced

people with advanced degrees are practicing.



Under this plan, my district will lose approximately $16,898 that would
have been forthcoming under the regular staff allocation formula.



This part of the appropriation also eliminates the language that says “use it
or lose it,” though current language already allows a district to use 20% of
administrative salaries to pay classified personnel. In my district we
already use over $140,000 of administrator funds in this manner.



The intent language of the appropriation also eliminates the early
retirement option for administrators. It appears that you folks want people
like myself to say around as long as possible so that we might continue to
provide valuable input on the things that you do here. In actuality, I
believe both of these issues, among others, were defeated in the regular
legislative

process and have resurfaced in the appropriation bill. They are seen as
retaliatory measures against school administrators.



The Teacher Division is perhaps the largest division in terms of size. It has
a number of unique and very novel characteristics. First of all, it
eliminates $2 million in funding for the teacher support program passed by
this legislature only a couple of years ago. This mentoring program has
great potential, but apparently will be no more if this appropriation goes
through. My district will lose approximately $48,000 in funds that would
otherwise be used to support beginning teachers. Without these funds, we
cannot provide mentoring and/or peer assistance to new teachers.



Secondly, it uses more than $2,484,000 in federal funds for districts to
work on standards implementation. Another $415,000 in federal funds
have been taken from the administrative division and $101,000 in federal
funds have been taken from the operations division for this same purpose.
These monies replace $3,000,000 of the $4,000,000 that the state was
spending for standards implementation in the current school year .This
meets the federal definition of supplanting, instead of supplementing, and
is illegal when done by local school districts. I imagine it is illegal for you
also. My district will lose $81,000 of the $108,000 we get in standards
implementation funds if the feds do not allow you to supplant funds.



The intent language within the teacher division appropriation freezes the
state teacher index at an average of 1.58513. This means that those
districts that have a senior teaching staff will not get enough state money
to pay the salaries of these staff members, while districts that have a new

teaching staff will get enough money to pay the salaries of these staff
members. Since SB 1560, we have had the luxury of being able to recruit
and pay teachers with experience and education. This will make us stop
that practice and look for kids fresh out of school. I don’t think this is the

in the best interest of children, especially in light of the fact that this bill
also kills the new teacher support program as I have previously mentioned.



My district’s teachers will have an index of approximately 1.659327 next
year, so my district will lose $638,576 when compared to the funds I
would receive from the regular staff support program if this measure is
enacted.



The last division is the Operations division, which is basically the “catch
all” division where most of the discretionary funds will be available. It is
in this fund that the smoke and mirrors transaction of making an
appropriation that really isn’t an appropriation by allocating $12,025,000
to public schools but making the money basically untouchable. It
seemingly

provides for a stabilization fund that would be used if the unit factor upon
which we all budget turns out to be incorrect. If the budgeted unit factor is
too high, districts could draw funds out of the stabilization fund, and if the
unit factor is too low, money would flow out of the public school income
fund and into the stabilization fund.



However, also provided in this appropriation bill is language that would
allow the state’s general fund to use money from this stabilization fund in
tight times, and it seems to allow future legislatures to reduce original
appropriations without triggering the deficiency levy if the money is put
into the stabilization fund. Placing $12 million in the stabilization fund
will mean my district would lose $323,520 that would otherwise flow to it.



There are two changes to transportation reimbursement that are part of this
measure. One is to cap transportation reimbursement at 103% of the state
average cost. Since I don’t know where my district lies in terms of the state
average, I don’t know if I will lose money under this edict. However, I do
know that one should be very careful in passing this type of legislation
because there are significant differences in computing cost per student and
cost per mile expenditures that do not reflect excessive spending nor
efficiency, but rather reflect the tremendous geographical differences that
exist between school districts. The factor of 103% is arbitrary and
capricious because it was picked out of the air and does not reflect the
realities of the transportation situation. My guess is that some of the rural
districts with moderately long routes that don’t carry very many kids on
each bus will suffer significantly here.



The second transportation measure is one that identifies a basic bus and
limits the state reimbursement to that basic bus. Since I don’t know what is
being considered as basic, I don’t know the impact on my district.
However, I do know the State Dept. of Education already has the authority
to preclude the purchase of certain attachments on buses and should be
better able to accomplish this task than intent language within an
appropriation.



The state contribution to technology is also being reduced within this
appropriation. We have spent millions of dollars establishing some pretty
sophisticated technology systems, and over the last two years we threaten
the ability to maintain these systems by reducing state support for them.
One just doesn’t buy computers and then hope they run forever. There are
personnel costs, software upgrades, hardware maintenance and
replacement costs, and system improvement costs that must be made each
year if one is to keep the technology useful. My district will lose $21,516
if this reduction is approved. The difference between the $10.4 million that
was the standard appropriation for a number of years, and the proposed
appropriation for next year is $80,393 for the Twin Falls District.



The last major change within the Operations Division is the cap on
property tax replacement measure. This voids the promise made to
districts during the Batt administration that property tax reduction efforts
made by the state wouldn’t cost districts financial support because all
property tax money lost would be made up by state appropriations. We
warned people at the time that the price tag of this venture would continue
to climb, and it has. Now that it is nearing $75 million, state leaders want
school districts to pay the bill. Since my first superintendency in 1976, I
have witnessed the state assuming more and more of the financial
responsibility for public education from local property taxpayers. Now
that the burden is large, the support for carrying it wanes significantly.
Though my district shouldn’t lose money funds from this measure next
year, each year following will probably see a loss. Districts that will lose
are those whose market values increase at a slower rate than the state
average. Blaine County, McCall,

Cascade, Coeur d’Alene, and those fast growing areas will get an ever
increasing piece of the $75 million, while rural areas and cities with
stagnant populations will see less. The rich will get richer.



All in all, this appropriations bill is probably the most significant piece of
legislation to come out of the legislature since SB 1560. Actually, it
almost destroys SB1560, which is another argument altogether. A $943
million dollar appropriation distributed within the normal foundation
program would give me a $31.5 million budget, which is about the same
as the current year’s budget for Twin Falls School District. This
appropriation bill would trim at least $1 million from that amount. I had to
trim $1 million from last year’s budget already. This is not a positive trend
for Twin Falls students. If one is to look down the road of broken
promises, one shouldn’t

do it with a bill that alters the financial scene so significantly, provides no
opportunity for public comment, and was created in secrecy. Thank you.

Testimony Also testifying was Kathy Phelan, President of the Idaho Education
Association (IEA). Inserted in the minutes is a copy of her testimony.



Stabilization account or the Preemptive Holdback Bill



Idaho’s public school children have always been able to rely on their
elected officials to protect their interests, to invest in their future even in
hard economic times-especially in hard economic times. Until now.



Last year, for the first time in the history of the state, the legislature passed

and the governor signed two bills that undercut public education by
slashing education funding: a $23M holdback and an appropriation that
was $13M less than that of the previous year. The people of Idaho
protested. They protested on the capital steps and they protested at the
polls in May and November.



Now, once again, you have before you a proposal that undercuts the public

education budget-this not a savings account it’s a holdback-a preemptive

holdback that destabilizes K-12 public education by leaving it with an

operating budget $8M less than this year. Where is the constitutional

commitment to free and common schools for every child? What does that

say to Idaho’s public school children? When is it the right time to invest in

their future? When will it truly be the year of the child?



As public schools are struggling with federal and state unfunded and

underfunded mandates, more and more Idaho children find themselves in

overcrowded classrooms, with inadequate supplies and outdated
textbooks,

and fewer curriculum choices, fewer opportunities to discover their talents

and interests. And yet, we hold them accountable for results-test results.

If education funding is cut by $8M we’ll be holding our children

accountable for our failure-our failure to invest in them.



I ask you to reject this $12M preemptive holdback-it’s not a savings

account, it’s a holdback-yet another broken promise. Your schools, the

children in your schools, and the dedicated people who work in your
schools need your support. For many of Idaho’s children public education
is their refuge, their hope, the place to discover their possibilities, their
future. Public Education isn’t a balance sheet liability, it’s an investment–an investment in Idaho’s children, an investment in our future. Invest in

Idaho’s public schools, keep Idaho’s infrastructure strong.



Salary Index Freeze



Right now we’re holding teachers to higher standards, asking for greater

accountability, every day public school employees are asked to do more.

Freezing the salary index is a statement-no matter how well you do, no

matter how hard you work, no matter how much of yourself you invest in

your profession and your students, it’s of no value.



Freezing the salary index creates problems for school districts, the index
was designed to help districts fund positions to meet the needs of the
students they must serve-more students, more positions are subsidized.
Without the state subsidy, districts will have difficulty keeping their
commitments to the people they’ve employed.



Capping Property Tax Replacement



When this idea was enacted to provide property relief to Idaho citizens, the

legislature and the Governor made a solemn promise that public schools

would not lose funding-the legislature would replace the property taxes

and school districts would be held harmless.



What I find so disturbing about these proposals is that they were designed

without consulting the people who have to distribute the funding, without

checking with school districts to see what the impact on their students
would be, without hearings and without debate in the house.



They’re proposing funds for legislative mandates, and, in several instances,

they’re proposing to enact ideas that have already been rejected by
germane

committees.

Testimony Inserted here is a copy of the testimony of Jim Shackelford, Executive
Director of the Idaho Education Association.






IDAHO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION



Testimony on House Appropriations Bill for FY04 K-12 Public School
Budget



Specific Issue: New Teacher Support



April 25, 2003



Introduction



Issue-elimination of funding for new teacher support system



  1. Issue-no hearings were conducted, no impact was assessed, no teachers who have been affected were contacted, no districts were
    invited to offer their views. ..in short, in spite of the deliberate and
    considered history of the development of this program, this law,
    and the funding that accompanies it, a few people, apparently
    looking to save a couple of million dollars to make the math work
    in their budget proposal, are proposing to make certain a vital
    public policy decision made only two years ago is razed


History

o Concern from school districts and a few legislators about the
process administrators and trustees needed to follow both to
evaluate and then release teachers in their first three years of
employment

o On the other hand, teachers believed some system of fairness
should be in place to assure those new to our profession would be
offered every chance to succeed and that their skills and
performance would be objectively rated

o Several legislative attempts to change the law that had been in
effect for almost four decades failed, primarily because districts
and teachers weren’t working together to solve the problem

o Then the 1999 legislative session, after another heated battle over
proposed changes, approved the formation of an interim legislative
committee



Interim Committee

o Committee charge: “to undertake and complete a study of Idaho
laws regarding teacher and administrator contract and evaluation
processes and prepare legislation for modifications and
improvements in the existing system”

o Committee membership

o Five meetings of the committee

o Researchers were brought in to report on what other states were
doing

o Trustees, administrators, and teachers were invited to talk to and
work with the committee to identify problems and possible
solutions

o Several drafts of possible legislation were developed, debated,
and modified. ..each producing at least one good idea to which the
entire group could agree

o Finally, at its fifth and final meeting, the committee agreed to
nine concepts that would be used to draft official legislation for the
2000 session



What the legislation provided



Funding

o Included in that final legislation was a recognition that both the
establishment and continuation of this new program, if done
correctly, would require substantial funding at the local school
district level

o That’s why the committee agreed to include in the legislation
presented to the 2000 legislature the following: “If an
appropriation of at least two million dollars is not made by the
2000 Legislature for fiscal year 2001 for support programs. ..this
act shall be null, void, and of no force and effect.”



Intent and Impact

o This is only the second year of this program

o Last fall the IEA sent a survey to a random sample of teachers
who were in their first three years of employment, asking, in part,
about the helpfulness of this program

o Virtually every response was not only complimentary but
contained indications of real concern about how they would be
doing if they hadn’t been provided this direct, substantive
assistance



Conclusion

o While the House Appropriations proposed legislation has many
flaws, the IEA wants to encourage particular attention to the
recommendation that funding for this program, now in statute as a
mandate to local districts, be completely eliminated

o Such action would not only put districts in a difficult situation,
dealing with an unfunded state mandate, but it would do a
disservice to the profession of teaching, as well as Idaho’s students,
each of whom deserve a quality teacher from the very first day she
enters the classroom

TESTIMONY Inserted here is a copy of the testimony of Julie Van Orden, President of
the Idaho PTA.



Chairman Schroeder and members of the committee,



I stand here and extend a thank-you from the Idaho PTA for allowing
input on this public education appropriation recommendation. But we are
still somewhat perplexed as to why there are statute changes coming
through the system in the form of an appropriation. Knowing that public
input is a vital part of the process, why would legislators choose to
exclude it by working through a committee that does not allow public
input or testifying? We believe this shows a lack of commitment to fulfill
the mission of the Idaho Legislature which is – to inspire public trust and
confidence. We appreciate your willingness to bring public input forward.
Concerning this appropriation recommendation, have the legislators, who
put it together, contacted their local school districts and constituents? On
the Idaho Legislature website it states that “Idaho’s citizen legislators are
able to maintain close ties to their communities and keep a keen interest in
the concerns of the electorate.” If the current recommendations are
adopted what will happen to education reform mandates? How much
longer will the length of a bus ride be? What is the value of a teacher? In
considering the appropriation numbers, Idaho PTA has taken interest in
the school trust lands and endowment fund and we realize that the
“dedicated funds” coming from this entity are not increasing and that the
decrease in this line item will be a substantial negative hit to the
appropriation for 2004. Please take this into consideration when making
your decisions.



Concerning the number juggling that has been happening with the
appropriation, I can assure you that members of the Idaho PTA and I can
see that with this recommendation, $943 million is not being appropriated
for education for the 2004 year. We hope that is not the example being set
for the children of Idaho, using “smoke screens and mirrors” to keep
integrity.



Finally, I do have a citizen question. Are we all meeting our constitutional
obligation to provide a fair and equal education?



Thank you for allowing us to give input at this time.

Testimony Also testifying was Ms. Janet Orndorff, trustee (vice chairperson) for
Independent District of Boise City and a member of Idaho School Boards
Association. Some of the issues addressed by Ms. Orndorff are as follows:



Ms. Orndorff agreed with Dr. Haley with regards to what can be
accomplished when people work together to find fair, equitable solutions
to difficult, complex education issues with a focus on Idaho student need.



She also explained that ISBA is not opposed to changes in allocations for
transportation costs, but would like the opportunity to study it. She said
there are two problems: (1) No phase in time – money already spent.

(2) Currently reporting their transportation. Districts have costs in
different ways. If reimbursements will rely on this system, this system
must be fair and equitable. It is for this reason that the Caldwell District
opposed S 1129, the bill which addressed this same issue.



Ms. Orndorff said as a board member, she is very much aware of the
importance of involving our public – parents, students, teachers, staff,
administration, patrons – to develop good public policy.

Testimony Representative Bedke was the last person to testify and the only person to
testify in favor of the revised education budget, as approved by the House
Appropriations committee. He said he has a responsibility to the
taxpayers to reform the education budget and also, it is an economic
necessity. He provided two handouts, “Potential Public Schools Budget
Breakout” and “Annual and Cumulative Savings from Statutory Changes”,
which are attached.



Representative Bedke said he believes that JFAC does have the authority
and responsibility to take necessary action and the amendments attached to
the appropriation bills were proper .



The Chairman asked Representative Bedke if he would consider the
amendments to be limited to one year and he replied that from his personal
perspective – no.



Following Representative Bedke’s testimony, time was allowed for
questions from the committee.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m.






DATE: April 29, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator Noble
Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. by Chairman Schroeder.
Guest speaker The Chairman welcomed Mr. Mike Gilmore, Deputy Attorney General,
who will brief the committee on the school facilities lawsuit.



Some of Mr. Gilmore’s testimony is as follows: Mr. Gilmore said that as

H 403a was working its way through the House and Senate, there really
wasn’t any activity in the school funding lawsuit until last week.



Bob Huntley, who represents the plantiffs in the case, faxed a letter to
Judge Bail and respectfully requested the court, as early as possible, to
file a Rule 54B certificate of judgment. This letter requested that a partial
judgment be filed and an award of $9,000 be made for the lead testing of
the Silver Valley Schools.



Mr. Gilmore said that what the court did, later that day, was enter a Rule
54B certificate regarding findings of fact and judgment. Judge Bail
certified payment of Masters fees in the amount of $11,000 plus.



Mr. Gilmore said that if this case should go to the Supreme Court, it is
very likely the state would argue that it should be remanded because of
intervening statutory changes.



Following Mr. Gilmore’s presentation, time was allowed for the committee
members to ask questions.

Announcements Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. Gilmore for speaking to the committee
today. He then said there was a copy of a letter from the Idaho School
Boards Association to the Pro Tem that has been made available to the
committee members.
Adjournment The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m.






DATE: May 2, 2003
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator Noble
Call to order The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by Chairman Schroeder. He
announced to the committee and the audience of approximately 40, that
this meeting is strictly for informational purposes only, regarding S 1196,
S 1197, S 1198, H 456, and H 463. These bills were not referred to the
Senate Education Committee and the Committee was not allowed to take
any action on these bills. The Chairman said that during this meeting, no
votes to pass, hold, or amend the bills will be allowed or taken. A report
of this meeting will be given to members of the Senate later today. The
report will be prepared by the chairman and will be comprised of
suggestions and recommendations from the committee members on each
of the five bills.
Handouts The Chairman noted that there are several handouts for the committee
members. (1) A copy of a letter to Dr. Howard, Superintendent of Public
Instruction, from Eugene Hickok, U.S. Department of Education; (2) Key
Issues of Public Schools Budget, prepared for Senator Andreason; (3)
Annual and Cumulative Savings from Statutory Changes, prepared by
DFM; (4) copy of letter from Tim Hill explaining JFAC’s budget and five
colored sheets: blue – Index history; green – Distribution Factor; tan – Bond
Levy Equalization Support Program; buff – Salary-based Apportionment;
cream – Joint Finance Appropriations Committee Distribution Factor.
Testimony Inserted in these minutes is a copy of the testimony of Dr. Mike Friend,
Executive Director of the Idaho Association of School Administrators.
Senator Schroeder and Members of the Senate Education Committee:



My name is Mike Friend, Executive Director of the Idaho Association of
School Administrators. Thank you for the opportunity to provide some
input into the legislation containing the FYO4 public school appropriation.
I will attempt to make my comments brief and provide suggestions to
address my concerns as might be appropriate.



During last Friday’s discussion before this committee the background of
the current funding formula was provided. Several of my concerns
regarding parts of the five appropriations bills are related to the issue of
equity and the concern for impacting that balance in a negative way. When
the five division model was first outlined to me a few weeks ago, I
attempted to view the model with an open mind, and consequently stated
that I thought it could work as a way of appropriating dollars without
causing equity issues. I also stated that I thought it was important to insure
that not only the appropriation side be addressed. I suggested that it was
equally important to address the distribution function (SDE), the
implementation function (SD), and the reporting function (SD, SDE and
Legislature ). The bills under consideration appear to address only the
appropriation, and some distribution issues. After the court challenges of
the past, it seemed to me to make some sense to look at the total impact,
including equity issues, not just the appropriation aspect.



My concerns were elevated when I saw the House Appropriation
Committee’s intent language, followed by the JFAC language. First of all
a brief comment on the revenue side of the FYO4 appropriation. In the
area of dedicated accounts ($51 M), over $9 M is included, representing
the school district’s share of the lottery proceeds. I have no problem with
these dollars showing as revenue, but it is not, “new” money, but money
that school districts have received for a number of years, as per Idaho
Code. Likewise, the display of federal money does reflect dollars
distributed to the schools as a part of the total state AND FEDERAL
revenue. Most of these dollars have strings attached too.



HB 456 has passed the House; Division of Teachers This bill caps the
instructional staff index a 1.58 (this year’s statewide average ). When the
index was put in place, along with the use-it-or-lose-it clause, the intent
was to insure that every district would be able to adequately staff its
system to meet the requirements of the thoroughness statute. It enables
districts to seek to employ the highest qualified personnel – no incentive to

hire the “lowest cost” teacher – and resulted in the ability of many districts
to reduce class sizes because of the state allocation. Salaries also
increased, leveling the field between districts and regions of the state. By
capping the index, the issue of equity comes up again – if the statewide
index goes up – and there is no historical data to imply that it won’t,
districts will have additional obligations to pick up the difference in
salaries, as all districts will take a proportional “hit” on its share of the
salary based apportionment ~ not all districts however have the same level
of ability to “pay” as others. There is nothing in this legislation to imply
that the cap is temporary -matter of fact, fiscal impact sheets that have
been distributed would indicate that there is no intention to lift the cap.
The impact needs further study, district by district, to assure policy makers
that the ability to staff each and every classroom in the state is not
impaired by such a cap.



HB 463 has passed the House. Operations Division Included in this
legislation are several issues in the minds of the people I represent. Most
of these issues have been addressed in the germane committees this
session, but now appear in this bill.



On a positive note, we were glad to see the technology appropriation
returned to the $8.4 M level. We do not support the capping of property
tax replacement at $75 M, even though it does not impact the FY04
appropriation. Our Association has provided testimony opposed to this
issue every time it has been proposed. We worked hard a few years ago
when Governor Batt proposed his property tax relief measure, including a
cap. We were assured that there would be a dollar for dollar replacement
of the .001, not a capped amount. By capping this, the entire state, through

equalization, looses the ability to capture the increased market value of the
state. This should not happen.



The issue of using federal dollars for standards implementation remains a
mystery. This bill provides for $l M state and $3 M federal dollars. Can
this be done? If a waiver isn’t approved, it appears to me that we have $1
Million to complete this task.



The Public Education Stabilization Fund is created within this legislation.
As committee members know, I stood before you twice this session
regarding budget stabilization. One bill you printed for me; the second bill
was Rep. Clark’s legislation that we supported. This Committee’s action
held the bill in Committee. There is a significant difference between what
was discussed in the Committee however and this legislation. We favored
the creation of such an account through the use of “angel money” from the

overestimation of support units, not as a line item reduction of monies
from which the districts develop their budgets. For every million dollars
taken from the top of the appropriation, $943 M in the scenario proposed,
$80 a support unit is lost for budgeting purposes. If there is $10 M line
item for the account, each district looses $800 a support unit from its
discretionary fund.



Phasing in of a cap on transportation reimbursement is included in this
legislation. Once again, this Committee acted on a similar measure and
held in it committee. Transportation has been studied many times and the
JLOC phase two study includes another look at this controversial issue.
Maybe it would be wise to wait for their findings. The phase-in is an
improvement but still impacts twenty some districts in a significant
manner.



Basic bus definitions have also been discussed. Our organization has no
objections to working on a basic bus definition as long as safety and
geography are considered, not just cost.



S1196 Facility Division The distribution of lottery funds should remain as
they currently are outlined in Idaho Code. The nearly $l M for the bond
levy equalization payment should not come from lottery proceeds, nor
from the M and O appropriation of the state. Like HB315 a number of
years ago, this should be a general fund appropriation in a separate
account. The fiscal impact of S1474 passed last year was $16-20 M over
the next 20 years, wiping out all of the lottery funds within 7 to 10 years.



S1197 Administrator Division We have a couple of different issues with
this legislation. First of all the capping of the administrative index at this
years average. Once again, the index assures that districts have an
adequate allocation -an equitable allocation -to meet its accreditation
requirements as required by the State Board of Education. Current law
allows up to 20% to be used for non-certificated staff, providing flexibility
to the local districts. When a bill on this issue was heard in the House
earlier this session, I suggested that if the Committee felt that there needed
to be additional flexibility , change the 20% to a higher number, but not
eliminate the “use-it-or-lose-it clause” as exists in current statute. This is a
policy issue, not an appropriation issue, in my opinion. The elimination of
administrators from the early retirement program is also included in this
bill. As I said in the House Committee earlier: the data shows that the cost
savings for administrative participation isn’t there. However, there are two

issues that should be considered. One, in order to attract the best people
possible into administration, we need incentives too -this removes an
incentive in our opinion. And secondly is the issue of simple fairness.



S 1198 Children’s Programs The current legislation ignores the growth in
our LEP population and the request of $85,000 to cover that growth. We
were very pleased to have funding for the IDLA included in the
appropriation.



The annual contract support program is also not funded in any of these
pieces of legislation. While the statute doesn’t require an annual
appropriation, the $2M currently provided by the state, sets aside dollars
to implement this annual contract statute addition. In its second year, there
is limited data to substantiate its effectiveness, but without funding, it
would be my prediction that court costs will increase and support for our
new teachers will decrease. Is this the way to meet the requirements of
NCLB?



The support unit value has remained the same as for the FY03 year
according to this proposal. Governor Kempthorne’s budget provided for
less than $100 increase per support unit, representing an increase that also
did not recognize increased costs to school districts due to inflation – such
as health insurance, the cost increase which is being picked up by the state
for state employees. This is a real cost to districts too.



While many of my comments may be interpreted as being negative and
protective of the status quo, the IASA stands willing in the interim should
this model not be enacted, to assist the advocates of this model to insure its
success, with a workable appropriation, distribution, implementation, and
reporting plan before the 2004 Legislative Session. Perhaps the
editorialists from the “Times News” were correct: This may be too much,
too fast, too late in the session to insure successful implementation.

Recess Chairman Schroeder said the committee would take a short break, then
resume discussion.
Testimony The Chairman called the meeting to order.



Testifying next was Elaine Clegg, Executive Director, Idaho Smart
Growth. Her concern regarded transportation issues and she encouraged
safety busing.

Next to testify was Sarah Stobaugh, Transportation Supervisor for the
Boise School District. She indicated that the Boise District is working on a
plan to minimize expenses. She also defended the amount of spare
buses that are in the bus fleet, saying it was well below average for the
fleet size.
Nancy Gregory, a member of the Boise School Board, also testified. She
was not in favor of the bills because they contained policy changes.
Jim Shackelford, IEA Executive Director, testified in opposition to the five
bills. He also said that he supports Dr. Friend’s testimony.
Michael Murphy, Federal Program Coordinator for the State Department
of Education, talked about supplanting of federal funds, NCLB, and the
non-granting of waivers.
After hearing testimony, the committee discussed suggestions and
recommendations to be included in the report to be written by the
Chairman.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 12:45 p.m.