Senate Education Committee

2003 Minutes

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 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: How BSU managed the FY03 Budget reductions. Enrollment increases Strategies for managing enrollment growth Faculty and student honors and highlights BSU West - Growth at the current Canyon County Campus Why the new campus Governor's recommendation to bond 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: to improve student learning to enhance educational decision-making to support schools and teachers more effectively to facilitate student transfers to maintain an effective data gathering mechanism to comply with the NCLB requirements to improve security and privacy of student data. Some of the issues that need to be resolved are: state funding of ongoing costs requiring districts to use centralized system state agency to manage system for all stakeholders a unique student identifier a common course code system 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. Education funding - they will pursue all reasonable avenues to ensure appropriate levels of funding needed. Tuition tax credits/vouchers - they believe these would be detrimental in Idaho. Parent involvement - they believe that schools should incorporate parent involvement into all aspects of education. State achievement standards - they are concerned about high stakes testing. Safe and nurturing environment - they support initiatives that foster safety within the schools. 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: Appropriations/Allocations Development of Standards/Assessments Meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Choice Options Highly Qualified Teachers Qualified Paraprofessionals Supplemental Education Services (SES) Research Based Programs Accountability Report Cards 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) 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: to provide the names of manufacturers of buses and the cost. data, newer than 1996, in comparing Idaho to contiguous states. data on sales of buses out-of-state. comparison charts. 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. Student Information Management System (SIMS) - teacher, student and administrative functionality and curriculum management for the day to day operations of the school/district. 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: 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. 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. Virtual Charter Schools must comply, as other charter schools, when receiving state foundation funds and special distributions. 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. 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 Initial License (3 years teaching - must move to Professional) Professional License (5 years) Advanced License (7 years) Opportunity for career advancement or to maintain Professional License for career. Specific verifications & assessments for Initial License. Performance-based requirements for licensure renewal & advancement. Performance-based requirements for out-of-state teachers, alternative route teachers, & non-active teachers. (2) Proposed Professional Development Model Focused on student learning needs. Linked to district/school plans & individual goals. Essential for continuous improvement. Performance-based. Comprehensive accountability system. Aligned standards, curricula, assessment, and accountability. Aligned with "No Child Left Behind" requirements. (3) Recommendations for Middle Level Preparation 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) 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: Discussion as to the word "parents". It was felt that it should be more broad and perhaps also use the term "legal guardian". Lottery selection, so as to assure it is fair. Number of children of employees of a charter school. 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. a member of the board of trustees or board designee shall be a nonvoting member of the governing board of the charter school. revocation of tax exemption of schools put on probation has been deleted. 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: The goal of VR is employment. Last year VR served over 12,000 people with disabilities. Last year VR assisted 1,711 to achieve employment outcomes. 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. Charter Schools: National Review Research on Charter Schools Status Report: Idaho Charter Schools Modification of Idaho Charter School Legislation Since 1998 Idaho Charter School Network (ICSN) Idaho Charter Schools: Observations/Issues 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: The supermajority threshold of 66 2/3 affirmative to pass a school bond levy is in some cases prohibitive. 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. There is a huge disparity among school districts in their ability to retire long-term debt on their own. 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: the supermajority threshold of 66 2/3rds affirmative to pass a school bond levy. 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. a huge disparity among school districts in their ability to retire long-term debt on their own. 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. NIC at Coeur d'Alene - nursing/life science building U of I at Moscow - teaching and learning center LCSC at Lewiston - campus activity center BSU West at Nampa - campus building ISP at Meridian - training academy expansion CSI at Twin Falls - fine arts addition ISU at Pocatello - classroom building 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: Identify charter schools in all future analysis. Identify a more fair way to tax property for schools. Is there a relationship between the amount of money spent and the results we get from that expenditure? (With results meaning test scores.) Do not dwell on the costs of the very small districts. Need to know where we are at with results with the money spent on technology. (Where we are at and what the needs are.) Don't rehash what the State Department of Education is doing, but work closely with them. 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? 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. Property poor school districts could not generate the same revenue per pupil as property rich school districts. The funding formula favored rich school districts. 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. 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. Provided enough discretionary funds to adequately operate the district. Include a statewide salary schedule. 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 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.