2004 Education
[printfriendly]

January 14, 2004
January 15, 2004
January 16, 2004
January 20, 2004
January 21, 2004
January 22, 2004
January 23, 2004
January 27, 2004
January 28, 2004
January 29, 2004
January 30, 2004

February 3, 2004
February 4, 2004
February 5, 2004
February 6, 2004
February 10, 2004
February 11, 2004
February 12, 2004
February 13, 2004
February 16, 2004
February 17, 2004
February 18, 2004
February 19, 2004
February 20, 2004
February 24, 2004
February 25, 2004
February 26, 2004
February 27, 2004

March 2, 2004
March 3, 2004
March 4, 2004
March 5, 2004
March 8, 2004
March 9, 2004
March 10, 2004
March 11, 2004
March 12, 2004
March 15, 2004
March 20, 2004

November 5, 2004 – Joint Subcommittee Meeting

DATE: January 14, 2004
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Andreason,
McWilliams, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:

Senators Noh, Goedde, Noble
Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 8:35 a.m. by Chairman Schroeder.
Introductions: He welcomed the committee members and guests, then asked each guest to
introduce themselves and identify who they represent. The following were in
attendance:



Kathy Phelan – Idaho Education Association, President

Bob West – State Department of Education, Chief Deputy Superintendent

Phil Homer – Idaho Association of School Administrators, Legal Advisor

John Eikum – Idaho Rural Schools Association, Executive Director

Tom Farley – State Department of Education, Bureau Chief

Jerry Helgeson – Meridian Education Association, President

Jim Shackelford – Idaho Education Association, Executive Director

Mike Friend – Idaho Association of School Administrators, Executive Director

Allison McClintick – State Board of Education, Policy Program Manager

Tim Hill – State Department of Education, Bureau Chief

Kelly Rice – student, BSU

James Skaggs – student, BSU

Remarks: Senator Schroeder said he wished to publically thank the school officials
who helped to make the Idaho Education Forums a success, which were
held last fall. These forums were held in Sandpoint, Coeur d’Alene,
Moscow, Lewiston, Payette, Boise, Nampa, Twin Falls, and Salmon.



The issues of most concern voiced at the Forums were federal legislation –
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the Idaho Standards Achievement Tests
(ISAT), and the property tax cap.

Additional issues of concern, voiced at today’s meeting, were Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP), American Board Certification (ABC), charter schools,
virtual schools, faculty salaries, classroom space and Limited English
Proficiency (LEP). There was discussion on all the above named issues by
the committee. Some of the audience members also participated in the
discussion.
During the discussion of ISAT and testing, questions were raised as to the
reliability and validity of the tests. A suggestion was made that a panel of
testing experts be hired to determine if the tests are indeed reliable and
valid.



Also, a request to see actual test questions was asked of Ms. Allison
McClintick, State Board of Education member. She said she would provide
that information to the committee members.

Adjournment: Chairman Schroeder thanked everyone for their participation in the
discussion. He then adjourned the meeting at 10:45 a.m.






DATE: January 15, 2004
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
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.



He said today’s meeting will focus on the facilities lawsuit filed by Idaho
Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity (ISEEO) against the State of
Idaho. He welcomed Mr. Michael Gilmore, Deputy Attorney General, and
Mr. Stan Kress, president of ISEEO. Also recognized was Mr. Bob
Huntley, attorney for ISEEO. Handouts from Mr. Gilmore and Mr. Kress
are in the committee members’ notebooks (and are also on file in the
Education Office).

Speaker Speaking first was Mr. Gilmore who first reviewed the past 15 months’
activities. One of the issues discussed was the appointment of a Special
Master by Judge Bail to inspect the facilities in question. Mr. Gilmore said
the state opposed that, as there was no funding, and he filed a petition to
stop that action. The Supreme Court granted that petition.
Another issue was House bill 403. After House bill 403 became law last
year, Mr. Gilmore said he and Mr. Dave Munro, from the State Building
Authority, signed a joint letter that was sent to the districts involved.
According to their records, 13 of the 26 suits had safety issues. Of the
13, six responded with detailed and satisfactory information. The other
seven did not respond immediately. Since that time, one district has
resolved their problem, the other six have not. District Judge John
Bradbury ruled that House bill 403 is unconstitutional and ordered that the
Cottonwood School District’s motion to dismiss the state’s complaint be
granted. This was ordered on November 26, 2003.
Mr. Gilmore closed his talk by saying the remaining suits have the
potential of being resolved.
Speaker Speaking next was Mr. Stan Kress, president of ISEEO and
Superintendent of the Cottonwood School District. He said the schools
involved in the ISEEO lawsuit propose to work with the Legislature to
solve the lawsuit and seek a resolution to Idaho school facilities funding
concerns.
Mr. Kress provided documents that show the disparities in the ability of
different school districts to be able to finance their facilities needs with
local taxes alone. He said that is the reason the lawsuit exists.
Some comparisons that Mr. Kress made are as follows:

Ririe must tax themselves $2,969 per support unit (classroom) to
equal a $100 tax per classroom in Avery.

Dietrich would have to pay $2,237 to equal $100 in Blaine County.

Homedale would have to pay $1,303 to equal $100 in McCall.

Mr. Kress concluded his remarks by saying that an equitable system,
which provides safe and conducive to learning facilities, needs to be
provided and his group is ready to discuss solutions with the legislators.
Time was allowed for questions from the committee.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m.






DATE: January 16, 2004
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Goedde,
McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator Andreason
MINUTES: The meeting was called to order at 8:40 a.m. by Chairman Schroeder.



He asked members of the audience to introduce themselves if they had not
been introduced at a previous meeting. In attendance were:



Cliff Green – Idaho School Boards Association, Executive Director

Parra Byron – Education Policy Advisor from the Governor’s Office

Karen Gustafson – Educator Policy Program Manager, OSBE

Blas Telleria – Boise Education Association, President

Rod McKnight – Transportation Director, SDE

Ray Merrical – Transportation, SDE

Charles Bolles – Idaho State Library

Sue Payne – Vocation Rehabilitation

Keith Potter – Bureau of Certification and Professional Standards, SDE

ANNOUNCE-

MENTS:

The Chairman announced that next week’s meetings would be Joint
meetings with the House Education Committee, held in the Gold Room
from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. These meetings will cover No Child Left Behind
(NCLB); Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT); Charter Schools; and
policies and roles of the State Board of Education (OSBE) and the State
Department of Education (SDE).
Rules:















08-0202-0301

Chairman Schroeder explained the rule process to the committee,
suggested that voting on the rules be held until all rules are heard, then
turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Tom Gannon, who will be in
charge of the hearings for the Education Rules.



Chairman Gannon called on Ms. Karen Gustafson to address 08-0202-0301. The rule change clarifies current rule language related to the
following: Sixty-day Inspections and Withdraw from Service Authority;
modifies specific school bus construction standards and approves a
referenced document Standards for Idaho School Buses and Operations;
removes reimbursement for routing software costs. Assisting her with
technical questions was Rod McKnight.



Senator Schroeder asked Mr. McKnight to provide him with a copy of the
rules by reference, which Mr. McKnight said he would do. There were
questions, followed by discussion, concerning routing software, lack of
resources, and the need for more staff to audit the bussing services.

08-0202-0302 Ms. Gustafson then presented 08-0202-0302 relating to fees for teacher
certification. This change removes the requirement that a teacher is
required to have an endorsement in Biology, Physics, Chemistry, or
Geology in order to receive a Natural Science endorsement. It allows
teachers who possess an endorsement in Agricultural Science and
Technology, complete a minimum of 20 hours of coursework plus a lab in
the Biological Sciences, Physical Science, and Earth Science, and receive
a passing score on the Praxis test, to receive an endorsement in Natural
Science.



Assisting with technical questions were Keith Potter and Dr. Bob West.

30-0101-0301 Charles Bolles, representing the Idaho State Library, presented 30-0101-0301, an amendment to align the services that are provided by the library.
The film and video equipment has been transferred to the Boise Public
Schools, with some going to the Regional Alcohol and Drug Awareness
Resource Center at BSU. The Talking Book Library is still administered
by the State Library, and the rule incorporates the federal regulations as to
who may use this collection.
47-0101-0301 Ms. Sue Payne from the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation addressed
47-0101-0301. This deals with being in compliance with federal partners.
08-0202-0303 Ms. Gustafson was called on again, this time to speak to 08-0202-0303.
This change moves the text from an incorporated document ( the Code of
Ethics) into the rule itself. Some testimony indicated that the principles
are good, but the format is too negative. Senator Schroeder asked Dr.
West and the IEA to work together to rewrite this in a more positive way.
Adjournment Chairman Gannon turned the meeting back to Senator Schroeder, who
then adjourned the meeting at 10 a.m.






DATE: January 20, 2004
TIME: 8:00 am
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
MINUTES: The Joint meeting of the Senate and House Education committees was
called to order at 8:00 a.m. by Chairman Schroeder.



He welcomed the public to the meeting and introduced Representative
Jack Barraclough, Chairman of the House Education committee, who also
thanked the audience for their interest. The co-chairs of both committees
were also introduced.



The Chairman noted that there are several handouts in folders for all
committee members. All are on file in the Senate Education Office.



Chairman Schroeder said that each day this week, someone from the
Office of the State Board of Education (OSBE) will address the issue,
followed by public testimony. Today’s meeting is devoted to No Child Left
Behind (NCLB), with Randy Thompson, Academic Affairs Officer,
representing OSBE.

Speaker Mr. Thompson, who has been with OSBE for one and one-half years,
provided a background of NCLB. In 1994 the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) focused on a baseline of standards and required
assessments. In 2001, a federal approach began that resulted in the
NCLB Act. Funding from the federal government to Idaho has amounted
to $59.3 M in 2001; $79 M in 2002; and $91 M in 2003. In 2001, more
stringent requirements were developed as to what each child should know
at each grade level and the purpose of these requirements is to reduce
the gap in student performance. He also said the state’s mandate is to
educate children. Mr. Thompson said Idaho now has (1) solid standards
that identify what each child should know and (2) a testing system that
assesses the needs of each student.



Following Mr. Thompson’s remarks, time was allowed for a few questions.

Speaker The next speaker was Mr. Tom Farley, Bureau Chief of Federal
Programs. He said NCLB is all about educating children from the federal
perspective and is very complex. Annual assessments at the present
time are for all students in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school.



He explained that NCLB is about accountability, flexibility and local
control, enhanced parental choice and focusing on what works.
Regarding Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), every school is required to
meet 36 individual targets. It is calculated using the 42 on-grade-level
test question in the Spring ISAT only. The Fall and Spring levels test
portions of ISAT are not included in AYP calculations. Calculations are
based on two factors – participation and proficiency (math and reading). If
any one target is missed, it identifies the entire school as not meeting
AYP for the year. The processing time for appeals is approximately eight
months. He also discussed the qualifications for highly qualified teachers
and paraprofessionals. During the time of questions, there was concern
about the loss of local control. Mr. Farley said that NCLB mandates the
outcome and local control achieves it. In response to questions regarding
tests, he said that Idaho cannot and will not throw out the ISAT, but tests
will be validated and checked for bias. ISAT should be used as a
stethoscope, not as a hammer. He also said he would like to suggest to
the committee to look at the cost of revamping “highly qualified” teacher
efforts, the cost of raising the salaries of paraprofessionals, and the cost
of remediation of the children.

Testimony Ms. Jane Lesko, Grangeville, Idaho was the next speaker. She is
opposed to NCLB and is urging the repeal of it. She has drafted an RS
for a Senate Joint Memorial and hopes to have it introduced. She also
has a video “Goals 2000 Conference, Washington, D.C.” that is available
for viewing. Inserted in the minutes are references to support her
position, as provided by her.
January 20, 2004

Outline of speech given by Jane Lesko of Grangeville, Idaho.



Congressional Record -House, July 18,1961 (pgs.12781-12794) speech given by
Rep. Ashbrook of Ohio on The Myth Of Federal Aid To Education Without
Control. It is about the plan for a total federal control of education in the United
States based on a Health, Education, and Welfare publication, “A Federal
Education Agency for the Future”.



Congressional Record -House, Appendix, Oct.20, 1951 (pgs.A6964-A6965)
speech given by Rep. John T. Wood of Idaho on Unesco and Our Public
Schools- Women Warned on Lending Names to Red Causes. Exposes Unesco’s
plans of capturing our children’s minds for a world government.



World Education Forum. Dakar. Senegal Apri12000 (Unesco} -The Dakar
Framework for Action. This is where we took our framework for the “No Child Left
Behind Act” of 2001.

(78 pgs.) Can be downloaded from www.edwatch.org (International Source) The
Dakar, Senegal Education for all Framework 2000, then English PDF .



Polytechnical Education: A Step -The Soviet Union’s education system based on

Marxist-Leninist ideology, from which we took our framework for School-To-Work.( 4 million dollar Carl D. Perkins Grant funded by the Office of Vocational
and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education ).1990



Another Polvtechnical Book- ” School-To-Work Opportunities In The Middle
School: Concepts and Issues”. ( 4.5 million dollar Carl D. Perkins Grant funded
by the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education)
1997

Learning A Living -( Blueprint) A SCANS REPORT FOR AMERICA 2000

S.C.A.N.S.- The Secretary’s Commission On Achieving Necessary Skills, U.S.

Department of Labor, April,1992

1) Reinventing Education

Designing a System– Placing the SCANS Competencies into the classroom
(SCANS CLASSROOM) was accomplished with School-To-Work in Idaho.

2) Restructuring Assessment

No more tradional tests, now assessments that build electronic resumes on each
student for the federal worklink database. Students receive a certificate of
mastery after meeting the SCANS COMPETENCIES that means they have met
the requirements of what they should know and be able to do. They are very
minimal academic skills on getting by on the workforce.

3) Reorganizing the Workplace

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT –Everyone is a team player and make
decisions together on the workforce. Adults are to be certified on the SCANS
COMPETENCIES also to continue employment.



SCHOOL- TO- WORK OPPORTUNITIES STATE IMPLEMENTATION GRANT

Contract between the State of Idaho and the U.S.Department of Labor- June
15,1995

Restructure Idaho’s system of schools starting with pre-school, the behavioral

characteristics and attitudes that are critical to the world of work begin early in
life.

All ninth grade students will have a six -year education plan or CAREER PATH-

WAY and a career portfolio.



Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Programs – NCLB, Sec.5421. The

counseling programs in school line up with the federal law that created the State

Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) signed August 5, 1997, and the
Children’s Mental Health Bill for Idaho, 1997. The CHIP bill expands Medicaid to
be used in school-based health centers where the schools can bill Medicaid. This
is what Attorney Kent Matterson Brown of Kentucky found out about when he
was hired to investigate the Clinton Health Care Plan. The Universal Health Care
Coverage would be accomplished with the children at school first and than
branch out to all.



Federal Curriculum -NCLB, Sec, 2344 “We the People Program, The Citizen and
the Constitution”, grants or contracts with the Center for Civic Education.
www.civiced.org



Human Right Education in Idaho -K -12 Social Studies correlated to the Idaho

Achievements Standards. The Children are being indoctrinated with the UN
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS and GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
http:/ /www .Idaho-humanrights.org/curriculum. pdf



DAN PRINZING —SOCIAL STUDIES IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

AND ALSO STATE COORDINATOR FOR THE CENTER FOR CIVIC

EDUCATION FEDERAL CURRICULUM



SPEEDE/EXPRESS ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT-National Center For
Education

Statistics, data collection on students, teachers and families



STUDENT/PUPIL ACCOUNTING –Data collected on children and adults since
1974.

Speaker The next speaker was Tom Luna, Senior Advisor to the National
Education Secretary, Rod Paige. He mentioned standing on the steps
with Governor Phil Batt when he announced Idaho’s plans for developing
standards, assessment and accountability. He said funding has
increased 132% in nine years. In 2001, Idaho received $27.2 M in Title I
programs and in 2004, Idaho will receive $42.5 M, which is an increase of
56%. Mr. Luna said there is $6 B in the national fund of unspent Title I
funds. This includes money left by Idaho, which amounts to $3.9 M.
There is also $13.5 M for Idaho to improve teacher quality (for highly
qualified teachers). NCLB requires testing of all students and there is
money available for that, which amounts to $4 M and in this one area,
federal funds can supplant state funds. In most other areas, federal funds
cannot supplant funds. Mr. Luna encouraged the state to look at the
flexibility that is available with these funds. He also said that NCLB offers
more flexibility for local control and suggested that the state also offer
more flexibility to local school districts with their funding. He addressed
the issue of highly qualified teachers and the need to raise the bar. Idaho
places in the top five states for the number of highly qualified teachers.



The question was raised as to why Idaho had not used all the money that
was allotted, which amounted to over $16 M in all areas. Mr. Luna said
perhaps some of the money was earmarked for future projects, or
perhaps some districts chose not to participate in a particular program.
Mr. Farley pointed out that the state has up to 27 months to draw funds
and the entire amount cannot be drawn out and banked, as that is illegal.



Another question was what would happen if Idaho chose to opt out of
NCLB. The answer was that the federal funds would probably be
withheld, which amount to $156 M.

Break Chairman Schroeder called for a break at 9:45 a.m.
Speaker Calling the meeting to order, Chairman Schroeder said the next speaker
would be Dr. Marilyn Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction.



Dr. Howard said she would like to compliment the legislators for their
efforts in the past years on the progress that has been made and also
how important the past funding on the standards has been. She said the
focus this year is on leadership and data analysis, as well as getting the
assessments in place. She also thanked Mr. Luna for pointing out that
the $3.9 M that is available now (and can be supplanted), she will add
that amount to her budget for technology and a 1% raise for teachers.

Speaker Inserted in the minutes is the education policy statement presented by
Neil Colwell, representing Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry .
BUSINESS IS A STAKEHOLDER IN PUBLIC EDUCATION

Idaho’s business community has a vital interest in a public school system that
prepares Idaho’s youth for a lifetime of learning. Business has a stake not only in
the process and delivery of education services, but in the quality of the students
graduating from Idaho’s schools. Graduates from Idaho’s K-12 system should be
prepared to enter a four-year college, a technical training program, or the
workforce fully capable of engaging in on-the-job training with no remediation
required.

Business has these expectations for several reasons. Our public schools are
filled with the children of Idaho’s business owners and employees. Business
growth, recruitment and retention rely in large part on the quality of the education
system. Idaho’s businesses directly contribute 45 percent of local property taxes
that go to schools and 30 percent of the General Fund appropriated to annual K-12 funding.

On every level, business is a major stakeholder in Idaho’s public schools.

Business also has a responsibility to sustain and improve Idaho’s public school
system beyond mere tax support. The business community has demonstrated
this responsibility through such activities as: providing lobbying support at the
legislature for worthy improvements to the education system; mentoring of
students; contributions of specific expertise and equipment to schools;
encouraging employees to serve on local school boards; providing business
management expertise to aid in the efficient administration of the

education system; and providing assistance in school bond elections.

The business community should continue to partner with all education
stakeholders to shape policies which result in a system that produces well-educated and responsible young adults.

POLICY: IACI will participate in the public education discussion by bringing the
statewide business community into partnership with public policy and education
leaders to produce a better-educated workforce in the state of Idaho. To that end,
IACI supports an adequately funded, efficient and innovative K-12 education
system that is focused on outcomes rather than inputs. IACI will participate in the

development of public policies that enhance the systemic restructuring and
continuous improvement of Idaho’s public education system and greater student
achievement.

Testimony Kelli Christensen, mother of a special needs child in the fourth grade,
stated that her concern centered on testing. She felt it was unfair to the
students of special needs to be required to take the same test as regular
students, and unfair to the school, whose overall average would be lower
because of the special needs children. That score could catagorize that
school as failing. She has also had teachers who don’t want her child in
their classes. She asked the legislators to help her help the teachers and
to also look at the tests.
Testimony Peggy Polling-Sharkey, principal at the Parma Middle School, stated that
“one size fits all” is a problem. She does not have a problem with being
held accountable, but wants it to be what truly reflects what goes on in the
individual schools, as the needs are different.
Testimony Terry Anderson, trustee for the Pocatello School District, said that they
close the library for 12 weeks while it is used for a testing lab and that is a
great concern of hers. She also mentioned dropouts – both students and
teachers, saying there are too many pressures.
Testimony Janet Orndorff, president of Idaho School Board Association, said they
endorse NCLB, but it needs to be put in perspective. She feels there is a
need for remediation. ISBA is helping school board members by
developing standards and holding workshops.
Testimony Inserted in the minutes is the testimony of Jan Lang, fourth grade teacher
at Idaho Falls.



I was scoring at a hockey game a couple of years ago with another parent whom
I’d never met. He turned to me and said, “My name is Eric Olson, but most
people call me Dr. Olson.” My response to him was, “My name is Jan Lang, but
most people call me Mrs. Lang.”

My name is Jan Lang. I am a fourth grade teacher at Edgemont Elementary
School in Idaho Falls. Edgemont is a failing school. I say failing because
Edgemont failed to make AYP in 1 category out of 36. Edgemont’s fourth graders’
scores on the Idaho Standards Achievement Test for spring 2003 were: Reading
84%, Language Arts 98%, and Math 95%. But somehow we have been labeled
as

failing.



When I returned to teaching in the fall of 2003, I was surprised to learn that
Edgemont had failed to meet all of the criteria set down by the Legislature for the
ISAT. After all, Edgemont is a school of just under 400 students in a relatively
middle to upper class neighborhood ~ we had no Title 1. Besides, I had done my
job. I had carefully scrutinized the curriculum guide and had taught according to
it. But I guess that wasn’t enough. My principal set out to try to right the wrong.
Indeed there were many wrongs. 2002-2003 was a year to learn, right? He wrote
a letter to appeal Edgemont’s shortcomings. Everything was going to be okay.

And then the Albertson’s Foundation printed a report, a neat little insert in our
local newspaper. I read down the list of accredited schools and was amazed and
for the f!ill time embarrassed that Edgemont was not on the list. When we
returned to school on Monday, we were told why we had been labeled a failing
school. It seems one of the appeals had been denied. One student who had not
been tested was still on our roles, even though he hadn’t stepped foot in our
school for over a year. This boy is a severely emotionally disturbed child who was
and still is in a day treatment program. So all the teachers had an explanation
and were feeling okay. We continued to work hard and spend more and more
hours preparing for lessons, which are curriculum based.

Then the day Christmas break started, another article in the newspaper
interviewed my principal who said we were disheartened. The headline again
labeled Edgemont as a failing school. Another embarrassing day. Edgemont’s
teachers, 43% of whom have Master’s Degrees, have helped educate 5 students
who scored a perfect 1600 on their SA T .There is very little turnover in the staff.

We have spent hours in faculty meetings this year scrutinizing RIT scores and
RIT bands and tested skills. Moral is low. We ask ourselves, “What more can we
do? What have we done wrong?” and “Why do we do this?” But we keep
showing up each day with a smile on to greet the children who perhaps have
slept on the floor, had no breakfast, or are worried because her brother who
raped her when she was 10 is getting out of jail next week. We keep showing up
for conferences when parents don’t. We stay after school to tutor individuals who
need extra help. We are teachers, nurturers, counselors, mothers, fathers, drill
instructors, and facilitators.



There are a lot of problems with No Child Left Behind and I don’t know whose job
it is to address them. Here are a few:

*I worry because there is a budget crisis in Idaho. There’s not enough money
from the federal or state governments to fund programs.

*I worry about rural school districts finding “highly qualified teachers”.

*I worry because AYP doesn’t measure attendance and graduation rates.

*I worry because progress hinges on 1 test on 1 day.

*I worry that at-risk students will drop out when they fail to make AYP .

*I worry that students are being tested at the grade level they are placed in, not
the level at which they are succeeding.

*I worry that there are no guidelines for overcrowding in schools that receive
students from failing schools.

*1 worry that rural schools can offer no choice for failing versus succeeding
schools.

*I worry that supplemental services for failing schools don’t need to be highly
qualified.

*I worry that research based reading programs are not going to include all
effective and teacher accepted reading programs.

Already the President is talking budget cuts again. An article in the Post Register

yesterday said the state budget for technology will be cut again. I wonder how
we’re going to ISA T with technology budget cuts.



The AYP mantra seems to be PRODUCE OR BE REPLACED. One school in
District 91 began 2002-2003 with only 25% of their students achieving AYP in
reading. Those teachers raised the AYP to 50% in 9 months. But that wasn’t
good enough because the State had set the AYP goal at 66%.



I am worried and frustrated, kind of like Mattie. I have had the opportunity to be
Mattie’s teacher for 2 years as I taught third grade last year and looped with my
students. Mattie reads at a pre primer level. When she takes the Blended Fourth
Grade ISAT this year, I worry she will be frustrated and feel sub-average after
I’ve worked so hard to help her accept herself for who she is. Mattie is learning
disabled. In her six years in school, she has been in a handicapped preschool,
resource room, had IRI after school program, and summer school. I am worried,
frustrated, and feel pressure more now than at any time in my 32 years of
teaching. Please look at No Child Left Behind very carefully and help correct the

problems.

Testimony Due to time constraints, Ms. Kathy Phelan, Idaho Education Association
president, relinquished her time and submitted written testimony. They
are inserted in the minutes.



The so-called No Child Left Behind Act is one-size-fits-all federal control of
Idaho’s public schools. No Child Left Behind is a wonderful slogan but the
regulations promulgated by the US Dept of Education have placed simplistic,
rigid, and unrealistic requirements on the public schools in your neighborhoods
and have set them up to fail.



In Idaho this so-called No Child Left Behind act makes high stakes decisions
about your local public school based upon ONE multiple choice standardized
test. Decisions about our schools are made using data from a test that has not
yet been independently vetted for reliability and validity. Nothing else a student
does to demonstrate that she’s met Idaho standards counts. Nothing else a
school does to provide a rich curriculum and vibrant learning experiences counts.



And while the federal government requires adequate yearly progress for schools,
it has no mechanism (nor any desire) to monitor the actual growth of students.
It’s not about student growth at all. Instead it uses comparisons of totally different
groups of students. Federal AYP says, “This year’s 4th graders must score
better than last year’s 4th graders. If not, your school fails.”



The federal government also says, “95% of every group of students must take
the test or you fail.” Here’s how that federal regulation impacted Edgemont
Elementary in Idaho Falls. 95.35% of the tested students demonstrated
proficiency in math, unfortunately only 94.34% of the students took the math
portion of the test. The feds say that school fails—by .66% of one data point.



In Idaho there are 36 ways for schools to demonstrate AYP. There are 36 ways
to fail. Miss anyone data point and you fail. That’s right, have a 97% success
rate, as Edgemont Elementary did, and you fail.



The federal law requires every group of students to meet AYP. Schools with a
significant population of Limited English Proficiency students have huge hurdles
to overcome. Every time a school succeeds with an LEP student the student is
removed from the LEP group leaving the students who are not yet proficient in
English to take the test. The likely result? The school fails.



The so-called NCLB act has promised equal education for all but it’s a one-size
fits-all approach that offers little help and inadequate resources for a hungry child
with a poor, single parent and a violent home who may have trouble focusing on
phonics each morning. Research conducted in 10 states found funding increases
of 24% or more are needed to help schools help those children meet the law’s
proficiency mandates.



The President has asked for a $1 billion increase in Title I, but the research
shows at least $84.5 billion is needed if we really mean to leave no child behind.
Without the resources to provide a system of support we’re setting up many
children for failure.



The so-called NCLB accountability system assumes that improved standardized
test scores are the right goals for public education in a democratic society. Aren’t
there other, equally if not more valuable goals to set for our schools? Shouldn’t
public schools provide opportunities-opportunities in the sciences, humanities
and the arts? Shouldn’t they produce good citizens, strong family members,
contributors to society, and people engaged in civic participation and democratic
governance? These important public school missions are not measured in the
federal accountability system. Perhaps it’s because they can’t be measured on
one multiple choice standardized test.



This law needs to be fixed.



We offer these 4 suggestions to begin to fix NCLB and increase chances of
success for Idaho’s schools.



I. Report LEP students as “language minority students” to create a stable group

whose progress can be followed overtime. That way the tested group will

include a balance of new LEP students and former LEP students who have

progressed to English proficiency.



2. Change the law in a way that stops comparisons of one group of students
against another and instead determines AYP based on individual student
progress toward proficiency.



3. Add a clause to the law that specifies that multiple measures of student
academic achievement must be part of a state’s accountability system and
determine proficiency based on anyone or a combination of the indicators.



4. Make the law’s sanctions regimen more less punitive, more flexible and
focused on the students who are most in need. Distinguish between schools
failing to make AYP for the entire student body and schools that achieve AYP for
the entire student body but fail to meet it for a particular subgroup. Sanctions and
remedies should target the subgroups not meeting AYP rather than students who
have.



If enacted we believe these changes will help improve chances of success for
Idaho students and schools.



Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this issue so critical to public
education.

Testimony Dr. Phil Kelly, a BSU professor of policy, said he feels the 36 cell matrix is
problematic. If a school fails to meet one requirement of the 36, they are
placed on a “need improvement” list. He said he also feels there is too
much focus on compliance.
Testimony Pam Peck, a teacher at Pocatello High School said the label of a “failing
school” is demoralizing. She also feels the penalties are too harsh.
Testimony Sam Byrd, Consultant for Council on Hispanic Education, said the gap is
not being closed on the 40% of Latino and Tribal students who are
dropping out. The Council supports accountability and said they realize
that they must do their part.
Testimony Dan Hawkley, represents “Leave No Mother Behind”, said that a child who
is left behind at home is never going to catch up. He said this group feels
NCLB burdens educators with a task they cannot fulfill.
Testimony Patricia Burnham, a parent as well as a teacher, said she is amazed that
the Federal government can dictate curriculum. She said if Idaho takes
the funding for NCLB, she feels the government has the right to
restructure the schools and also that the privacy of the home and the
parents are at risk. She said the state needs to wake up.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder announced that the video referred to by Jan Lesko
will be available at the Senate Education office. He adjourned the
meeting at 11:10 a.m.






DATE: January 21, 2004
TIME: 8:00 am
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
Call to order The Joint meeting was called to order by Representative Barraclough at
8:10 a.m. He welcomed everyone to the meeting which will address the
Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT).
Testimony First to speak was Dr. Randy Thompson from the Office of the State
Board. Inserted in the minutes is a copy of his remarks.



Review of ISAT

The Board originally embarked on creation of new provisions for standards,
assessment, and accountability in 1997. Standards have been adopted and are
being implemented in all Idaho public schools. A comprehensive assessment
program was put in place in 2001. The final step in this effort is establishing
accountability measures that will tie the effort together and ensure compliance
with the No Child Left Behind Act. The Board appointed the Accountability

Commission to bring forward recommendations in this area.



Northwest Evaluation Association was selected as the vendor to administer to the
ISAT in January 2002. In addition to offering a diagnostic test in the fall of each
year, the State Board of Education and the State Department of Education
worked collaboratively to revise the fall version into an on-grade level test that
could be used for the No Child Left Behind requirements and administered in the
spring.



Process used to build the ISAT (Validity)

The spring version of the ISAT entails numerous steps to ensure that the test is
measuring what we expect it to measure. In other words, these are the steps
taken to ensure the validity of the test.



I. The process begins with the valid Northwest Evaluation Association test and
(R)asch Un(it) (RIT) unit of analysis and scale as the anchors. NWEA is a non-profit education assessment organization, serving more than 1100 member
districts nationwide that represent more than 3 million students tested per year.
The validity of the RIT scale has been established by numerous studies and
reviews over the past 25 years.

2. Next, Idaho teachers and content specialists from the State Department of
Education (SDE) are brought together to write items that are targeted to assess
particular Idaho standards. The item writing session begins with instructions on
writing quality items, how to match to the state standards and avoid bias.

3. The teachers and SDE content specialists review each test question and
determine the Idaho standard alignment of each question.

4. Next, the questions are checked by several teams at NWEA for potential
cultural or gender bias and rewritten if bias is found. An example would be
changing the word chandelier to light fixture to be better understood by all
students.

5. Each new item is then field tested with Idaho students and compared
statistically to the original bank of validated test questions. In this way, we
guarantee that the new questions share validity with the original bank of
questions. This is an extremely rigorous calibration process.

6. Items that show a cultural bias toward a particular group or show high
statistical variance are rewritten and field tested again or discarded.

7. Questions that pass this validity and reliability process are then compiled into a
bank of questions that can then be selected for the ISAT.

8. More teachers and the SDE content specialists are brought together to select
items for the spring ISAT. They are given the Idaho State Standards as a
reference. Each question in the bank already has an Idaho State Standard
number reference, however, if the test builder or content specialist disagree and
believe the question best measures another standard, it is revised upon that
recommendation.

9. The teachers continue to select items to build the entire on-grade level portion
of the ISAT. The SDE content specialists are given the final review of any
questions.

10. As a last step, a group of Idaho citizens, representing ethnic, racial and
special program groups, conducts a sensitivity review on each test question
selected and makes suggestions to eliminate and replace questions that contain
potential gender, ethnic or other biases.

11. Additional items are chosen and the SDE content specialists review and
approve any final changes.



ISAT related to state standards

Alignment Study Summary

The alignment of ISAT to Idaho Standards represents the degree to which the
questions on the test ask questions that are directly tied to the material included
in the standards. The alignment study conducted by the Northwest Regional
Education Lab (NWREL) has resulted in news reports that indicate that ISAT is
not aligned to our standards. The analysis of alignment can be confusing. The
following is a summarization of data pulled from the report.



First level of alignment -Do the questions on the ISAT link to Idaho
Standards
?

NWREL study indicates:

For the Spring 2003 Reading test:

.In 4th grade- 1 item is not linked 98%

.In 8th grade -0 items are not linked 100%

.In l0th grade- 0 items are not linked 100%



For the Spring 2003 Math test:

.In 4th grade- 0 items not linked 100%

.In 8th grade- 2 items not linked 95%

.In lOth grade -3 items not linked 95%



Second level of alignment -Are questions present for all standards?

NWREL study indicates:

For the Spring reading test

4th Reading

Standard # of items
1 93
2 2
3 6
4 0
5 3



8th Reading

Standard # of items
1 52
2 4
3 5
4 19
5 3



lOth Reading

Standard # of items
1 94
2 2
3 3
4 0
5 8






4th Math

Standard # of items
1 15
2 10
3 8
4 2
5 5
6 9



8th Math

Standard # of items
1 16
2 3
3 6
4 5
5 5
6 6
7 2



lOth Math

Standard # of items
1 14
2 5
3 9
4 16
5 8
6 6
7 2



Key Questions:

What standards are best addressed by ISAT?

What standards are best addressed in the classroom?



Comments from NWREL

Study Chair made the following comments: “The ISAT is a good test” and “Idaho
is right where it needs to be at this time.”



Future Actions

Construct new test items with the alignment study as a guide.

Conduct new alignment study based on the Spring 2004 test.



Reliability of the Test

a. Average reliability and validity

b. Test Blueprint design (Under ISAT tab in binders)



As described above, building the test is a rigorous process to ensure its validity.
A statistical process then determines the reliability of the test. These statistics tell
us how confident we can be that the test is a consistent measure of student
academic performance.



Reliability -The ability to provide consistent results when measuring the student~
several times. Reliability is measured on a scale from 0 to 1 with 1 being the
highest degree of reliability. An acceptable level of reliability is anything greater
than .80.



Reliability Question: Would a student who took a test several times get the
same results each time?

Coefficient Alpha -This statistical test that provides a measurement of reliability.
The coefficient alpha listed on the report is a measure of actual performance on
test items by Idaho students. A random sample of 1200 students was used to
calculate this number. For example, a coefficient alpha of .800 or greater gives
the tester confidence that if they took this test again, they would receive the
same results.



Average Coefficient Alpha = .847

Low Coefficient Alpha =.804 (Language Usage, grade 10)

High Coefficient Alpha = .902 (Math, grade 10)



Classification Accuracy -This number measures how accurately a student is
classified. For example, a classification accuracy number of .925 means that 92.5
times out of lOO, a student would be correctly classified as proficient if he/she
was indeed proficient. This measure provide an initial indication of the validity of
the exam.



Average classification accuracy =.906

Low Classification Accuracy = .895 (Math, grade 4)

High Classification Accuracy = .925 (Reading, grade 10)



Relationship to NCLB

The ISAT is used in the spring to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind.
The reading and math tests give a percent proficient and a participation rate for
each school, district and the appropriate subgroups, as defined by federal law.
The Act requires that the state administer an on-grade level test in each grade 3-8 and once in high school. Idaho revised the adaptive test from NWEA and
created a blended test to meet this requirement. In spring 2003, the blended tests
were administered in grades 4, 8 and 10. In spring 2004, grades 3 and 7 will be
added and finally, in spring 2005, the State of Idaho will be in full compliance with
the federal requirement by adding a grade 5 and 6 blended test.



Why have an exit exam? Supporting Research



The Center on Education Policy report on exit exams in August 2003, reviewed
current research on exit exams and found the following information:

The body of research regarding exit exams in largely inconclusive on whether
exit exams increase dropout rates or significantly improve student performance.

While many states have had exit exams for two decades, the type of exam has
changed. Early exams were more likely to be minimum competency tests. With
the movement to standards- based testing (a more difficult test), the research is
still relatively new. From 2002-2003, states administering minimum competency
exams went from 9 to 6 and those states implementing standards-based or end-of-course exit exams rose from 10-14. By 2008, only 3 states plan to use
minimum competency exams.



Minimum Competency Exams -generally focus on basic skills below the high
school level.

Standards-Based Exams -are aligned with state standards and are generally
targeted at the high school level

End-of-Course Exams -are tied to the content of specific courses at the high
school level (i.e. finals).



Therefore, the research on standards-based exit exams is relatively new.



This is a summary of the research showing positive outcomes of exit exams.






Dropout and Graduation Rates

.A large majority of students (90%) eventually pass the exit exams in time to
graduate (although this doesn’t reflect the dropouts). Racial, ethnic and income
disparities in pass rates shrink when there are additional opportunities for testing.

.Some studies conclude that exit exams are associated with higher dropout rates,
but the “causal connections are unclear.”

.The results on dropout rates are inconclusive for a key reasons:

.Dropout rates are calculated in so many different ways (GED completions,

retention from grade to grade, etc.)

.Much of the research has not isolated other factors such as home, school and

economic factors influencing a student’s decision to drop out.

.With the introduction of exit exams also often comes more stringent course

requirements and this effect has not been studied in depth.



.Lastly, policies to retain students in a grade need to be factored into the
research.

.”In Minnesota, Davenport and colleagues (2002) investigated graduation and

dropout rates to see whether any changes occurred after the introduction of the

state’s new exit exam, the Basic Skills Test. They did not find any overall

negative impacts.” (CEP, 26)

.Massachusetts just implemented an exit exam requirement for the class of 2003.

There were early warnings that the dropout rate had increased significantly. “One

month later, however, the Massachusetts Department of Education reported that

the overall dropout rates did not spike up significantly for the class of 2003, as

many observers had anticipated. The dropout rate for the lOth grades in the class

of 2003 -the first class required to pass the MCAS to graduate -was 3.5% in

2000-2001, compared to 3.7% during the previous school year. The stable
dropout rates, along with a decline in the percentage of Hispanic students quitting
school, countered speculation that the MCAS would cause a surge in dropouts.”
(CEP,27)



Teaching and Curriculum

.Exit exams encourage schools to cover more of the content in state standards,
better align the curricula with state standards and add remedial and other special
courses for students who have failed or at risk of failing.



.The Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) concluded in a
review of California’s exit exam is having a “profound” impact on instruction. The
study also found:

.Many high schools and middle schools initiated new courses and adopted new

textbooks for existing courses in order to better align their instruction with state

content standards.

.Schools added a number of new remedial or supplemental courses and with a

focus on Limited English Proficient (LEP) and special education students.

.Principals and teachers interviewed said the exit exam was the driving factor for

their schools to make these changes.



.The National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy (NBETPP) did a
study of states with exit exams and those without.

.40% of the teachers in exit exam states said their schools’ test results influenced

their teaching on a daily basis vs. only 10% in states with exams not used for

graduation.

.The exit exam states reported the strongest test-related effects:

.Removal of unneeded content, renewed emphasis on important content

and addition of important topics not previously taught.



Student Motivation/Improving Scores

.Raymond and Hanushek (2003) found that NAEP scores actually improved at a

faster rate in states with strong accountability systems (they found increases in
all

states where Amrein and Berliner found decreases).

.Camoy and Loeb (Stanford researchers) assert that exit exams have
encouraged

academic achievement. They concluded that state accountability programs that

include exit exams are “probably more helpful than harmful.”

.Camoy and Loeb found that the stronger the state accountability plan, the larger

the gains in NAEP 4th and 8th grade math scores. In addition, African American

and Hispanic students in those states with exit exams tended to make greater

improvements (on the NAEP) than white students.

.Berliner (the researcher whose study showed exit exams did not have positive

effects) said, “It wouldn’t surprise me if we find high-stakes testing has positive

results in some states and negative results in others.” (Viadero, 2003)



“Rarely does a single study in education produce unequivocal and durable
results -multiple methods, applied over time, are usually required to answer a
scientific question.” (Shavelsor and Towne, 2001)



Legal issues

OSBE staff reviewed a study of legal issues related to exit exams. The list below
highlights the areas in which suits have been brought. Issues and steps Idaho
has taken to address liability include:



.Issue One: “instructional validity” -this represents a close correspondence
between test content and instructional content

o Protective action: as outlined in construction steps outline above



.Issue Two: “access to learning” -giving enough time and exposure to newly
developed standards

o Protective action: Standards were fully implemented in 2001. With a 2006

implementation year students will have had five years to prepare.



.Issue Three: “not properly addressing the needs of LEP and special needs
students”

o Protective action: The legislature has appropriated $4.5 million for the last
several years to fund programs to improve learning for LEP students and
currently the State Board has organized a subcommittee to develop programs to
eliminate the learning gaps for these students



.Issue Four: “errors in scoring”

o Protective action: Staff from OSBE and SDE conducts regular training for
school personnel on the implementation and management of lSAT testing.
NWEA

conducts regular tests to identify tests with results that are invalid or inaccurate,

and NWEA and OSBE staff are creating for implementation this spring, a data

bridge that will assure that all student data is submitted with codes that are

accurate and consistent with state coding requirements.

Testimony Next to speak was Mr. Gage Kingsbury, Director/Research of Northwest
Evaluation Association. Attached is an NWEA Fact Sheet; Research
Brief: The State of State Standards; and a page titled “Bias and Sensitivity
in Regards to Item and Test Development”. Inserted in the minutes is a
copy of his testimony.



While there are a substantial number of policy issues that must be

addressed concerning the use of a test for qualifying students for graduation,

there are also issues related to the measurement quality of the test that

must be considered. This testimony will concentrate on these measurement

issues. Specifically, it will address the following four questions:

.How does the use of a systemic measurement scale influence the use

of the test for graduation decisions?

.Is the selection of test questions done in a manner to assure that the

test matches well to the Idaho content standards?

.Is the test able to make accurate decisions concerning student

performance?

.Is the test comparable in its measurement characteristics to tests

used for graduation qualifying in other states?



While answers to these questions will not guide policy, they may inform

policy.



How does the use of a systemic measurement scale influence the use

of the test for graduation decisions?



The measurement scale for the ISAT is a growth scale that allows students

to be accurately compared from grade to grade. In addition, the scale

allows educators to observe a students progress relative to grade-Ievel

standards, all the way up to the high school graduation qualifying standards.

Since the ISA T is first administered in grade 2, this means that educators

have eight years before the student has to take the first ISAT high school

test.



If a student is not identified as proficient in the early grades, it should serve

as an “early warning system” to identify student who may need additional

assistance to meet standards for graduation. Given this warning and

appropriate resources for remediation, almost any student who makes the

effort needed should be able to succeed in Idaho schools.



The measurement scale and the fairly consistent proficiency standards

established by Idaho educators provide the ISAT with a measurement

platform that should reduce the stakes associated with the graduation

qualifying experience. If the early warning is used to help those students

that need it we should know well in advance whether a student will be likely

to pass the test. If we work to help the students that need it, the stakes

associated with the test during high school should be perceived as relatively

low by the students.



Is the selection of test questions done in a manner to assure that the

test matches well to the Idaho content standards?



While this issue has been covered in substantial detail in Randy Thompson’s

testimony, it is worth restating that every item chosen for use on the high

school ISAT is selected by Idaho educators, to match a specific content

standard. This provides a level of content alignment that goes substantially

past the alignment that can be found in an off-the-shelf test such as the

Iowa Test of Basic Skills.



While no two educators will fully agree on the coverage of the standards by

a set of test questions, the process has created ISAT tests that are well

aligned with standards. It has also assured the standards will be measured

efficiently, without spending more student and teacher time than necessary .



Is the test able to make accurate decisions concerning student

performance?



For a graduation standards test, the most important measurement question is

whether it can consistently place students into the correct performance

category. The high school ISAT is designed to do much more than place

students into categories, but it is also designed to be extremely accurate for

categorization. The classification accuracy for the high school ISAT in the

spring 2003 test was

.92 in language usage

.92 in reading

.91 in mathematics



These numbers indicate the percentage of students who would be expected

to be placed into the same proficiency category if they were tested more

than once. For the ISAT, more than 9 out of 10 students would be placed

into the same proficiency level if they were tested twice. This means that a

barely proficient student would rarely be classified as not proficient. As the

number of opportunities increases, this probability of incorrect classification

decreases rapidly. In the ISAT system, a student would have at least five

chances to pass the test prior to graduation. Given the classification

accuracy of the ISAT, the probability of a proficient student being identified

as not proficient in five consecutive tests is less than .00001. The process

established for the use of the ISAT as a graduation qualifying test assures

that students who should pass, will pass.



Is the test comparable in its measurement characteristics to tests used

for graduation qualifying in other states?



The federal government does not require states to have a graduation

qualifying examination and does not specify the characteristics that a

graduation test should have. Most of our information concerning graduation

tests comes from what is being done in other states, and what case law has

told us. One example of this type of comparison is the 14-state study

comparing performance standards from state to state recently completed by

NWEA. This study is attached.



It is useful to compare the ISAT measurement characteristics to that of

graduation tests in other states. Because Florida and Texas have had

graduation tests in place for a substantial period of time, they are interesting

examples for comparison to the ISAT .The tests used in these states have

very similar measurement characteristics to the ISAT .The classification

accuracy of the Florida tests in 2002 is documented as .88 for reading and

.91 for mathematics. The classification accuracy for the Texas tests in 2003

is documented as “the high .80s to the low .90s”. These numbers are

virtually identical to those for the ISAT test. Comparisons of reliability of test

scores show the same level of similarity.



In visual comparison with other states reporting similar statistics, it is clear

that the high school ISAT has the same or higher measurement accuracy

than tests used for graduation decisions in other states.



Some concluding remarks



As other speakers have mentioned, a test used as a portion of the

procedure to decide whether a student will graduate must be afford the

students affected an opportunity to learn. In Idaho, the current content

standards have been in place for several years and so students have had

some opportunity to learn using the current standards.



States have substantial autonomy with respect to requiring a test for

graduation. Approximately half of the states do require students to pass a

test of some sort. In the past, school districts have often had graduation

tests, separate from the state. In almost all of these cases, students have

been offered an alternative path to graduation. These alternative paths are

commonly used by students who may be new to the school system, and by

students who suffer from debilitating test anxiety.



I would caution against adding too many elements to the graduation tests.

Some states with requirements that students pass all of a set of

assessments have found that few students are able to pass every element.

Testimony Dr. Carolyn Keeler, chair of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and
appointed by Dr. Howard, testified next. Inserted in the minutes is a copy
of her testimony.



Chairman Schroeder and Chairman Barraclough and members of the House and

Senate. I am Dr. Carolyn Keeler, I am Ph.D. in Education with an emphasis in

statistics from the University of Idaho. I have 35 years experience in public

education, teaching grades K-12 and administering federal programs at the local

and state level. I currently teach research, evaluation, tests and measurement,
and statistics at the University of Idaho. As a past director of the Title I Migrant

program for the state, I am in favor of holding schools accountable for educating

all children. I want teachers to use the results of the ISAT to help children
achieve who are struggling in school whether it is because of a language barrier
or another special need.



I am here today to talk about the ISAT as a requirement for high school
graduation as chair of the Technical Advisory Committee, appointed by Dr.
Marilyn Howard.

This committee is charged with:

“Providing technical information on each of the components of the Idaho

assessment system”, in other words, we are working for the State, for you, as an

external review committee to do two things:

1. to meet the requirements of the compliance agreement with the federal

government for an external review of the State Assessment system and

2. to ensure that the test is valid, reliable, fair and unbiased.

.Both of these result in protections for the State from liability in the case of

students being denied diplomas due to the ISAT’s use as the sole measure

of high school achievement.



We have spent more than a year working as an external body for the State to

evaluate the documentation provided by the test contractor, the Northwest

Evaluation Association. The committee is made up of experts in large scale

testing, test validity and reliability, and issues surrounding special needs
students.

We are: Dr. David Francis, areas of expertise, assessment and reading,
consultant to State Departments nationally and from the University of Houston in
Texas, so familiar with high stakes assessment required for graduation from high
school; Dr. Skip Kifer, University of Kentucky, another state involved in statewide

assessment, an expert in large scale testing and test validity, who has coined the

term “consequential validity” to apply to tests like the ISAT graduation test;

Dr. Gary Hargett, whose expertise with limited English and minority students

makes him a good evaluator of test bias in large scale assessment. The list goes

on, including Drs. Leffler and Kozlow in charge of Program Development and

Assessment Programs for the Northwest Regional Educational Lab. We also had
a State Board of Education representative present at all of our meetings and

representatives of the testing company, the Northwest Evaluation Association.



These are the things we are concerned about in making sure that the test given
to

Idaho’s children is a fair and accurate measure of Idaho’s adopted, Standards-

based curriculum.

1. Test validity, that is, the test measures the adopted curriculum represented

by the Standards. This has not been established for two reasons:

.1) not all Standards are covered by the ISAT due to its limited

capabilities as a multiple-choice test, in fact approximately half of the

Standards are not addressed by any items on the ISAT 4, 8, and 10.

.2) the spring 2004, ISAT l0th grade test is a new test with no

established validity.

.Recommend that at least three years of data be obtained before making

this a part of a graduation requirement.

2. Test reliability, that the test measures achievement consistently across

items and test administrations. Of concern is:

.The Kuder-Richardson test of “internal consistency” reliability has

been conducted by NWEA and shows a high level of reliability for the

sample data. However, if a test is not valid, it can not be considered a

reliable measure. No “stability” reliability, which must be measured

over time, has been established.

.Classification accuracy has been presented by NWEA as .90 or better,

however, the committee has not seen the data or analysis to back this

up. Even if true, this conclusion means that l out of every 10 students

who have in fact achieved at a passing level will not receive a

“proficient” or higher score on the ISAT 10 just due to errors in

measurement. Statistical comparisons of difference are needed for the

reference group and each ethnic group, LEP, and Special Education

classification as proficient and advanced, i.e. “passing”.

3. Tests are without bias, in other words that no minority group will be

treated unfairly by any of the tests. NWEA has defended the test

writing process. However, student’s scores on the actual exam

need to be analyzed by a statistical test called the Differential Item

Functioning procedure. The evidence provided by NWEA shows

that a number of items function differently for the majority group

vs. the minority group. Of concern:

.NWEA eliminated the highly discriminating items from the analysis

before running the data. We need to ask why.

.All items, by accepted test validation practices, need to be examined

for the reason behind this differential in performance by looking at the

test content or characteristics for possible bias. An example I can offer

is an item on the lOth grade, or High School Mathematics ISAT that

NWEA acknowledges is biased toward the reference group, in this

case males: “The item named the baseball star Willie Stargel with a

number of “at bats” and a “number of hits” given. The question asked

what his batting average was. Males found this item much easier.”

[than did females]. Other items identified by the analysis favored girls,

non-Hispanics, etc. On the ISAT 10, a large number of items need to

be examined.

4. That there is a recorded process for test development and review.

.NWEA has provided answers to some of our questions, particularly in

documenting the processes they have used. This is necessary but not

sufficient if challenged in court. Some requests which have been met:

1. the process for test development, the process for coding sub-group

classifications, and definitions for non-tested and invalid counts by

subgroups

2. the panel process for review of test items for bias in the writing

stage of test development and

3. documentation of the process used for setting “cut scores” to

determine proficient levels at all grade levels tested, 2-10.



More time is needed to get the ISAT in good shape, for the testing company to do

their work and the Technical Advisory Committee to do theirs. If kids don’t

graduate as a result of not passing the ISAT, the State is going to be sued and
we

will lose. I am not an attorney but there are some court cases that clearly show
that we have not done all the work necessary for this test to stand up in court.
And it’s going to cost the State a lot of money to go to court and more if we lose.
Other

states have experienced challenges to withholding diplomas on the basis of a
high school level test and some have lost those cases.



More time is needed before implementing this test as a requirement for

graduation. We are forced by NCLB into the use of test that is still in

development, BUT WE ARE NOT FORCED TO IMPLEMENT AN UNTESTED

TEST AS A REQUIREMENT FOR GRADUATION. Are we really going to fail

students who do everything right except pass a single test?



You are potentially making a decision with far-reaching ramifications. More work

is needed to ensure that the test is valid, reliable, and fair and unbiased. We feel

that the State should not be making decisions based on a single assessment and

especially, not on the basis of a test that has not been shown to be a valid and

unbiased.



An alternative might be to consider other measures so that we are not making a

decision on a single measure. You could specify other measures of achievement

already in place, such as:

1. passing the 42 credits required for graduation plus

2. passing the DWA and DMA at the high school level,

3. some level of achievement as indicated by GPA or

4. attendance requirements as well as

5. the ISAT passage.

This would allow for some alternative route for graduation; perhaps indicating

that graduation be based on meeting 3 out of 4 or 4 out of 5 requirements.

It is UNFAIR to hold kids accountable for a test we are unsure meets the strict

Standards for testing and test development.



There are established criteria for the construction, use, and legal application of

results of tests like the ISAT. The committee has requested documentation from

the testing company to meet these requirements to satisfy both the federal

government and to protect the State from liability in the case of the test results

being used as a requirement for graduation.



The external review committee has not had an opportunity to meet since the

receipt of the reports from NWEA last week. However, this is an ongoing
process.

It is critical that this work be completed and that NWEA is held to its contractual

obligations and to accepted test validation processes.



There is danger in making graduation decisions for students prior to a complete

analysis of the test and with some ISAT tests still in development. This springs

ISAT 10 is a new test -it has never been given. It seems relevant to look at the

criteria from two recent court cases in Texas and Florida:

The courts provided guidance for graduation testing Programs in several areas.

They recommended that:

I. The test has established,

a. Validity, i.e. the test measures the State adopted curriculum

b. Reliability, i.e. the test is consistent over items and time

c. That it meets the Test Standards established as Professional standards by the
AERA, APA and the Council on Measurement in Education.

2. The requirements of a mandated State curriculum and notice to

stakeholders of the curriculum on which the test is based through

dissemination to parents, teachers and other stakeholders well in advance

of the graduation requirement.

3. The test has a track record, i.e. it is not a recently established test but has

been administered for some time period prior to the graduation requirement.

4. That there is no subgroup which can claim discriminating educational practice
i.e. segregated schools.

5. That students of whom passage is required for graduation had the opportunity
to learn the required content and skills, referred to as opportunity to learn.



We need more time to meet these criteria before putting passage of the high

school ISAT in place as a requirement for graduation.

Thank you for your time and attention to this important decision.

Chairman Schroeder and Chairman Barraclough, I will stand for questions.

Recess Chairman Barraclough announced there would be a five minute recess.
Testimony The Chairman called the meeting to order and introduced the next
speaker, Dr. Marilyn Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Inserted in the minutes is Dr. Howard’s testimony.



Greetings to Chairs and Committee Members.



I am pleased to see Dr. Gage Kingsbury from NWEA (Northwest Evaluation
Association, the testing vendor for the state) here today. I want you to note that
he is sitting next to Dr. David Breithaupt from the State Department of Education
(SDE.) These two men have similar jobs and they have worked very closely
together during the last year to resolve many of the problems that emerged from
our first round of testing.



You might ask, how did we get to where we are today- in some disagreement
about the current status of the test and what decision the legislature should make
about making it a high school graduation requirement?



The Standards and Assessment Commission had originally planned for a test
that would measure students in the fall and then measure them in the spring.
These tests would inform instruction and would give an indication of how much
individual students had learned during the year. They chose NWEA which had
such a measure and which was already operating in a number of Idaho schools.
Tests were given by computer and the difficulty of each test was adjusted up or
down based on whether students were answering questions correctly. In other
words, the students were being tested by answering questions considered
appropriate for someone performing at their academic level. These tests are
called “adaptive” tests and are often referred to “levels” tests.



The members of the assessment commission and the company itself believed
either that the tests would meet the federal requirement or that the USDOE
(United States Department of Education) could be persuaded to accept the tests
as a substitute for what the federal plans called for. I know that people were
contacted and trips were made to Washington, but to no avail. The feds stood
firm. They wanted an on-grade on-level test. Instead of knowing how much a
student had learned they wanted to know if a student in 4th grade could read at
4th grade level and if he could not, they wanted pressure on the school to make
sure that target was reached.



Now a problem emerged. NWEA had no experience as a company with
developing or managing the type of test that was required by NCLB, (No Child
Left Behind.) They lacked understanding of or perhaps underestimated the
complexity of what was ahead.



NWEA agreed to develop on-level on-grade tests as part of a compliance
agreement that the SDE negotiated with the USDOE about two years ago. Some
of you may remember that there was concern about losing federal dollars at that
time. The compliance agreement is a contract the SDE held with the USDOE that
said that we would fully meet the requirements of NCLB by 2005 and that we
would do it by phasing in the required tests over a three-year period. The USDOE
understood that we couldn’t be expected to start from zero and get to full
implementation immediately.



NWEA agreed to develop and deliver tests that provided both adaptive and on-grade tests to schools. Adaptive tests were already available from NWEA for
grades 2-10. On-grade on-level tests were to be developed. Those tests began
last spring at grades 4,8, and 10. This year 3 and 7 will be added and 5 and 6 a
year from now. NWEA did not have staff to develop test questions. Their model
had been to have teachers in districts they served contribute or select questions.
The job of managing that fell to the content specialists at the SDE. The SDE
specialists identified teachers who were invited to come to Boise to select
questions. (Insert: By the way, there was no compensation for the teachers who
came to do this work or for their districts for substitute costs.) This was a
frustrating time for all involved. I won’t list all the problems but those involved in
the process knew that important steps in test development had been skipped to
meet the time pressures of creating a test in just a few days. They were also
frustrated with the quality of the questions from which they were to choose.



I have expressed on a number of times my frustration and that of my staff of not
being able to influence the process. Because the testing company was not hired
by the SDE the company felt no responsibility for taking orders from the SDE.
Therefore, the directions and advice of the department in terms of data collection
and data management fell on deaf ears. And because of that, the State
Department of Education spent six months and the nearly full time attention of
three plus staff members to clean up the data mess left by the company.



The company assures us that they are putting into place processes that won’t
allow that to happen again. They have assured us that they will use the codes
provided by the department in the future. That is yet to be seen. I do know that
the schools in the state are fed up with having to review and re-review their data
charts to find the errors that exist. They were promised quick delivery of data and
an 8-month delay is unacceptable.



The SDE has filled in many gaps. We have written technical manuals for them.
We have contracted for independent studies of the alignment of the company’s
testing structure with that of our standards. We engaged several school districts
in creating a continuum of learning to help teachers work with the standards for
their grade level. We have expressed our opinion that the tests should match our
standards -not that our standards should be adjusted to match the company’s
organization of learning strands. We have had a review of which standards were
tested and which were not. We’ve compared outcomes to other tests to see if
there is a match. And the department is doing a statistical examination of whether
some questions show bias or favoritism to some students over others.



All of these actions are done with the goal of strengthening the credibility of the
test.



There are a number of concerns about whether the tests are appropriate for
special education students. Our very small Special Education department has
been working, even before these tests came into being, to develop standards-based tests for the most severely impaired students. That process just underwent
external review and received strong praise from the evaluator. These tests are to
be used with only 1% of the population- the most severely impaired.



The Special Ed and Title I specialists at the department also helped the company

determine the accommodations and adaptations that are needed in order for
students with special circumstances to access the test. We have also required
the company to furnish the test in Braille. These were all requirements of the
compliance agreement.



I do not know the costs of testing in the state, I believe the SBOE paid the testing

company about $3.5 million. The SDE was billed $500,000 last year in addition to
the payments made by the state board. I think this should be a major concern to
all of us. We were paying less than $1 million 3 years ago for the ITBS that
measured in all areas. Now a conservative estimate is $4 million for ISAT testing
and that doesn’t include any staff time at the SDE. (Insert: The SDE estimates
that adaptive testing for all of Idaho would not have exceeded $1 million if the
charges NWEA was assessing its contracted districts had been extended to the
entire state. The NCLB tests-42 questions at each grade level, plus the capacity
to disaggregate the data would be extra.)



Is the test valid? Dr. Thompson said that it sorts students just as well as other
tests. In other words it sorts students just as they were sorted on the ITBS. I’m
not suggesting a return to ITBS because we do want to have a test that
measures our standards. By the way, it is not surprising that Idaho is scoring “in
the middle of the pack” of groups in 14 states that use NWEA’s test bank. Our cut
scores were set based on the average of that group. In questions of reliability, the
company has posted the results of its internal review online at

http ://www.idahoboardofed.orgsaa/isat/reliability.asp. Answering the question of
whether the tests are biased must go beyond the cursory examination the
company and SBOE have used thus far.



(Insert: When the SDE compared the scores of 4th and 8th graders to those of
Idaho students on the test known as NAEP, National Assessment of Educational
Progress, our students pass scores looked about the same except for 8th grade
math. The 8th grade math ISAT appears to be a much more difficult test than the
NAEP. This observation should cause an examination of the 8th grade ISAT to
be sure it is not unfairly labeling students as non-proficient.)

I am here today to say that we are working to make the ISAT a strong test. It is
not there yet. The lOth grade test was rewritten after last spring’s administration.
In reality, the lOth grade test will be given for the first time this spring. The test
results will have to undergo the same stringent review that has been outlined for
the previous test.



The SDE is not saying this should never be an exiting test. We are saying not
now. The test needs to be administered; the schools need to adjust to it. If it
needs to be made better, we should do that. Our goal is to have a good test and
to stay out of court.



Some things that could put us in court now are the process used to set the cut-scores, the measurement errors of the cut scores, and the adverse impact that a
decision based on the cut-score could have on minority students. (The rule that
courts have used requires that the proportion of students in the lowest performing
minority group who “pass” must be a least 80 percent of the majority students
who pass.)



The SDE believes that what we measure gets taught. We further believe that it is
very important to determine what is important enough to be included on the test
and to what degree those skills should be assessed. That work is underway, but
we are not there yet. I urge that passing the test not be required for graduation at
this time.

Introductions Chairman Barraclough introduced Mr. Craig Olsen, Executive Director of
the J.A. and Katherine Albertson Foundation.



Also introduced was Senator Laird Noh, longest serving Senator in the
Legislature.

Testimony Speaking next was Ms. Kathy Phelan, President of the Idaho Education
Association. Inserted in the minutes is a copy of her testimony.



When I spoke to you about NCLB you may remember that I expressed concern
about making high stakes decisions with one as yet unproven test.



There are those who will argue that allowing multiple opportunities to take a test
means it’s no longer a high stakes test. I disagree. When a single test is used to
make decisions about whether or not an individual may graduate from high
school or whether a school fails to meet federal mandates and must be subjected
to punitive sanctions it is a high stakes test-no matter how many times you’re
allowed to take it.



Our assessment system should include the ISAT as one of multiple ways a
student can demonstrate proficiency. The ISAT by itself should not deny
graduation to any student. The current unproven status of the ISAT test makes it
impossible to make any reliable judgments about our students or our schools on
the basis of that test alone.



Independent validity and reliability studies have yet to be completed. The one

independent evaluation of ISAT, the NW Regional Education Laboratories Leffler
study, found it to be minimally aligned to Idaho standards.



The recent decision of the SBE to require successful completion of the ISAT for
high school graduation holds students accountable for an unproven system. This
decision is likely to have unintended consequences for our schools and our
students.



Research shows that high stakes/exit tests lead to increased dropout rates. At
the October, SBE meeting in Lewiston, Board members reviewed a study from
the Center on Education Policy titled State High School Exit Exams put to the
Test. The research cited at least three studies that offered “evidence that exit
exams are associated with higher dropout rates.”



In addition, that same study shared at the SBE meeting stated that such high
stakes/exit exams might also negatively affect curriculum and instruction
decisions. Specifically, the report noted a number of research studies that found
the use of tests encouraged teachers to “squeeze out content not covered by the
tests.”



As the report states, “the research to date makes plain that exit exams are
certainly not helping to keep students in school.”

Even more alarming, a recent study conducted by the Education Policy Studies

Laboratory found that after high-stakes graduation exams were implemented in
28 states, ACT, SAT and AP scores declined, suggesting that high-stakes tests
may inhibit rather than foster academic growth



We realize that a number of decisions that went into development of the rules
came as a result of federal regulations in the so-called “No Child Left Behind”
Act. However, an exit test is not mandated by the federal government. Idaho
could comply with the federal law by setting proficiency scores, as required by
NCLB, but not tying those proficiency scores to a student’s ability to graduate.
Instead, all graduation decisions can be made where they should be made, at the
local school district governed by local citizens.



We’re concerned that hinging graduation on successful completion of the ISAT
will create in Idaho the same kinds of negative unintended consequences that
have appeared in other states.



Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this issue so critical to Idaho’s public
school students.

Testimony Next on the agenda was Ms. Kathy Stetson with NWEA. She stated that
she feels NWEA is capable of delivering the test.
Testimony Tom Luna, a member of the Idaho Assessment and Accounting
Commission, spoke next. He said over the past ten years over 300
people from all walks of life have been involved in this effort. He feels
allowing students to leave high school without the proper skills is high
stakes.
Testimony Dr. Bob Haley, Legislative Liaison for the Department of Education, said
that this is not the year to reduce the technical budget with the ISAT
requirements and ISIMS coming online this year. He is also concerned
about libraries being closed at some schools while the ISAT is given.
Testimony Brian Crouch, a consultant and former history teacher, encouraged the
committee to not focus on what is on the test, as education is more than
dissemination of information. He feels students need to become good
American citizens and high level critical thinkers.
Testimony Karen Vauk, a teacher and Micron employee, and also representing IACI,
stated she felt the Idaho Assessment and Accountability Commission did
a thorough job.
Testimony Sam Byrd, Consultant for the Tribal-Latino Caucus, testified next.
Inserted in the minutes is a copy of his testimony and the Fact Sheet from
Tribal, Latino & English Language Learners In Idaho.



Tribal-Latino Caucus Statement on the Idaho Standards Achievement Test
(lSAT)



We welcome the commitment to systematically test student achievement in our
schools. We believe that an ISAT, if proven to be valid, reliable, and free from
cultural bias, offers a useful measure of the success or failure of our educational
system and individual students.



However, we would consider it the gravest of injustices if our students were
denied diplomas for failing to meet the standards expected of them before the
school system had overcome its failure to meet the standards expected of it to
prepare our students. The ISAT should be used just to hold the educational
system accountable for preparing our students. Only after the educational

system is meeting its own standards can the ISAT be appropriately used to hold
individual students accountable.



In particular, the school system must do its part to close the gap between the
achievement of students from the population at large and that of Latino and
Native American students. Half of Latino and Native American students failed the
ISAT pilot last year, a finding consistent with years of other standardized test
results. It is simply unacceptable for the educational system to deny a diploma to
half of Latino and Native American students, or anything remotely close to

half.



At least since the time of a consent decree in the wake of a federal court ruling
over 20 years ago, the state board of education and the state department of
education have acknowledged their responsibility for closing this gap, and yet, as
the ISAT shows, the gap persists. The No Child Left Behind Act further codifies,
as a matter national policy, that state and local school systems are accountable
for preparing our students.



We note that an unintended consequence of the ISAT could be to increase the
already alarmingly high rate at which Latino and Native American students drop
out of school. If the school system is struggling to fulfill its responsibilities to
prepare students to achieve high standards, it will be tempting to not work as
hard to keep those students who are struggling in school. It will be important to
make renewed efforts to keep Native American and Latino students in school in
the

context of high stakes testing.



We declare our united and deep resolve to hold the state education system
accountable to the standards of responsibility it has for closing the gap in our
students’ achievement and dropout rates. We believe that the governor, the
legislature, the state board of education, the state department of education,
school districts, schools and individual teachers each need to do their part to help
improve the achievement of our students.



As leaders, educators and parents we also recognize the fundamental
responsibility we have for the achievement of our students. We commit ourselves
to doing our part to support our students and promote their achievement of high
academic standards.



We also commit ourselves to working with the legislature and others who hold
positions of responsibility in the educational system. Working together, with
sufficient resources dedicated to the task, we believe that we can significantly
advance the educational achievement of Idaho’s Latino and Native American
students. We believe that nothing on the state’s agenda is more important.



FACT SHEET

TRIBAL. LATINO & ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN IDAHO

.The Hispanic population in Idaho has risen 25% in the last five years.



.In 2002-2003 10.8% or 26,966 of Idaho’s public school students were

Hispanic; and 1.3% or 3,026 students were Native American, and 19,649

students were English language learners (ELL).



.In 1979 the Idaho Migrant Council filed a lawsuit against the State Board of

Education that was settled out of court in 1983, and resulted in a consent

decree that sought equitable an appropriate education for limited English

proficient students.



.Since 1983, the Idaho Department of Education began collecting and

publishing data on ELL students.



.In 1995 the Legislature appropriated $1 million allocation with intent to

“support… programs for students with non-English proficiency.”



.Since 1995, the English Language Learner student population has increased

from 6,848 students, to 19,649 ELL students identified in 2003-2004.



.During 2003-2004, 91% of Idaho’s 19,649 ELL students were reported to be

Spanish speakers, followed by Native American, Serbo-Croatian, Russian,

Chinese, and Vietnamese ELL students.



.During 2003-2004, $4.5 million was distributed to 72 school districts at

$227.75 per ELL student. 92.22% of these funds are being used for salary &

benefits.



.There are a variety of methods of instruction being used to help ELL students

in Idaho public schools:

–Eight percent or 41 schools report using some type of bilingual program;

–Six percent or 31 schools use English immersion in the regular

classroom;

–Thirty-six or 189 schools use an English as a second language approach

with limited instruction in the students native language provided by

educational assistants at least twice a week;

–Fifty percent or 262 schools provide ESL support in pullout situation with

some native language support. Programs vary from a half hour, to a

whole day of instruction.



.Academic performance rates are significantly lower among Idaho’s Latino,

Native American, and ELL students.

–83% of ELL and 76% of Hispanic kindergartners were reading below

grade level (Winter, 2002).

–More than half of all Hispanic 10th graders failed the spring 2003 ISAT for

reading, language, and math compared with a fourth of the state’s

Caucasian students who failed.

–The dropout rate for Native American and Hispanic students is at least

three times that of Caucasian students.



.There are not enough qualified teachers working with Native American,

Latino, and ELL students.

–Ethnic percentages of teachers have remained constant for the last five

years while student percentages have changed significantly.

–According to the Bureau of Teacher Certification in 2002-2003, 320

teachers held either an ESL or bilingual endorsement. During this same

period, school districts reported 237 of these teachers working directly

with ELL students.

–Regular classroom teachers in Idaho are not provided adequate

professional development opportunities to learn how to work with the

growing number of cultural and language diverse students.

Testimony Steve Horner, a Meridian parent, testified that he is a single parent raising
his two sons. One son graduated under the new rules in Minnesota and
did well in math and reading because he studied hard and took the test
seriously. He disagrees with those who use excuses for students not
doing well.
Testimony Inserted in the minutes is the testimony of Wendy Seley, seventh grade
teacher, Boundary County Junior High School.



Orville and Wilbur Wright’s airplane is airborne for the first time: on board, four
pilots who want to go different directions manipulate the instruments in the
cockpit, and passengers behind them apprehensively wring their hands. Nobody
aboard knows what to expect: many lives are at stake. Hopefully, the flight will
succeed. Realistically, without a decision of which direction to fly and without
more aircraft performance tests, the flight is doomed. But hope is a powerful
persuader, and all passengers on board cross their fingers.



Unfortunately, the passengers are Idaho’s children. The passengers need to
cross more than their fingers because they are going to crash.



Last week, I participated as a teacher-member of the ISAT test building session. I
was mortified by the discoveries I made. We are labeling our children with
‘proficient’ and ‘not proficient’ labels based on a standardized exam that is
insufficient. I am not a teacher griping that we should not test our youth. I am a
teacher who witnessed and participated in the creation of an invalid test.



Specifically, I helped to create and edit 8th grade tests measuring language
usage and reading skills. Our upcoming Spring 2004 ISAT tests in reading and
language arts will NOT measure proficient mastery of the Idaho Standards. They
will measure very limited knowledge of our children. The test does not measure-or, at best, minimally measures­ listening, speaking, viewing, researching, writing
process ( except editing), synthesizing, explaining, applying knowledge, and
numerous other important language arts standards. These fundamentals
represent more than 80% of level 8 standards. Over 80% of our standards are
not measured at all! Approximately 60% of the 2004 test I helped create is based
on one SUB-standard. We are measuring and re-measuring student proficiency

based on capitalization, spelling, and punctuation. Admittedly, these are valuable
skills students should master in school, but they represent 6% of what is
expected to be mastered in writing curriculum alone. We are basically deciding
whether students will become proficient members of our society based on skills
that are easy to measure on a multiple choice test. A multiple choice test is
simple to construct for spelling and capitalization, but what about measuring
speaking skills or knowledge about locating important information in our highly
technological world, also valuable language skills?



Furthermore, the test bank, a list of questions from which we, the test-builders,
could select questions for next spring’s ISAT, was extremely limited: so sourly
limited that we were forced to use questions that were unclear, poorly written,
and posed ambiguous answers. These are the questions our children will be
reading and answering to measure their ‘proficiency. ‘ Their scores are already
tainted–invalid- because the test is tainted. And this is known six months before
students begin answering questions.



The CRASH: when analyzed, ALL academic levels, from elementary to high
school, of the language usage and reading tests are severely slanted toward one
or two sub-standards and do not measure true progress or proficiency.



One solution to the imminent problem is to write new questions, covering all the

standards to measure proficiency and to write them well to avoid invalid test
scores. I am on the upcoming committee to help write questions. The problem is:
questions that teachers chose in October already created the tests to be used in
our spring testing. All new questions written in November will take a year to be
tested for RIT scores and might be available for next year’s test builders to
choose from for the 2005 test. Another problem is that the questions to be
written will again focus on 20% or less of standards in Idaho’s language arts and
reading curriculum. We are in the process of tainting our achievement tests for
the next two years.



Another solution is to land the plane right now. Reevaluate the ISAT and what
standards are measured. If we are holding students, teachers, and schools
accountable for invalid test scores that do NOT truly measure what we want
measured, we are in for an onslaught of Statewide lawsuits, and worse, students
wrongfully labeled. This test has the power to ruin lives. Today, a committee
could be established to decide how standards might more fairly and accurately
measure achievement. Teachers and other concerned parties could determine
how we might more adequately measure student progress using a fair, reliable,
and valid test.



I would like to help. I am your first one to volunteer to rectify a terrible injustice to

Idaho’ s children. If needed, I could sign up hundreds, if not thousands, of Idaho
teachers who want to see the airplane fly without a crash looming. Idaho
teachers talk about the ISAT and its immense flaws of unfairness. I am tired of
hoping someone remedies the ISAT atrocity. I am ready for a test-flight. What
would you like me to do first?

Testimony Inserted in the minutes is the testimony of Barbara Crow, a fifth grade
teacher from Coeur d’Alene.



My name is Barbara Crow. I’ve taught in Idaho public schools and been a
member of the Idaho Education Association for 26 years. Since 1983, I’ve been
employed in Coeur d’Alene where I currently teach 5th grade at Fernan
Elementary School. I received a BS in Education in 1975 from the University of
Idaho. In 2000, I achieved National Board Certification. I’ve taught fifth grade for
twenty years, with other years in third, fourth and sixth.



I’ve taught in four decades, all with a particular style of education reform and

improvement, from scripted texts and integrated units. I use parts of all these

trainings, because I am interested in “what will work” -what will work to increase

the chance that a child will learn.



Even with all that training and experience, little has prepared me for the impact

of the Idaho Standards Achievement Test. Nothing has changed what I do in the

classroom more. I am here to tell you my experience with this test over the last

three years.

The ISA T has three uses -it is a diagnostic test, telling us with a score how a

student is doing. It is a high stakes test, telling us which students can receive a

high school diploma. It is also, under federal law, the way we judge whether a

school is successful or not in educating children. I have several concerns with
each of these uses, some more than others.



The diagnostic uses of the ISAT at first glance are appealing. The feedback is

quick; the scores are easily compared; parents can see the progress; the goal

structures are defined. Because of these reasons, my colleagues and I are

choosing to give the winter ISAT next week as a way to gauge if what we are

doing is helping children.



And that is the problem. Do we really know how to help these students achieve

higher scores? You’d think it would be easier than it is. Our school is developing
a

pilot program where students are grouped according to their scores. We thought

that similar scores would mean similar learning problems that we could correct .



This is what we discovered. Grouping was based on a mean score, the middle

number in a set of scores. Think of a mean as your home. There are probably
many ways to get to your home depending on where you start. It is the same with

students. Each child starts at a different place of knowledge and comes to that

score by answering different problems correctly or incorrectly. So a group,

scoring the same mean, in reality, turns out to be just as diverse as any other

group of students. Some are ready to learn and go on. Others need more help.
The idea of grouping according to a score at first seemed an easy, logical way to

proceed. Unfortunately, it wasn’t. We needed more time to collaborate the ISAT

Score with other data to arrange groups that truly were at the same level.



All of this impacts what I do. The key stone of teaching is “Know your learner”.

The ISAT is supposed to help. But, when I spend time trying to make sense of
the

data, I discover unexpected roadblocks that take more time to overcome. The

score gives partial information, but not the path of how the student got his or her

score. I still need to discover that. Sometimes, the score is not even an accurate

guide.



The second use is as a high stakes test. I interviewed some high school students

about their concerns. Their list was impressive. They mentioned:

.an increase in the dropout rate

.Minimal teaching and learning requirements.

.the inaccuracy of a multiple choice test to show thinking or performance

ability

.the incorrect use of the scores

.the unfairness of excluding areas where students can show excellence, such

as science, social studies or the arts.



Even eight to ten year olds feel the pressure. With scores popping up at the end

of each test, students know immediately if they improved or not. Some feel the

disappointment as being “bad” and “failing.” How do we help them with this
feeling

that they have done something wrong?



Last week, this comment was made by an eight year old, “Learning is so much
more fun without these tests.” Research, and common sense, shows us that
learning in fear is not as nearly productive as learning in joy.



A Librarian at one of our school refuses to proctor the test. One student didn’t

want to check out books in the library because he though the librarian was mad
at

him because of his scores on the ISAT.



Students know the score is important. They, and I, begin to wonder what counts

more, daily progress in class, or the few hours spent taking the test? Again,
taking

a test is not the always the problem. Helpful information comes from them. It is

pressure of getting “good” scores rather than learning that concerns me.



This brings me to the last use of the ISA T -as a way to judge whether a school is

successful. Using the test this way without consideration of other circumstances

is, at the very least, frustrating. The following is a partial list of things to

consider that can hinder success:

.Lack of computer practice. Students are not always competent at reading

computer screens and completing math problems on a computer .

.Unfamiliar language or situations on the test

.Uncontrollable events in student’s lives. Dad or Mom could be in put in jail,

jobs are lost, families move, accidents happen. Last year, during our school’s

testing window, a school bus rolled 400ft down a mountainside with seven of

our students on board. All were safe, and we looked at the scores of the ~!

students involved to see if there was an effect. It was mixed. Some went

up, others went down. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. One teacher

looking at the scores this year saw a downward trend among classmates of

those students. It is a possibility that the emotional effect of the accident

was the cause.

Measuring the success of a school is not captured by an isolated test taken on

several afternoons. It is a piece of evidence, not all of it .



In closing, I’d like to share some observations from a family who recently moved

to Coeur d’Alene from the Houston, Texas area. They were pleased that we still

allowed students to talk during lunch and that we had recess. They liked that we

did projects as well as take tests. They were concerned about the accurate

reporting of scores. Mostly, they were pleased with their child’s continued

enthusiasm for learning.



I am trying to find ways to make this work. After all, it is the law. I am committed

to my students and their learning No child left behind is not a new idea AND I
would like to balance the uses of the ISAT, so we continue to gain the

knowledge we need to teach, with the support we need to give So students can

learn.

Testimony Mrs. Terry Anderson, Pocatello School Board trustee, requested that
more time be taken and to start with the first grade.
Testimony Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director of Idaho School Boards Association,
said they accept testing as part of a graduation requirement as long as
there are other avenues for students to meet the requirement. He stated
that educators are working on alternate assessment measures.
Testimony Ms. Jan Downs testified that she feels ISAT is high stakes. She opposes
using ISAT alone without considering GPA and other criteria.
Testimony Ralph Hahn, Glenns Ferry, feels that if schools had been grading properly
and transcripts were not distorted, it would not be necessary to have
ISAT.
Testimony Next was Ms. Tracy Warren. A copy of her testimony is inserted in the
minutes.



As staff for the Idaho Council on Developmental Disabilities and the parent of an
Idaho 5th grader, I would like to talk to you today about the importance of the
participation of students with disabilities in state and local assessments. Including
students with disabilities in assessments and accountability systems is important.
Not only because it is required by law, but also because their participation in

assessments should help improve teaching and learning by creating high
expectations and accountability for the success of ALL students. It is critically
important that schools know how successful they are in preparing all students,
including students with disabilities, to meet high standards.



We have been discussing the No Child Left Behind Act and it’s requirements
recently, but it is also important to note that the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997 have required that all students with
disabilities participate in state and district-wide assessment programs with

appropriate accommodations and modifications. Every child’s Individual
Education Program (IEP) must now address participation in state or district-wide
assessment of student achievement. If needed, students with disabilities have
the right to receive accommodations during testing. A relatively small percentage
of

students may need to participate in an alternate assessment. An alternate
assessment provides a different kind of test to enable students to show what they
know and are able to do. The IEP team makes the decisions about how and to
what extent a student will participate in assessments.



Until recent comprehensive school reform and it’s supporting federal legislation, it
was not required that students with disabilities be included in testing. It was not
required that the progress of children with disabilities be measured to make
certain they were learning and moving forward. The result has been that, in many
cases, students with disabilities did not make good progress in school and their
benefits from education were limited. But that is slowly changing.



In response to federal mandates of school reform and as per the requirements of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Idaho Bureau of
Special Education has developed Performance Goals and Indicators (PGIs) for
children with disabilities. The mission of these goals is that students with
disabilities will leave high school prepared to function in the workplace, in post-secondary education options, and in the community .



The Performance Goals and Indicators for children with disabilities established
by the State of Idaho are as follows:

Increase the graduation rate.

Decrease the drop-out rate.

Improve post-school outcomes.

Improve academic performance.

Decrease suspensions and expulsions.

Include all students in statewide assessments.

Increase the number of certified/trained personnel.



All of these goals should be considered as assessment programs are developed
and implemented, but of special concern in relation to statewide standards
testing are increasing graduation rates and decreasing dropout rates. Students
with disabilities are at greater risk for dropping out of school when the supports
and services they need to be successful are not in place. Especially now, at this
time of financial crisis, we can not assume that school districts have the
resources needed to put those services and supports in place.



Some concerns that were mentioned yesterday in testimony are very important to
note again. One is that referrals to special education services may increase as
some students fail to meet the standards. Students who may not have
disabilities, but simply are failing to meet the standards, may be inappropriately
referred to a system that is already overextended. Another concern is that some
teachers and schools will not welcome students with special needs in their
classrooms because the assessment scores of those students may adversely
affect the overall rating of that school and their teachers’ performance and
progress.



IEP teams will be making some very difficult decisions, and all team members,
parents included, must be knowledgeable about the general education
curriculum, content standards and assessment programs. IEP teams need to
understand how decisions about participation in assessments may affect future
educational

opportunities. District representatives need to be able to explain the district’s
graduation requirements. Parents and students must be provided adequate
advance notification of assessments that have consequences for student
advancement and graduation.



The State Bureau of Special Education has been working with stakeholders to
address the needs of students with disabilities as Idaho’s achievement standards
and assessment programs have been developed.



The Joint Task Force on Achievement Standards and Assessments for Students
with Disabilities
was formed in May 2000 in an effort to support the successful
implementation of Idaho’s achievement standards and assessments for all
students. This task force worked to ensure that the needs of students with
disabilities would not be overlooked as the standards and assessments were
implemented. The Task Force submitted to the Assessment and Accountability
Commission and other policymakers, a list of recommendations to better enable
students with disabilities to fully participate in standards-based education
reforms. Those recommendations are included with the information I brought for
you today.

The group also helped to development guidelines for making accommodations
for students with disabilities taking the standards assessment.



Another group of educators, administrators, professionals and parents have been
gathered by the Bureau in a High School Graduation and Students with
Disabilities Task Force
to develop guidance to local districts regarding students
with disabilities and graduation requirements. This group is working to identify the
issues facing students with disabilities, families and district personnel regarding
students’ demonstration of proficiency on Idaho Achievement Standards, develop
guidelines to be used by IEP teams to assist students and families in making
graduation decisions, and to develop policy recommendations to state and local
school boards regarding the appeal processes and student opportunities to
demonstrate proficiency on the standards.



As a person who has participated in both of these workgroups, I am hopeful that
the State Board of Education, the Assessment and Accountability Commission
and you, our State Legislators will support the recommendations developed by
these task forces and encourage any changes to policy that ensures their
implementation. This will help make achieving the standards and meeting high
expectations with more successful outcomes a possibility for students with
disabilities in Idaho.

Testimony Ms. Jessica Hill, Albertson College student, had three concerns. First,
qualified teachers; second, follow the money trail and review the costs
involved; third, people implementing the test. ISAT should constantly be
reevaluated.
Testimony Dr. Phil Kelly, BSU professor, feels the ISAT is not a high stakes test, but
has fears the curriculum will be narrowed.
Testimony Ms. Debbie Yates, Albertson College adjunct professor, said she formerly
taught GED preparation in Indiana. They didn’t have room for all the
dropouts because they did not have a waiver process. She said Idaho
can learn from other states.
Testimony Lee Dubert, BSU professor, is opposed to the ISAT.
Testimony Ms. Julie Robinson, parent, has concerns about the necessary financial
support and other differences.
Testimony Ms. Molly Maas, college student who plans to teach, said ISAT is not the
goal of educating and assessing – teaching should be.
In discussion and questions asked by the committee, a question was
asked as to how much money was in the Governor’s budget for
remediation. It was indicated there was none. The State Department had
requested $5 M for remediation.



Dr. Kingsley was asked if the legislators could look at ISAT. He replied
that NWEA’s contract is with OSBE and the concern is with security.

Adjournment Chairman Barraclough adjourned the meeting at 11:35 a.m.






DATE: January 22, 2004
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. He
welcomed the audience to the Joint meeting for the hearing on Charter
Schools and reminded them of the “do’s and don’t’s” at public hearings.
He also said there would be a two minute time limit on testimony because
of the number of people indicating their wish to testify.



He then asked Mr. Bill Von Tagen, Deputy Attorney General from the
Attorney General’s office, to talk about ethics. There are some issues
regarding separation of powers and OSBE seems to have overstepped its
boundaries in allocating tax dollars to help the Idaho Virtual Academy.

Speaker Mr. Von Tagen distributed to the committee members the manual on
“Idaho Ethics In Government” and spoke briefly about charter school
governance. It needs to be determined if statutes clearly apply to charter
schools and their boards. There are areas in Idaho Code that could result
in confusion, Section 33-5204, Nonprofit corporations. The language in
this section as well as definitions of public servant and public official
(pages 2 and 12) have raised issues. Also, the difference between
elected official and self-appointed and whether employees of charter
schools and their contractors are covered under PERSI. Mr. Von Tagen
said employees of charter schools are state employees, but contractors
are not.
Testimony First to testify was Bob Henry, Nampa School Board member. He
provided some background information regarding Liberty Charter School,
located in Nampa. The School Board denied a petition to Nampa Charter
II School that wants to mirror Liberty. The denial was appealed to the
SDE and a hearing officer upheld the denial. The school then appealed
to OSBE and that Board voted to approve the charter. The Nampa
School Board has asked the District Court to review the decision. Mr.
Henry said the Nampa School Board does not oppose charter schools,
but they do oppose some of the procedures.
Testimony Ms. Laurie Beckel, Nampa, is in favor of choice for parents but believes
public funds are not being distributed fairly because charter schools in
Idaho have an advantage when funded similar to small school districts.
Testimony Ms. June Blackhurst, Nampa, enrolled three of her children at Liberty, but
has since withdrawn them, as she felt her children did not fit the mold.
Testimony Bill Lofholm, Nampa, has concerns about dual enrollment and rules
governing compensation.
Testimony Inserted in the minutes is a copy of the testimony of Ms. Cindy Schiller,
Nampa.

Senator Schroeder, Representative Barraclough, and members of the joint
Education Committees, my name is Cindy Schiller. This morning I would like to
address several areas of concern that I see in regard to charter schools. Most
importantly is the unfair funding formula used to fund charter schools. Charter
schools receive the richest form of school funding in our state, though are not
required to provide the same services as a school district. They can simply

say we don’t want to offer those subjects, electives or extra curricular activities.
They then send those students to the local schools to receive those services.
Some charter schools then refuse to reimburse the local districts even though
they have received the funding to provide the services!! I hear talk again this
year about consolidating small school districts. Yet at the same time we continue
to encourage charter school expansion at the same cost of a small school
district. At

least a small school district will provide a complete set of services. By funding
charter schools this way we are forming many more small school districts. If we
can’t afford to fund the ones currently in the state, how can we continue to fund
more. Isn’t this actually deconsolidation? Some charter schools will pick a
physical location that isolates them from the mainstream majority of their
community. Then provide no bussing or hot lunch programs. Then say we are
open to everyone!!!! You must simply find your own way there and be able to
afford the transportation and lunch costs. Is this a free public education open to
all? I think not. Some charter schools are hiding behind the Non-Profit
Corporation laws. They then try to ignore accountability issues from their local

governing school boards. Saying we don’t have to listen to your requests and
suggestions. We are a non-profit corporation. Liberty Charter in Nampa has
taken this one step further and actually chosen to sue a former charter family for
slander! ! ! Again signaling we are a non-profit corporation NOT A
GOVERNMENT ENTITY!!!!!!!! Even though Judge James Merritt ruled January
22, 2003 they are a public entity, Liberty refused to accept the decision. Liberty
appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court. We will hear the decision on this Feb. 13th.
One of the most important issues here is the amount of money being spent by
Liberty and other charter schools on attorney fees instead of educating children! !
! ! ! As of September Liberty had spent about $45,000 over the last 2 years on
attorney fees. They have since hired 2 additional attorneys to help with their
renewal process!!! This is our money, our tax dollars. We should all be outraged.

Liberty’s leadership continues to be involved in other legal issues and seems to
be unable to resolve issues amicably or sensibly. It seems to be a continual
battle. I do not in anyway want to suggest that all charter schools have the same
issues as Liberty . I support charter schools and the concept of parental choice.
But I do suggest that laws and rules be changed to address many of the
concerns brought to light by Liberty Charter School’s leadership. I fear this as
giving many

people a bad taste for charter schools and we know there are successful charter
schools. We must make sure we are not simply creating private schools that are
publicly funded. Thank you for your time.

Testimony Ken Bopp, parent, has concerns about the waiting lists of students.
Testimony Inserted in the minutes is a copy of the testimony of Ms. Kathy Phelan,
IEA President.






The Idaho Education Association has always supported public charter schools

and was an active participant in the discussions that created current charter

school legislation. In 1998 our organizational support was based on these

principles:

.charter schools must be public schools

.there must be no negative impact on the regular public school program,
including reductions or diversions of funding

.teachers who are employed must be certified

.charter schools should serve as laboratories for field-testing curricular and
instructional innovations and/or to provide educational opportunities for students
who cannot adequately be served in mainstream public schools

.charter school programs must be qualitatively different from what is available in
mainstream public schools

.local school boards should be the only entity authorized to grant or renew
charter applications; appeals of local school board decisions should be made to a
state education agency and should be heard only on the grounds of arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable decision-making, not on the educational judgment of
the local school board

.private, for-profit entities should not be eligible to receive a charter

.charter schools should be nonsectarian in nature

.charters should be granted for a limited period, with five years being the norm

.charter schools should be monitored on a continuing basis, meeting the same
public accountability requirements as mainstream public schools.

.charters should not be granted for the purpose of home schooling, including
providing services over the Internet to home schooled students.



We support the current law and recommend these important improvements:

.adding clarification regarding the fair and open election of charter school board
members

.adding language to clarify that all students must have equal

opportunity to apply and be selected for charter school attendance

.adding language requiring charter schools and the local school district in which
the charter school exists to create and implement a procedure for regular
exchanges of learnings that might be applied in the regular public school
environment.



As you prepare to make important decisions, our 12,000 members ask you to be

vigilant. You are stewards of the public trust-guardians of the Idaho Constitution.

There seems to be a movement in Idaho attempting to transform our public

charter schools into what are essentially private and home schools financed with

public money.



Vouchers in charter school clothing.

Real public schools are not private clubs with hand picked governing boards

answerable only to themselves rather than the community at large.

Real public schools are not exclusive enclaves with reserved seats held for

children of select parents.

Real public schools do not reap profits from public money.

Real public schools answer to the public, not stockholders and Virginia

businessmen.

Real public schools accept all students, including children whose parents cannot

stay home to teach them.

Whatever their imperfections, and believe me there are many, real public schools

are incubators of democracy.

They provide sanctuary and hope to children whose home lives are in disarray.

In public schools rich, poor, all races and religions come together, learn together,

struggle together. ..create the future together .

Public schools are not about consumer choice, they’re about civic responsibility.

They’re the covenant the citizens of this great nation have made with all of

America’s children.

Please strengthen the public charter law. Don’t allow public funds to be siphoned

into what are essentially private and home schools.

Please strengthen Idaho’s commitment to public education.

Testimony Inserted in the minutes is the testimony of Ms. Kelley Phipps.



My name is Kelley Phipps, and my husband, Chuck and I have 6 children ranging
from 2 to 12 years of age. Chuck is a Civil Engineer and I am a Teacher.
Because of the nature of Chuck’s profession, we have moved and will continue to
move…A LOT. Knowing this was the case, we made the decision to home
school our children before they were school age. Kids need routine, and
although we can’t guarantee that they will live in the same house year after year,
we can guarantee that they will attend the same school. Our children have
traveled across our nation- TWICE- and literally half way around the world while
being

privileged to remain residents of the State of Idaho. WE are blessed to have
residence in a state that supports a student’s right to educational free choice.

Until July of 2002, the right choice for our family was traditional home-schooling.
In August 2002, my 4 school-aged children joined ranks with thousands of other
Idaho State children and enrolled in the Public I school of our choice-IDAHO
VIRTUAL ACADEMY. IDVA provides my children all the tools they need to be
successful while schooling at home. I am a certified teacher, but I was on my own
with out colleagues to collaborate or commiserate with. My children were missing
that “teacher” input on their school assignments…mostly we were all missing

accountability. Within the structure of Idaho Virtual Academy we became
accountable. We are accountable as parents to consistently school our children
5 hours everyday, and our children are accountable as students interacting with
their IDVA teachers who are as interested in their success as we are. Our
children don’t ride a yellow bus to school each morning, instead they walk into
our school room and log onto the computer. We log attendance every day. We
track their progress…lessons completed and objectives mastered…everyday.

And they have done this from all over the world! In June, I asked the boys what
they would say if someone asked them about their school experience. I was
shocked when my 10 year old said “Mom, the best thing about school this year
was WE DID SCHOOL.” AND he is right, they did “do school”. For the first time
they had a full curriculum in science, history, art and music. They had a thorough

language arts curriculum and challenging math. For the first time in 6 years, they
did not have summer school. My children are in their second year with Idaho

Virtual Academy and my husband and I have switched roles as primary teaching
adult. With the help of his mother, he is teaching our children while pursuing his
Masters. To allow him to fulfill this dream; I have taken a full-time teaching
position. I am teaching special education for Idaho Virtual academy and have a
unique and incredible opportunity to work with students with special needs whose
parents have chosen to take on the challenge and responsibility of being their
child’s primary educators. This has been the hardest, most demanding job I

have ever had as a public school teacher-meeting the needs of this special
population and their parents in this unique schooling environment is a challenge.

But, it has also been the most rewarding experience I have ever had. I am
working as a partner with dedicated parents who are actively engaged in

improving their child’s learning experiences. I am very thankful for the
opportunity that Idaho Virtual Academy has provided for my family and thankful to
be living in a state where people can think outside of the box to meet the needs
of all

students. Thank you for your time.

Testimony Inserted in the minutes is the testimony of Ms. Kay Romero, a teacher at
Liberty Charter School, Nampa.



l would like to thank all of you who have helped to create and have supported
charter schools in Idaho. I have taught for 32 years and have seen innovative
ideas come and go in education. The charter school concept is one of those
ideas that should be allowed to flourish because it benefits education in so many
ways.



I teach at Liberty Charter School in Nampa, Idaho. Our school has the most
supportive environment that any parent, student, or teacher could desire.
Because of that, we all are motivated to perform our best. I wish that you could
hear our students speak their hearts as they tell about our school. The first thing
you would hear is that they feel safe when they are at school. They learn
challenging skills and work hard to accomplish goals. That makes them feel good
about themselves and about school. Every day, I hear them talking about school
in a positive way. What more could we ask, than that our children love the
environment in which they spend their days?



You have helped create this environment for Idaho’s children. They truly are the
future. Please continue to support our charter schools.

Testimony Testifying in favor of charter schools and/or IDVA were the following:

Ms. Kelli Stellmon, mother of six children;

Ms. Kerry Heninger, nurse with three children;

Paul Powell, parent with two children attending a charter school;

Ms. Corey Moline, parent;

Rodney Limb, counselor;

Ms. Dixie Limb, mother;

Ms. Kristine Reynolds, parent;

Ms. Deann Jenkes, parent;

Ms. Amy Phillips, IDVA teacher;

Alan Price, student;

Ms. Heather Dyer, mother;

Steve Adams, educator;

Ms. Barbara Singer, member of Compass Charter School Board;

Ms. Brenda Campbell, mother of six children;

Ms. Theresa Truslow, parent;

Ms. Kayla Rich, parent;

Ms. Kim Engelbrecht, parent;

Bart McKnight, Nampa;

Kirk Miller, President of Anser Charter School Board;

Ms. Frances Brown, parent;

Michael Brown, student;

Ms. Tami Bennett, parent;

Ms. Leslie Mauldin, parent;

Kevin Hulsey, parent and teacher at Liberty Charter School;

Ms. Irene Myers, homemaker;

Ms. Jessie Richards, student;

David Johnson, student;

Ms. Emily Harris, student;

Ms. Christalina Jensen, parent;

Ms. Janis Araki, parent;

Ms. Sheila Bryant, parent;

Ms. Nancy Despain, parent;

Ms. Mindy Vance, parent;

Greg Vance, parent;

Ms. Meredith DeMordaunt, student;

Steven Shear, parent;

Gary Larsen, principal at Idaho Leadership Academy;

Jim Bauman, Nampa minister and parent;

Ms. Jolene Wallace, Director of Blackfoot Charter School;

Ms. Gale Pooley, North Star Board Chairman;

Mario Wade, student;

Cees Hofman, student;

Jay Polley, student;

Jordan Borup, student;

Ms. Leela Schafer, teacher;

Ms. Lourieann Shoemaker, parent;

Terry Bower, parent;

Alan Jones, parent;

Ms. Vicki Asay, homemaker;

Reed DeMordaunt, parent;

Ms. Linda Erving, parent;

Ms. Stacy Holton, parent;

Testimony Testifying regarding concerns about charter schools and/or IDVA were the
following:

Ms. Joan Burmester, Nampa;

Zachary Burley, student;

Dan Taylor;

Eric Exline, Meridian School District Information Officer;

Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, IASA;

Jon Allen, CFO, Nampa School District;

Ms. Jan Sylvester, Meridian resident;

Ms. Julie VanOrden, Snake River School trustee;

Ms. Molly Lazechko, Legislative Chair, retired Educator’s Association.

Testimony Inserted in the minutes is a copy of the testimony of Dr. Cliff Green.



Good morning, Chairman Schroeder and committee members, for the record I
am Cliff Green representing the Idaho School Boards Association.

First, I would like to convey ISBA’s support for charter schools as a public
education choice. I encourage you to reference ISBA’s 2004 Resolutions and
Positions booklet provided for you earlier this week. As many of you may
remember last session ISBA with in partnership with the Idaho Charter School
Network, brought a piece of legislation which addressed many items of concern
expressed by the parties involved. It should be notable because the RS was

presented and debated four times before being sent to print and eventually
becoming SB 1169. I must admit it was an education in process and protocol for
me. SB1169 would have addressed the following:



Charter Director, election process.

Student and Taxpayer Access to Charter Boards

Consistent lottery process for admission to a Charter school

Probation period instead of an ON/OFF switch 120 day period for resolving
conflicts

Allowance for all documents (by-laws and charter document) to be considered
when granting or renewing a charter

Enhanced communication with a district liaison is on charter boards

Each proposed amendments to 33-5204, 33-5205, and 33-5209 outlined in the
RS were agreed to by both parties. Unfortunately, the bill did not get a hearing in
the House Education Committee.

Additional concerns not addressed by SB1169

Equitable funding, impact on traditional schools

Multi-district charter schools

Definition of LEA

In light of the State Board’s recent decision to grant charter schools on appeal,
ISBA believes that the issue of liability still needs to be adequately addressed.
You may be aware that the district in which a charter school physically operates
is by definition the Local Education Agency (LEA) of the charter. The LEA acts as
the fiscal agent for federal (Title) monies as well as the point for accountability to
the federal government.

You may not be aware that there have been several instances of civil rights
violations involving charter schools over the past few years. Currently, there is an
Office of Civil Rights (OCR) ruling on charter school practices within an Idaho
district. This district is listed as LEA and as a defendant. Regardless of whether
the charter is granted by the local board of trustees, similar to this case, or the
State Board of Education, as in the Nampa Two (Victory) case, the LEA is by

definition, albeit an ambiguous definition, the school district in which the charter

physically resides. Under current law, liability for these types of violations by
charter schools lies squarely on the district in which they operate. The granting of
a charter by the State Board of Education places a burden on the resident district
of the charter for which it currently has no remedy or control. The bottom line
ISBA believes that the liability should follow the governance responsibility . To
address these concerns, over the summer ISBA again sat down with
representatives of the Idaho Charter Network through our association with IACI.
Unfortunately, the meetings with the network did not result in agreement. ISBA
believes that the focus of any changes in the charter law or promulgation of new

board rule further defining the charter law should be within the boundaries of the
current statute, grounded in data and focus on what’s best for all of Idaho’s
students and their academic achievement. Again, I would reiterate that the
concerns raised are not insurmountable and that ISBA . I will continue to work
with the Network and State Board as well as other political and educational
stakeholders, to make charter schools successful. ISBA has a vested interest in
the success of charter schools and will work in the spirit of compromise for the
benefit of all parties. In closing, I would like to take a few minutes time to
announce that at our regularly scheduled meeting in September the Executive
Board of the ISBA voted to approve an Affiliate Membership in our association for
charter schools and their directors. Upon affirmation of the membership the new
Affiliate program will provide access to many of our services which heretofore
have not been available to charters -services such as discounted insurance
including property, general liability, auto liability, crime, school leaders’ and
educators’ errors and omissions, as well as board training workshops and

curriculum, national and state publications, policy services, and a myriad of
additional services.

Testimony Inserted in the minutes is the testimony of David Gencarella.



Chairman Schroeder, Chairman Barraclough, and members of the senate and
house education committees: Thank you for providing this forum.

.My name is David Gencarella. My family and I have lived in Post Falls Idaho for
nearly 5 years.

-My wife is the product of the traditional public educational system. I am a
product of private schools. We have three kids, two of whom attend the charter
public school. Although I have had many roles in my professional and personal
life, I consider my role as father to hold more significance than any other. The
groups I have worked with will have other chairmans, presidents, and vice
presidents. My kids will have only one Dad.

.Through the years our kids have benefitted from the traditional classroom, and
the benefits of schooling at home. My kids struggle greatly in some aspects of
learning, and in other aspects they are extremely gifted. Speaking as a dad who
has tried many educational combinations for my kids, IDVA is the answer to the
uniqueness of my kids, their gifts, challenges and our educational and personal
goals for them.

.I am the chairman of the Board of IDVA, an IDVA parent, and I am a
businessman who has been involved with schooling my kids at home over the
past five years. Although I may not be an expert on the inner workings of public
education, or the political process, there are some things which seem quite
evident to me. Thank you for this forum where I can express these:

.I am aware that education dollars are in short supply.

.As I have carried out my duties as chairman this past year, I have witnessed
what seems to be a tug of war between different interest groups for these limited
resources.

.I am aware that the majority of newly enrolled students in IDVA were not
previously home schooled. A significant number of our students were previously
enrolled in public schools.

.I am aware that many of our kids live in rural communities -Dr. Marilyn Howard I
believe said it best when she said, “”We’re not challenging our best students,” —“We have a lot of rural districts, and offering challenging courses can be difficult
for them. We’re also a state where we’re still seeing first-generation kids go on to
college.”

.I am aware that IDVA provides these much needed challenging courses
everywhere in Idaho

.I am aware that 50% of IDVA children are below the pover1y level

.I am aware that many of our children (roughly 6%) are special needs children

.I know that at risk kids like these are important to this body

.I know that families who want to better themselves and their Idaho communities
are also important to this body

.I am aware that it costs taxpayers significantly less money when parents choose
IDVA public charter school.

.As chairman of the board for IDVA, I am painfully aware that although the
legislature has time and again made clear its commitment to provide powerful
new education opportunities for the families of Idaho through public charter
schools and through use of virtual distance learning, children enrolled in IDVA
receive less than ½ the resources per child which are directed to the rest of the
children in public schools

.I am aware that around 2000 families representing probably 5000 to 7000 Idaho
residents have taken the State up on its offer to commit their children’s future to
IDVA.

.As I see it, here is the challenge: The Legislature specifically provided for virtual
education and on-line learning. And on behalf of the families of IDVA, we thank
you for this opportunity. Our school is providing an excellent education to our
students. While the legislative intent seems very clear to me, a layman, because
there is no specific formula or system to provide fair, equitable, and adequate
funding for this public school, the state is providing IDVA less than half of what
students in brick and mortar schools receive (36%) and about half of what other
charter schools receive.

.Based on my personal experience, public, virtual, charter schools make sense
for the parents, for the kids, for the tax payers. This is truly a win-win. Please,
don’t turn back the clock. Finish the job by creating a fair and equitable funding
system before it’s too late and the children of this state lose this outstanding
educational option.

.-One more point. There seems to be a lot of finger pointing as to who is the
blame. Nobody is to blame. The law was written before funding a virtual setting
was envisioned. It seems that everyone from legislature, to the State Board of
Education, to the State Department of Education, to the parents, all want it to be
funded and to succeed.

In closing, I am aware of many things, but I can not imagine, the very difficult
position you are in. I respect your position and, along with all the other parents
and children of the State will trust your best judgment and the integrity with which
you exercise the responsibilities of your office as you provide the leadership and
direction for the future of our State and its people.

Announcement Chairman Schroeder announced that tomorrow’s meeting will begin at
8:30 a.m., rather than 8 a.m.
Adjournment The chairman thanked everyone for their participation. He then adjourned
the meeting at 11:40 a.m.






DATE: January 23, 2004
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






None
Call to order The Joint meeting was called to order by Chairman Barraclough at 8:35 a.m.
and he welcomed everyone.
Introductions Dr. Carolyn Mauer, Bureau Chief of Curriculum for the State Department of
Education is the liaison for charter schools in Idaho. She introduced eight
charter school administrators who are in Boise for a workshop.

Gary Messinger, Meridian Medical Arts Charter High School, Meridian;

Matt Dorsey, Thomas Jefferson Charter School, Caldwell;

Nancy Smith, North Star Charter School, Eagle;

Anita Ogden, White Pine Charter School, Idaho Falls;

Larry Slade, Idaho Virtual High School;

Chase Trap, Idaho Virtual Academy;

Pixie Vasquez, Sandpoint Charter School, Sandpoint;

Steve Adams, Idaho Leadership Academy, Pingree

Speaker Mr. William von Tagen, Deputy Attorney General for the Intergovernmental &
Fiscal law Division, provided copies of an Attorney General’s Legal
Guideline. Senator Schroeder had inquired about the separation of powers.



Mr. von Tagen said that the powers of the government in Idaho are divided
into three distinct departments: legislative, executive and judicial. Lines are
not to be crossed. He said that only the Idaho Legislature has plenary power
and authority to appropriate funds in support of the public school system and
to prescribe the means and manner in which such funds are apportioned to
the local school districts and public charter schools. Also, the resolution
adopted by the Board relating to the funding of certain public charter schools
prescribes a means and manner of apportioning funds to such schools that
is materially contrary to the funding mechanism established by the
Legislature. When expending funds based on the formula, the unique
characteristics of the district are taken into account, and the formula may
change based on experience of teachers and other factors. This can be
changed, but only by the Legislature.






Mr. von Tagen responded to questions from committee members.

Speaking next was Tom Farley, Bureau Chief of Federal Programs for the
State Department of Education. He provided answers to questions that had
been asked previously about unexpended federal funds. At the close of the
2001 federal funding cycle, which closed December 31, 2003, Idaho had
$29,066.46 that was not drawn from available federal appropriations or
expended. Of the $94,574,280 of the U.S. Department of Education federal
funds made available July 1, 2001 this represents approximately .03 of one
percent of the available funds as shown on the SDE and federal produced
reports. In some cases, it was not feasible to spend all of the funds.



Mr. Farley explained due to a twenty-seven month spending authority, states
and school districts may draw on their available funds through September 30
two years following the initial availability of their allocations. And, following
September 30 of that year, a district has another 90 days to fulfill any
obligations they may have from those funds. He said that Idaho schools
spend their funds judiciously, and all accounts managed by the SDE are
audited annually.



Mr. Farley responded to questions from committee members.

Ms. Kathy Phelan, IEA President, testified next. She congratulated the
committees on the past three days of hearings.



She offered three important improvements: (1) adding clarification regarding
the fair and open election of charter school board members; (2) adding
language to clarify that all students must have equal opportunity to apply and
be selected for charter school attendance; and (3) adding language requiring
charter schools and the local school district in which the charter school
exists to create and implement a procedure for regular exchanges of
learning that might be applied in the regular public school environment.



Ms. Phelan closed by asking that they “please strengthen the public charter
law. Don’t allow public funds to be siphoned into what are essentially private
and home schools. Please strengthen Idaho’s commitment to public
education.”

Next to testify was Dr. Randy Thompson
Dr. Thompson, Chief Academic Officer, Office of the State Board, presented
his report on “The State of Charter Schools in Idaho”. Dr. Thompson said as
mandated under Idaho Code 33-5212, the OSBE shall review the education
effectiveness of charter schools under the provisions of this chapter and
shall report to the legislature no later than July 1, 2004. A Subcommittee has
been appointed and the members are Laird Stone, Chair; Karen McGee;
Blake Hall; and Marilyn Howard. The legislative intent is to:

Improve student learning

Increase learning opportunities/expand learning experience

Include different and innovative teaching methods

Utilize virtual distance and on-line learning

Create new professional opportunities for teachers

Provide parents/students with expanded choice

Hold schools accountable



Dr. Thompson provided the following information regarding public charter
schools and the issues surrounding them. Public charter schools must
comply with all federal and state laws and (1) work with local school boards
on how they intend to meet legal requirements; (2) have comprehensive
education program (33-5205(3); and (3) have a structured business plan
(33-5205(3).



The charter school appeal process as defined in Rule 33-5207(5)(b) states:
“The petitioners for the establishment of the new charter school may appeal
to the State Board of Education. The State Board of Education shall hold a
public hearing at its next regular meeting and shall approve the charter for
the establishment of a new charter school if it determines that the local
board of trustees failed to appropriately consider the charter request, or if the
local board acted in an arbitrary manner in denying the request.



Dr. Thompson reported that OSBE identified 17 current issues with input
from IASA, ISBA, IEA, local school districts, parents, community members
and Legislators: (1) local control; (2) parental choice; (3) governance; (4)
fiscal accountability; (5) sharing of “best practices”; (6) authority to grant
charters; (7) roles and expectations; (8) access to education; (9) consistent
review and approval process; (10) consistent timeline for application
process; (11) clarity in appeals process; (12) governance of entities
delivering education in more than one district; (13) enrollment (non
discrimination, open to public, founders); (14) replication of successful
education models (33-5202(3) Legislative Intent); (15) renewal and
revocation of public charters; (16) oversight of Board approved schools; and
(17) virtual school delivery.



The Board responded by drafting temporary rule 08.02.04 that:

1. Creates a definition of multi-district public charter school

2. Establishes a consistent process for the review and approval of
public charter schools

3. Establishes a time-line for the approval process

4. Defines founders and creates a standard for assigning seats for
founders’ children

5. Clarifies oversight responsibilities, including renewal and revocation
of charters

6. Allows the Board to delegate oversight of Board approved schools
to an executive agency

7. Eliminate the liability to local districts resulting from a public
charter’s approval by the Board

8. Clarifies and supports non-discrimination in public charter school
enrollment

9. Removes the sections related to geographical limitations on
approvals because this section of the code has expired



The Board has issued a guidance memorandum addressing average daily
attendance, the foundation’ s principle of “money follows student” and the
distribution of federal funds. The Board is committed to perform oversight.

A question and answer period followed with questions centering around (1)
the appeal process; (2) success of charter schools and the plan to integrate
innovative ideas and practices into the traditional schools; (3) selectiveness
of students and access to all; and (4) measuring growth of students without
a standardized test.



Senator Schroeder reminded Dr. Thompson that based on Mr. von Tagen
findings on the separation of powers communicated to him, he needs to
come and speak to the Legislators about item # 5 of the temporary rule
above. Dr. Thompson said he would always be willing to visit with them.

Dr. Bob West, Assistant Deputy State Superintendent, State Department of
Education, presented the Department’s testimony on charter schools. “The
Idaho State Department of Education (SDE) recognizes charter schools to
be an important choice within the public school system of Idaho. It is
important public policy.” Dr. West provided background information on
charter schools, stating that Idaho is one of 40 states and the District of
Columbia that has passed charter school legislation. He provided a table
listing which entities grant charters in various states, indicating that only
Idaho and California allow an appeal to the state board of education.



Dr. Howard has sought and has received two highly competitive federal
grants in the amount of $4.8 million in direct assistance and a multi-year
grant for $4.1 million to help new charters with planning and implementation
assistance. He stated that “Dr. Howard remains committed to the endurable
development and support of charter schools.”



Dr. West addressed Idaho charter schools and the current issues
surrounding them. He pointed out that there are 16 charter school in
operation with 2, as far as we know, to begin next fall. As of the first Friday in
November, there were 4,767 students enrolled in charter schools, among the
252,218 statewide total of all students enrolled. A list of charter schools and
an enrollment report are included in the handouts provided by Dr. West.

One of the issues that has been raised for several years is the official legal
status of a charter school, because it is organized under the nonprofit
corporation act. The Deputy Attorney General said charter schools are public
schools for all purposes (Idaho Code 33-5204). Charter schools authorized
by district trustees are part of the school district in which they are located,
though they operate independently within the district according to what is in
the charter. Although the schools are organized under the Idaho Nonprofit
Corporations Act, Idaho Code 33-5204(1) provides that “…The board of
directors of a charter school shall be deemed public agents authorized by a
public school district or the State Board of Education to control the charter
school… A charter school shall be considered a public school for all
purposes.”



To help clarify what it means to be a public school, and to reinforce what
seems to be legislative intent, the SDE suggests that:



All governing board business of charter schools be open and follow the education
statutes required of public schools receiving public money.

The description of 7 components of Legislative intent given in Idaho Code 33-5202
that describe the purpose for charter schools seems to need clarification at item
number 3, which states, “It is the intent of the legislature to provide
opportunities…to…(3) Include the use of different and innovative teaching methods.”

Elections of charter school governing boards needs to be addressed and perhaps
better defined in public policy.

The selection for enrollment of the number of students, where the number of
applicants exceeds the available seats, remains an issue.

The process of how school boards or the state board may better deal with a
charter school where problems are found needs examining.

School districts are liable for acts or omissions of charter schools where federal
agencies hold the Local Education Agency accountable and liable.

The funding of most charter schools seems to be working fine within the existing
funding formula as defined in Idaho Code 33-5208.

There is concern that charter schools do not reflect the degree of diversity of racial
and ethnic make up of the school district of which they are a part.



Dr. West concluded that by in large most charter schools, particularly where
the school district is part of the planning and implementation process, as in
Meridian and Boise school districts, are serving students and families well.
There are some holes in public policy that need to be addressed through
legislation.

Ms. Teresa Molitor, Vice President of Human Resources and Education for
IACI (Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry) said that last month
IACI’s board of directors approved education policies. They support charter
schools and also support OSBE (Office of the State Board of Education) to
implement education policies.
Mr. Gary Stivers, Executive Director of OSBE, gave a report on the flow of
federal money to Idaho for the 2003 school year. Idaho received
$136,548,362 in federal grant money and $131,438,004 was given to the
State Department to distribute to the local districts. Of the total amount,
$5,110,358 went to OSBE for oversight and policy development
responsibilities.



Of the $13,138,295 funds for Title II A (improving teacher quality), $135,6671
was spent for administrative costs (SDE-$118,280 and OSBE- $17,391).
$345,640 was spent for state directed activity for K-12 and $345,640 was
spent for state directed activity for Higher Education. OSBE has held back
$175,000 of the Bilingual Education funds because of concerns. They are
looking at ways to develop a better program.



He also talked about the Title VI funds targeted for state assessments and
said $3,907,307 was identified for “Other Academic Indicator”. He said that
rather than use the money for another indicator, they use the funds for
software that provides teachers with remediation tools. (Mr. Stivers handout
is on file in the Education Office.)

Dr. Bob West, speaking on behalf of Dr. Marilyn Howard, Superintendent of
Public Instruction, provided testimony on Rule making and Federal
Programs. The legislature establishes and authorizes the system, the State
Board provides general supervision and control through administrative rules
and policy based on what the legislature sets up. The SDE is charged with
executing the policy and the enabling laws of K-12. The SDE recognizes the
separation of powers through which laws and ultimate public policy are
created by the Legislature and through which administrative rules are
created by OSBE, as authorized by the Legislature. Dr. West said he
mentioned these things to draw attention to the Temporary/Proposed rules
for charter schools, not yet before the legislature for review, but which the
SDE will be charged with helping to implement.



A letter was written to the Deputy Attorney General to get his guidance on
the charter school temporary rules. Because of the controversy and
concerns surrounding charter school issues, and because they are such an
important educational alternative to thousands of families in our state, it is
imperative the standards be put in place in such a way that they will have the
force of law as free as possible from dispute and opposition. The State
Board wants very much to help solve a number of concerns, and the SDE
wants to be able to be a partner to carry out the rules, as proposed, free
from challenges that may thwart the goal of the improvements sought. (Copy
of letter in handout). SDE has two concerns: (1) the component of the new
rules that establishes the creation of independent charter school districts or
Local Education Agencies; and (2) the approval of a new kind of charter
school, a multi-district charter school, from petitions that have not been first
turned down by elected trustees. SDE’s concerns are spelled out in the
handout provided, which is on file in the Education Office.



A good part of the issue surrounding these concerns deals with who has the
power and authority to make what kinds of decisions and set up which
standards. A 1998 letter to Representative Ron Black deals with the legal
relationship between the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State
Board of Education (also provided in the handout).



Regarding the division of responsibility for the implementation of federally
funded programs, there is a concern about a disconnect between key
programs to be implemented in schools. As a result of the Title III Limited
English Proficiency Program being implemented by the OSBE and the
Migrant Program being implemented by the SDE; the symbiosis and
integration that was in place in now unraveling. Another layer of
bureaucracy affecting school districts is developing. Instead of a
consolidated approach for all of NCLB programs for Title I, II, III and V and
federal special education, there will have to be two sets of needs
assessments, two sets of plans, measuring systems, two data collection
systems and two reporting systems. What was integrated for networking
among directors in the field with one agency to implement these federal
programs, as one comprehensive consolidated effort, will be disjointed and
less effective.

SDE cited problems as (1) the inevitable learning curve to orient people in
OSBE, (2) people in the field trying to figure out how to meet the direction
and program review expectations of two different agencies, and (3) school
administrators and teachers having to complete double paper work. This
creates more inefficiencies, puts more pressure on school personnel, and
will cost more for administration.
Adjournment Representative Barraclough thanked everyone for their attendance, then
adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m.






DATE: January 27, 2004
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
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Announcements He thanked the committee for their hard work last week. He said that he
has had feedback from the public saying they thought the committee
asked good questions and were genuinely interested in the issues.



Regarding the Rules, Chairman Schroeder said some temporary rules
had been written without statutory authority; however, the State Board of
Education withdrew those yesterday and that action has helped to reduce
some problems.

Speaker The Chairman then welcomed Dr. Michael Burke, president of North
Idaho College, located at Coeur d’Alene, who will present his annual
report.



Dr. Burke had two handouts for each committee member – a fact sheet
and the Fall 2003 annual report. He stated that NIC is the oldest public
community college in Idaho, founded in 1933 as Coeur d’Alene Junior
College. He also had a 1934 yearbook which he shared with the
committee. Some interesting facts of that year: four faculty members;
five in the graduating class; student body of 54; and the basketball team
beat Gonzaga 27 to 25. Funds were raised for the college by mothers
going door-to-door. Today there are 144 faculty members and the
student body consists of 4,452 academic students and an additional
8,000 students in non-credit courses.



Dr. Burke said he is extremely proud of their Adult Basic Education
program (ABE). He said their program is one of 12 in the United States
that is recognized as an exemplary program by the Department of
Education to help adults obtain their GED. He feels this program is
economic development, as over 500 people graduate every year.
Another program which he also is proud of is the Journalism program
which won 1st in the nation in two different competitions – one for general
excellence and the other for on-line newspapers. In regards to the
nursing and LPN programs, the graduates have a 100% pass rate on their
exams. (The national average is 97%.) Another achievement was a
technology team, working with a local research group on an unmanned
underwater vehicle, competed nationally. Other institutions in the
competition were Cornell (1st), Duke ( 3rd), and MIT (4th). NIC placed
7th. Dr. Burke feels that students lives are changed immeasurably by
competitions such as this. A survey concluded that $106 M is returned
back into the economy in the Coeur d’Alene area as a result of the
increased income of students who have taken advantage of the
educational opportunities at NIC.



Questions were asked of Dr. Burke as he delivered his report. Following
the report, Senator Goedde (from Coeur d’Alene) said he attended the
graduation program for the GED graduates (532) and it was heart
rendering. He said it is money very well spent. Chairman Schroeder
thanked Dr. Burke for his report.

Speaker The Chairman then welcomed Dr. Dene Thomas, president of Lewis-Clark
State College (LCSC), located at Lewiston.



Dr. Thomas said LCSC is a teaching institution first and foremost and
their motto is “Connecting learning to life”. Their mission is three part –
Academic, Professional Technical, and Community Programs. There are
six primary emphasis areas which are: business, criminal justice, nursing,
professional-technical education, social work, and teacher education.
The Fall ’03 enrollment for academic and professional-technical credit
courses was 3,471. This shows a 28% growth rate since Fall ’00. The
placement rate for graduates is 96% and 126 baseball players have
signed pro contracts. Dr. Thomas said increased salaries for teachers is
a big issue; however, the turnover rate is only 6%. When asked by
Chairman Schroeder where she sees the school in five years, Dr. Thomas
said LCSC (which is the smallest four year school) needs to grow into its
programs, but still stay small enough to reach the students – not let them
escape into the woodwork. Her target is 4,500 and also to serve the
community and state. She closed by thanking the legislators for their
support and the hard work that they do.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Thomas for her report and for also
hosting the Education Forum this past Fall.

Speaker Chairman Schroeder welcomed and introduced the next speaker, Ms.
Shirley Silver, director for the Idaho Displaced Homemaker Programs. A
report was given to all committee members and inserted in the minutes is
a copy of her talk.



Chairman Schroeder, members of the Senate Education Committee,

guests and visitors.



Thank you for the opportunity to report on the Idaho Displaced Homemaker
Program. Since all of you were on this committee last year when I presented, I
decided to vary my report this year. In the Governor’s State of the State Address,
he talked about how important it was in these tough economic times to run state
government more wisely and efficiently. He talked about “return on investment.” I
thought I would begin my presentation this morning talking about the Idaho
Displaced Homemaker Program and its value to the state in terms of “return on

investment.”



Before I do, I need to explain how the data is collected and reported.

Because of privacy laws, I do not have access to individual client records.

Instead I receive cumulative numbers from the centers. For that reason,

this is an estimate; the numbers represented were deliberately chosen to

be on the conservative side.



The only individuals we count are ones for whom a center counselor does

an intake interview, provides one or more services, and conducts follow-up.

It is a case management system. Many others only attend a workshop or

conference and they are not counted for this report. Also we only report

numbers for those individuals who participated in Center activities in this

fiscal year. Many clients enroll in educational programs, graduate and find

employment in subsequent years. For this report, we do not count those

individuals; we’re only using those who entered school or found jobs in this

fiscal year .



And now, if you’ll refer to your green sheet in your handout, I’ll explain how we
did this year.



Idaho Displaced Homemaker Program

CENTERS FOR NEW DIRECTIONS

Return on Investment



Total Number Served in FY03 1,831

Total Number with Successful Outcomes 1,299

Employment Outcomes: 470 (26% )

EducationalOutcomes: 829 (45%)

1,299

Total Number Receiving Public Assistance 740

Total Amount of Public Assistance (Food Stamps + TANF) $ 4,001,196

If all 740 were employed the state could save

up to $4 million



Applying the 26% successful employment outcomes

rate to this number, it will save the state $1,040,310



But, that is not the whole picture. The 470 who found ;

jobs would also be paying state income tax. Assuming

an average salary of $1 O/hour, state taxes collected

would be $600.70 per person per year:

470 x $600.70 = $ 282,329

State Funding to the Centers $ 404,600

General Fund = $234,600

Dedicated Fund (Divorce Fee) = $170,000



Return on Investment

Saved in Public Assistance $1,040,310

Paid in state taxes 282,329

$1,322,639

$1,322,639/$404,600 = $3.27



For every dollar invested, the return on that investment would be $3.27









The report you received provides:

-highlights of Center activities in FY2003 (beginning on page two ),

-employment and educational outcomes (on page 6),

-stories of successful clients in each region (pages 8-12), and

-characteristics of the population served (in the Appendix beginning on

page 13).



One of the numbers worth noting is that 90% (1,336) of the participants

served had children -3,193 children to be exact. Center staff helps these

individuals gain parenting skills and the important ability to balance work

and family.



Center staff members assist all their clients to become economically self-

sufficient. Let’s look at some examples:



1. Dina found employment in the trucking industry .Her training wage

was $8.12/hour for the first six weeks with a substantial increase

expected after her training period ends.

2. Julie was working as a store clerk for $6.50/hour when she came to

the Center. She received training in computer applications and found

a job where she is making $10.25/hour.

3. Kathy was making $6.75 when she came into the Center. She also

gained computer skills through the Technical College and obtained

employment which started at $8.25/hour .

4. Andrea completed a nursing degree and found a job at a local

hospital, making $13.50/hour.

5. Judy excelled in her Computer Network Technician training and is

now employed at Scientech making $13/hour.



The average starting income for these five women was $10.62/hour.

* * *

Center coordinators supplement state funding with other grants and

Technical College support to expand services to more individuals. They

also work closely with other social service agencies in their regions to

combine resources and avoid duplication of effort.



I’d like to close with a quote from a report I received from the Idaho Falls

center .



If your happy life has suddenly fallen apart and you know you need to

develop a career plan to support your children. ..



If you know that you want to enter college but are uncertain and

fearful about how to begin the process. ..



If the job you depended on has ended and you have dependents. ..



If you know you can no longer stand the abuse but have fear that you

cannot support yourself and your children with limited skills. ..



If you are a student struggling with homework and family and medical

needs… ! .



THEN you may well be one of the grateful clients served by the

Centers for New Directions.



On behalf of the Centers and all the participants we serve, we thank you for

your support!

And now Chairman Schroeder, if there are questions that you or members

of this committee have, I will be happy to address them.



Chairman Schroeder asked Ms. Silver if there are enough resources to
meet the demand. She replied that there wasn’t and that there is a
waiting list of people to get on the program. The Chairman thanked Ms.
Silver for her presentation and announced that there would be a ten
minute break.

Introductions Upon calling the meeting to order, Chairman Schroeder asked Mr. Rick
Waitley to introduce the university students who are in attendance at
today’s meeting. Mr. Waitley said the 13 students are with the Ag Econ
Public Policy tour. Some are from the Moscow campus and some are
from the Idaho Falls campus. The purpose of the tour is for the students
to learn how public policy is created. They were then introduced.
Roundtable
Discussion
Chairman Schroeder said last week’s meetings touched on four major
topics: NCLB, ISAT, Charter Schools, and processes and interactions
between agencies. He said the direction he would like to go now is to
have an open, roundtable discussion of the committees’ ideas on these
topics, then he will know how to proceed regarding these issues.



IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS/COMMENTS by the committee



Charter Schools

Preserve what is good

Avoid potential abuses

Guidance for spending with State funds

Selection process – open and fair

More clarity on charters

Chain of command if another entity, other than the trustees of the
district, approves charter. Who do they report to, who is the
reviewing authority, who is appellate authority?

Revocation process



Idaho Virtual Academy

Review address, audit, management, parent company

Business plan – did they have one?

Enrollment and residency

Ethics and accountability

Gross incompetence with budget – spending $5 M when budget
was $3 M. Who is responsible for debt?

Freeze the program until problems solved

Chain of command is needed here also



Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT)

Grow into it slowly and not make it the only basis for graduation

Make exceptions for Special Needs students and English
challenged students

Liability factor

Gap between ethnic students



No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Rural districts’ difficulties

Special Needs students

Too much paperwork for teachers and administration (49 other
states also agree)

At the close of the meeting, Senator McWilliams said “… it was extremely
troubling to him to hear from the AG’s office on the issue of ambiguity.
Charter school trustees are now defined as public agents, which is now
unaccounted for in other laws that public institutions have to obey. As it
stands right now, that ambiguity in the law has allowed these charter
schools the potential of abuse, and could be an unbridled system of
entrepreneurship at the expense of our taxpayers dollars. The K12
example is something we have to be mindful of. Prospectively, the
difficulty will not be that great, but retrospectively, with what has already
occurred, the ambiguities are such that the situation is right for litigation to
solve those ambiguities….”.



Chairman Schroeder said with respect to the “public agent issue”, he
would like to ask Senator McWilliams to work on improving that language.

Chairman Schroeder said that as they move forward with charter schools,
he hopes more problems are not created. He asked that the committee
have proposals and identify issues on the four subject areas for further
discussion. He also said that his main goal is, with respect to the
agencies in the process, that the legislature do what is constitutionally
and legally the right thing to do. With respect to charter schools, the
same principles have to apply.

Announcement Senator Werk announced that he would be absent the next three days
and he introduced Ms. Deborah Spindler who will be his replacement.
Chairman Schroeder welcomed Ms. Spindler to the committee.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 10:15 a.m.






DATE: January 28, 2004
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Spindler (Werk), Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
MINUTES:



Announcements

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 8:35 a.m.



The Chairman announced that Celia Sims from the U.S. Department of
Education will be in the House Caucus room from 1:30 to 3 p.m. today
and will be available to answers questions concerning NCLB. He also
asked the committee if they wanted to spend the time preparing a report
for JFAC.

Speaker Chairman Schroeder welcomed Gary Michael, interim president for the
University of Idaho, located at Moscow, who will give the annual report.



Some comments made by President Michael – has been at the university
eight months and will present some observations and insights that he has
made. One observation is that the faculty is very dedicated and cautious.
Also, the collaborations with the other schools is good and they all work
very well together. Regarding the issues, the budget crisis is at the top of
the list. He said less funding required increasing student fees for the last
two years. The alternative would be to lower fees and that would lower
quality and that is not the thing to do. Salaries are an issue also, as the
salaries at the University are about 25% under the marketplace. As far as
budget cuts, President Michael said they would not be across the board,
but they would pick and choose what they would excel in and what the
marketplace wants. He said he feels the engineering school should be
the crown jewel of the university. Time was allowed for questions.



Chairman Schroeder thanked President Michael for “stabilizing the ship”
and for his report.

Speaker Chairman Schroeder welcomed Bill Robertson, interim president for
Eastern Idaho Technical College (EITC), located at Idaho Falls.



President Robertson said he has been at EITC eight months, a similarity
with President Michael. He said they have a nine county service area and
they are a comprehensive technical college serving those counties. The
college offers 20 degrees and certificates, provides Adult Basic
Education, English as a Second Language, and basic skills training. Also
available is the Displaced Homemaker program, which is very valuable
and successful. Workforce training is the mainstream in economic
development, operating large numbers of programs to support business
and industry in the area. The enrollment has been stable and EITC has
adjusted to the funding. The majority of students are non traditional
students, holding down full-time jobs, and many with families. He
cautioned the committee about raising student fees, as it closes the door
for the most vulnerable students.



President Robertson said the nursing program is their largest program,
with over 100 students. They take the core subjects, then move to the
regular program in 2-3 semesters later. EITC provides a LPN course,
then students can go to ISU for further nursing classes. He said that ISU
does not give full articulated credits when students transfer to their
program. When asked why ISU did not accept all credits, President
Robertson said he did not know for sure why, but suspected they were
protective of quality credits and EITC had not reached an agreement with
ISU. He said EITC has agreements with LCSC and BSU for transfer of all
credits. There was some discussion regarding this issue. Time was
allowed for a few questions.



Chairman Schroeder thanked President Robertson for speaking to the
committee, then called for a short break.

Speaker After calling the meeting to order, the Chairman welcomed Dr. Bob Haley,
legislative liaison for the State Department of Education. Inserted in the
minutes is a copy of his talk.



ALTERNATIVE TO HIGH STAKES TESTING

Over the past few months I have had the opportunity to hear

a number of nationally known educational researchers speak about

educational issues in Idaho and across the nation. One of the

speakers I heard a couple of weeks ago was Doug Reeves, who is a

nationally know researcher, Harvard professor and is with the

Center for Performance Assessment. He was also here a couple of

years ago and spoke in the Gold Room. Some of you may have

heard him at that time.



After his presentation a couple of weeks ago and during a

question and answer period, he was asked if he was aware of the

discussions going on in Idaho about a high stakes test. He stated

that he was. He was then asked if he had an opinion to share

about high stakes testing.



He commented that Idaho was headed down the path to

disaster just like other states already had and that Idaho should

learn from the mistakes of others. Other states have implemented

high stakes testing and ended up in the courtroom defending what

they had done. Some have won and some have lost, but either

way valuable resources were spent on attorneys.



That does not mean that you have to give up on high stakes

testing. It is important to continue to raise the bar and continue to

improve student learoing. There is middle ground that other states

have found and we can do the same in Idaho before we end up in

the courtroom.



For example, research shows that many students who fail the

high stakes test also have poor attendance, so an additional

requirement could be 90% attendance throughout high school.

Also, students who fail the test often have not taken high school

seriously and have gotten by with “D’s”, so another requirement

could be a grade of “C” in all courses required by the State Board.

Another requirement could be to demonstrate proficiency in

writhing such as the direct writing assessment already used in other

grades in Idaho. And another might be to demonstrate proficiency

in core subjects through a high school portfolio.



Now we have five requirements:



I. The lOth grade ISAT

2. 90% attendance

3. “C” grades in courses required by the State

4. Proficiency in writing

5. High School portfolio



So, from these five requirements let them have a diploma if

the complete four out of the five. If they fail the high stakes test

they still can get a diploma if they pass the other four

requirements. If you allow options, it is not likely you will end up

in the courtroom and if you do it is much easier to defend options.



If you don’t like these four requirements in addition to the

ISAT then Idaho could choose others, such as a “Direct Math

Assessment” or a “Senior Project” and I am sure there are others

that could be considered.



It also solves another problem as well. We have already

heard from students that if they pass the ISA T in the lOth grade

then they should be done. If required to attend they will take it

easy. With these additional requirements we will have them

working up to the end.



As we later thought about this approach we saw this as a

compromise to the problem in Idaho. So, we emailed Dr. Reeves

and asked him to clarify some of his comments that he had made

earlier and we have provided you with a copy of his reply.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Haley for taking the time to talk to the
committee.

Speaker He then welcomed Dr. Richard Bowen, president of Idaho State
University, located at Pocatello.



Dr. Bowen has provided a fact sheet and a booklet, Idaho State University
Portrait 1994-2003, for the committee members. He said he wanted to
talk about two issues, the first being money. The faculty turnover rate at
ISU is 6.5% and he hopes that there will be funds for salary increases this
year, as there has not been any for the past two years. He said it is
important to not loose good faculty members. The other issue is that of
health science. ISU has a mission in that field to fulfill. He said that ISU
teaches nursing in Coeur d’Alene, Lewiston (mainly by distance learning),
Idaho Falls with 2,600 students, Twin Falls with 225 students at CSI and
Boise. ISU was part of the plans in University Place, but it appears now
that they will not have the space as planned. Dr. Bowen said they are
working with the UI Foundation and the State Building Authority to try to
work out some kind of an arrangement. The present building ISU uses in
Boise for instruction is one of HP’s buildings, which they will soon
outgrow. In Idaho Falls, the universities have a cooperative arrangement.
ISU, UI, Brigham Young, Idaho have a joint facility for students. They
register once, apply for financial aid once, and can take classes at any of
the institutions, then choose who they want to graduate from, with all
credits transferable. Approximately 3,000 students attend this facility. Dr.
Bowen said he is working with CSI for a similar arrangement.
Construction is going on at the Pocatello campus, which Dr. Bowen is
excited about and invited the committee to visit the campus for a tour.



Chairman Schroeder relayed the information to Dr. Bowen regarding the
matter of the lack of transferring of credits from the EITC nursing program
to ISU. He asked Dr. Bowen to look into the matter and report his
findings. Dr. Bowen said he would.



Time was allowed for some questions. Following the questions,
Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Bowen for his report.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m.






DATE: January 29, 2004
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Spindler (Werk), Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. and asked
Senator Malepeai to brief the committee on RS 13640.
RS 13640 Senator Malepeai said he hopes this RS will be a non controversial piece
of legislation. It increases the reimbursement that driver education
programs receive from $110 to $125, and it comes from dedicated money.
There is no impact on the general fund.



Beth Weaver, Driver Education Specialist with the State Department of
Education, testified that the money is from driver licensing fees with the
Department of Transportation and indicated that the Transportation
Department is in favor of this RS.



Senator Goedde suggested that the word “overall” be inserted prior to the
word increase to reflect the correct intention. Ms. Weaver said she would
make that addition.

Motion Senator Gannon made the motion to send RS 13640 for printing. Senator
Goedde seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated that it passed
unanimously.
Speaker Chairman Schroeder introduced Tim Hill, Bureau Chief of Finance and
Transportation, who will talk about Public School Finance.



Mr. Hill thanked the committee for inviting him to give the committee a
“refresher” course. With the changing of laws and the complexity of the
formula, he feels it is time well spent for the committee. Mr. Hill said it is
also his job to provide information so that lawmakers can make good
decisions. Handouts were provided to audience members, as well as
committee members, of the Powerpoint presentation. Mr. Hill encouraged
the committee to ask questions as he presented the material, rather than
wait until later. The presentation covered the following:



1. Where do Public School Funds come from?

2. How are the funds distributed?

3. What is a Support Unit and how is it calculated?

4. What is Salary-based Apportionment?

5. How much is a Support Unit worth?

6. What is Equalization and how is it applied?

7. How much is the Distribution Factor and how is it calculated?

8. What is the payment distribution schedule?

9. How is a district’s foundation payment calculated?



Information showing how the money is spent:

Out of every dollar, (from the General M&O Fund, expenditures by Object
for FY 2002)

85.7 cents was spent on salaries and benefits for instructional,
administrative, and classified staff.

7.8 cents was spent on purchased services (utilities, data
processing, telephone, postage, auditors, lawyers, travel, etc.)

4.9 cents was spent on supplies [textbooks, library materials,
general, transportation (gas, oil, tires, etc.)].

1.6 cents was spent on capital outlay, insurance and all other.



Out of every dollar, (from the General M&O Fund, expenditures by
Function
for FY 2002)

62.7 cents was spent on instruction.

10.4 cents was spent on administration.

10.1 cents was spent on building maintenance.

9.7 cents was spent on support services.

5.2 cents was spent on transportation.

1.9 cents was spent on transfers (school bus depreciation) and all
other.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. Hill for his presentation and the time he
spends with the committee.

Adjournment He then adjourned the meeting at 11:20 a.m.






DATE: January 30, 2004
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Spindler (Werk), Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:



none
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder call the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Introductions He acknowledged Ms. Kathy Phelan, IEA president, who introduced her
four guests who are local IEA presidents – Robin Porter, Laurie Roark,
Kathy Buswell, and Gary Wilson.
Motion Senator Gannon said that he had reviewed the minutes of January 14, 15,
16 and made the motion for their acceptance. It was seconded by
Senator Andreason. A voice vote indicated that it passed unanimously.
Speaker Chairman Schroeder welcomed and introduced Dr. Robert Kustra,
President of Boise State University, who will give the annual report.



Dr. Kustra opened his remarks by stating that he served 10 years on an
education committee in his prior political career. Some subject areas that
he discussed was the collaboration with other schools, which is ongoing;
the student growth problem and lack of space; growing in mission and
scope; budget; and the Canyon County campus. He stressed the need
for a community college in the Boise area. Another concern was that he
feels students in high school need to take a math class in their senior year
so that they will be better prepared for college entrance. Dr. Kustra said
he would provide statistics regarding this matter.



After Dr. Kustra’s talk, he answered questions from the committee.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Kustra for talking to the committee and
complimented him on his enthusiasm.

He announced there would be a 10 minute break.
Introductions Calling the meeting to order, the Chairman asked Ms. Phelan to introduce
additional guests of the IEA. They were Sylvia Camp, Council, and Sheila
Stikler, Emmett (who is in her 43rd year of teaching).
Speaker He then welcomed Brent Reinke, director of Juvenile Corrections.
Accompanying Mr. Reinke was Dr. Glenda Rohrbach, State Education
Coordinator.



Mr. Reinke provided a “Legislative Update 2004” for the committee. It
consists of facts, information and statistics regarding the Juvenile
Corrections. Mr. Reinke said 94% of Juvenile services are provided at the
local level (the 44 counties). The population of 10 to 17 year olds is
170,936 of which 86.2% are never arrested; 8.4% are arrested; 5.1%
have a petition filed; and 0.2% are in juvenile corrections. Of this 0.2%
group ( 440 juveniles), 90.9% are male and 9.1% are female and the
average age is 15.7 years. In the problem areas, the two areas of
greatest concern are sex offenders and mental health (suicide), followed
by drug and alcohol. Of the 440 juveniles, 51% are placed in state
facilities and 49% are placed in contract facilities.



Dr. Rohrbach’s educational report pertains to the juveniles in state
contracted beds. There are 225 juveniles in state contracted beds
(Nampa, St. Anthony, Lewiston). Of that group, only 75 took the Spring
and Fall ISAT test. This was because they were moved around. She said
the department has many challenges facing them, including a shortage of
teachers. The school is accredited and the teachers are certified.
Classes are conducted six hours a day, five days a week, all year long.
Almost half of the juveniles are eligible for Special Education. It was
noted that it costs $157.93 per day to care for juveniles at the IDJC state
institution.



Dr. Rohrbach and Mr. Reinke answered questions from the committee.
One question asked was what could be done to help juveniles from
getting into this situation. Dr. Rohrbach said that the earlier you can
reach children and work with them, the more beneficial it is.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Rohrbach and Mr. Reinke for speaking
to the committee.

The Chairman announced next week’s agenda, asked the members to
bring their RS’s to him, and also said if anyone has suggestions for future
meetings or speakers to let him know. He said he wants to provide
information to that the committee so that they can make good decisions.
He thanked the committee for their good work, then adjourned the
meeting at 10:50 a.m.






DATE: February 3, 2004
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
MINUTES: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 8:30
Introductions He welcomed the audience to the meeting and asked Ms. Kathy Phelan,
IEA president to introduce her four guests. They were Bo Cummings,
Orofino; Pat St. Tourangeau, Kamiah School District; Misty Koeppen,
Nampa; and Rhonda Ralls, Nampa.
RS 13654 Senator Werk then presented RS 13654. It removes the cap from the
experience and education index that is used in the salary-based
apportionment formula for distributing state money to public schools.
Senator Noh made the motion to have RS 13654 printed. It was
seconded by Senator Andreason. Senator Goedde said he would vote to
have the RS printed, but wanted to reserve the right to change his vote
when the hearing is held. A voice vote indicated that the motion passed
unanimously.
Speaker Chairman Schroeder welcomed Dr. Marilyn Howard, Superintendent of
Public Instruction, who will present the Public School Budget.



Dr. Howard said this year’s public school budget is “somber” and
distinguishes between wants and needs. She said this is a “bare bones”
needs-based budget. In the budget is a 1% salary improvement for
employees. Two and one half million dollars has been transferred from
the teachers support programs to ISAT remediation and she has asked
for another $2.5 M to be joined to that. She also wanted to keep
technology at the same level. The Governor’s budget is $5 M less for
technology and Dr. Howard feels that is a serious omission. Also, no
money for remediation was allowed in the Governor’s budget.



Assisting Dr. Howard was Tim Hill, Bureau Chief for Finance and
Transportation. Mr. Hill provided handouts for the committee (attached).
The yellow sheet is the budget request for the State Department of
Education; the green sheet is the budget recommendations of the
Governor; and the blue sheet compares the two.






Mr. Hill, referring to the yellow sheet, said there are statutory
requirements to distribute a large part of the dollars. He explained each
of the 24 items in the Program Distribution.

Break Following the presentation, Chairman Schroeder called for a 10 minute
break.
Discussion The meeting was called to order and time was allowed for questions.
Following the questions, Tim reviewed the Governor’s budget request.
This was followed by more questions and discussion. One of the
questions asked of Dr. Howard was, with respect to adding requirements
of NCLB and ISAT, how can we be successful given the funding realities.
Dr. Howard responded by saying that some electives might be eliminated
and less emphasis on some parts of the curriculum. She has heard there
may be some narrowing of curriculum. The testing for NCLB and ISAT is
on reading and math and those subjects will become the target areas. Dr.
Howard said she is concerned that a situation could be created where
teaching all the disciplines will not be taught and the students will not
have an opportunity to have a well-rounded education. Dr. Howard said
the intent of NCLB is to identify the students who are falling behind and
move them forward. The goal is for all students to advance, but the
attention and money is targeted to the 25% who are behind.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Howard and Tim for their presentation,
then adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m.






DATE: February 4, 2004
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
MINUTES: The Joint Meeting of the House and Senate Education committees was
called to order at 8:30 a.m. by Chairman Schroeder.



He introduced House Chairman Representative Barraclough, Vice
Chairman Representative Lake and Vice Chairman Senator Gannon.

Announcement Chairman Barraclough announced that yesterday most of the House
committee members took advantage of previewing or taking portions of
the ISAT test at Boise High School. He said three test specialists from
Portland were there to administer the test. He encouraged the committee
members who have not taken the test to do so.
Speaker Chairman Schroeder welcomed Ms. Shirley Block, Idaho PTA State
President, who made some introductory remarks.



Ms. Block said Idaho has approximately 8,000 PTA members and there
are six million PTA members nationally. She pointed out the many
benefits parents may experience by joining PTA. The PTA is also a
“parent educator” that offers workshops on parenting skills, safety,
discipline, nutrition, drug abuse and parental involvement. PTA is a
“service” organization that provides and endorses volunteers in the
schools and classrooms.



She read the Mission Statement and the Objects of the Idaho Congress of
Parents and Teachers, Inc. which states:



The mission of the PTA is threefold:

  • To support and speak on behalf of children and youth in the
    schools, in the community, and before governmental bodies and
    other organizations that make decisions affecting children; and
  • To assist parents in developing the skills they need to raise and
    protect their children; and
  • To encourage parent and public involvement in the public schools
    of this nation.


The Objects are:

  • To promote the welfare of children and youth in home, school,
    community and place of worship.
  • To raise the standards of home life.
  • To secure adequate laws for the care and protection of children
    and youth.
  • To bring into close relation the home and the school, that parents
    and teachers may cooperate intelligently in the education of
    children and youth.
  • To develop between educators and the general public such united
    efforts as will secure for all children and youth the highest
    advantages in physical, mental, social and spiritual education.
Ms. Block closed her remarks by reading a poem written by Anna B.
Hayes, a former State PTA president (50 years ago), who then advanced
to become a National PTA president later.



“For every child the right to grow in stature strong and free,

and grace to grow in fellowship in his own right to be,

A noble, useful citizen endowed with liberty.”



Ms. Block then introduced Ms. Barb Bode, PTA legislative chairman and
Ms. Julia Robinson, legislative representative.

Speaker Ms. Bode said the PTA had several legislative objectives and she will
address those issues to let the committees know the position of the PTA.



The first one she addressed was ISAT. They oppose the use of a
standardized test as the sole criteria for measuring progress and are also
concerned about high stakes testing. The PTA believes multiple
measures of student performance to be a more valid assessment of a
student’s overall ability than a high stakes test or other one-size-fits-all
assessment.

Regarding charter schools, the PTA continues to support the development
of Charter Schools but also seeks legislation ensuring charter schools
meet local health and safety standards, receive separately allocated
funds so as not to divert limited funds from public education, carry a
performance bond and be governed by the local School Board in the
district in which the charter school is located.
Ms. Bode said with regards to the power of the State Board of Education,
the PTA is concerned about that and they have a resolution that states
they would support two boards – one for higher ed and one for K-12.
The PTA supports parent involvement. Research had demonstrated that
when parents are involved, students achieve more regardless of
socioeconomic status, ethnic/racial background or parents’ education
level. The Idaho PTA seeks three things: (1) the protection of the rights of
parental involvement in site based decision making; (2) to ensure schools
communicate with and involve parents in meaningful ways; and (3) to
include parental involvement as a component of the School Accountability
Report Card.
Education funding is another legislative priority for the Idaho PTA. Ms.
Bode said they support Dr. Howard’s budget, but would like to see a 2%
increase for teachers salaries instead of 1%. The PTA supports providing
school choice within the public education system while maintaining
accountability.
Another legislative priority is the property tax replacement fund cap. They
oppose the continuance of the cap enacted by the 2003 legislature and
are asking the 2004 legislature to repeal that cap in order to ensure
important educational programs and opportunities will not be lost to
Idaho’s students.
The Idaho PTA is requesting the Idaho legislature to remove the
supermajority requirement for passing bond levies for the building and
maintenance of school facilities. They are also requesting the legislature
to repeal the Constitutionally Based Educational Claims Act (CBECA) in
its entirety, including the amendments made to it by H 403aa.
Regarding second hand smoke and tobacco use, the PTA will pursue
legislation that prohibits smoking in public places in order to reduce the
exposure of children to second hand smoke. They support funding of
programs that educate the public on the dangers of second hand smoke
and the health issues related to adolescent tobacco use. Ms. Bode said
they are also in support of Senator Brent Hill’s bill regarding this matter.
She said “this is a health issue, not a smoke issue”.
Time was allowed for questions which both Ms. Bode and Ms. Block
responded to.
Chairman Schroeder thanked the ladies for their presentation and to the
PTA representatives in the audience for their dedication.
Break The Chairman called for a ten minute break.
Speaker Calling the meeting to order, Chairman Schroeder welcomed Craig Olson,
president of the J.A. and Katherine Albertson Foundation.
Mr. Olson introduced some of the people working with him on ISIMS.
They were Wayne Rush, Program Development Officer; Nissa Crawford,
Assistant Program Developer; Roger Widner, Project Manager,
AdvanTech LLC; Bob Haley, Consultant, SDE; Gale Hogan, Business
Process and Policy Consultant; and Rich Mincer, Bureau Chief of
Technology Services, SDE.
The Foundation had two handouts. One contained copies of the slides for
the PowerPoint presentation that was given and the other had three fact
sheets: leadership, features and overview. Also included was a bulletin
and information regarding the differences of distribution of the State
Technology Grant of 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.



Mr. Olson talked about the partnership that it takes to make ISIMS a
statewide reality. It includes the Governor, legislature, State Board of
Education, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, all educators, all
stakeholders, and the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation.



He stated that the Governor signed H 367 last year that defines ISIMS as
“a secure, centralized data system where public school information is
stored, accessed and analyzed.” It requires agencies and districts to use
ISIMS to the full extent of its availability; provides for ongoing funding by
the State for operation and maintenance of the system; and the State
Board of Education shall ensure that a state operated Idaho student
information management system which provides real time, appropriate
access to educational data, is available and used by all Idaho school
districts.



The Albertson Foundation has committed to invest $35 M in this project
and will turn it over to the State Department of Education when the
system is substantially complete. This amount includes on-going costs
and training. The Foundation reserves the right to not proceed or to
cease funding if partner commitments are not met or if the State and the
Foundation mutually agree to terminate the project.



Mr. Olson said the ISIMS statewide mission is to equip the Idaho
educational system stakeholders with the most efficient and effective
student information management and reporting system. They also have
three goals and they are: (1) indirectly improve student achievement; (2)
enhance data driven decisions; (3) provide information on impact of
programs. He elaborated on each of these goals.



He then talked about parental involvement, such as knowing the
homework assignments, attendance, discipline information and
graduation progress. It also has many benefits for teachers. That
includes curriculum and lesson plans, teaching resources, class
assessment and progress reports, grade book, and better communication
with parents. One of the benefits for schools and districts is being able to
track the student growth to standards and can make state and national
comparisons. The State educational agencies would also have this
information. Information that is required by the State, Federal, and NCLB
would be readily available through the use of this system. The Governor
and Legislature will be able to track the progress to meet State standards,
as well as data driven decisions, program accountability, and district and
school report cards. It should help in setting goals and state budgets.



Mr. Olson explained that the system will be operated out of one location;
uniform to all users; delivered via the internet; one set of servers with the
schools tied to that. He then explained the software, infrastructure,
integration, and user access. Negotiations are complete and a letter of
agreement is signed with AAL (eSIS Software) and Plato Learning (Orion
Software). Evaluation of available software is currently being made
regarding reporting and analytics and special population.



He said they are very close to validating the system. The pilot
districts/schools are: Firth, Kuna, Kellogg, and Meridian Charter High
School.



Mr. Olson then covered the responsibilities of various agencies.



State Board of Education

Approve policy for a common course code system

Approve policy for a unique student identifier

Approve policy for security of student data



State Department of Education

Assist in building and providing technical support

Employee FTEs – funded by Foundation grant

Work with all education agencies and associations

Provide ongoing training and support

Execute long-term contracts for state

Develop annual ISIMS budget



Districts

Adopt policy to guide the use of ISIMS

Provide adequate bandwidth from district/school

Access to a modern computer for every teacher (a computer with
Windows 2000 or better)

Make staff available for training



Mr. Olson then talked about the risks involved with this project. They are
as follows: slow process; ISIMS, state agency, and stakeholder committee
focus; cost over runs; stakeholder involvement/objections; system
response time – Internet Bandwidth; system design issues; non-ISIMS
vendors not supporting districts, not renewing contracts or increasing
pricing during statewide ISIMS build phase. He also said there are two
things needed in this partnership and they are (1) assistance in moving
Idaho forward in partnering to provide increased and less expensive
bandwidth/connectivity to schools and (2) maintain or increase current
level of funding for district technology.



At the conclusion of Mr. Olson’s presentation, time was allowed for
questions from the committee members.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. Olson for his presentation and the
Albertson Foundation for their contribution to this project.
Adjournment He then adjourned the meeting at 11 a.m.






DATE: February 5, 2004
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
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Announcement He said he wanted to thank the State Board of Education for the
opportunity that allowed the legislators to view the questions on the ISAT
test (or to take the test).
RS 13624 The Chairman then explained RS 13624 which he is sponsoring. It is a
Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to Section 2, Article IX, of the
Constitution of the State of Idaho, relating to the State Board of
Education, to provide that the responsibility of the State Board of
Education shall be limited to supervision of the public school system and
to provide a separate Board of Regents to supervise the public institutions
of postsecondary education in the state and perform such other functions
as prescribed by law.
Motion After some discussion, Senator Noh made the motion to print RS 13624.
Senator Andreason seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated that it
passed unanimously.
Speakers Chairman Schroeder welcomed Dr. Mike Stefanic, Bureau Chief for
Certification/Professional Standards, and Keith Potter, Certification
Specialist. The Chairman said this presentation is to familiarize the
committee about ABCTE, what it is, and what it does.



Dr. Stefanic and Keith Potter gave a presentation on the Praxis II
Assessment Program and the American Board for Certification of Teacher
Excellence (ABCTE) Alternate Route to Idaho Certification.



Inserted in the minutes is a copy of their presentation.

My name is Mike Stefanic. I am the Certification/Professional Standards Bureau
Chief in the State Department of Education. Mr. Keith Potter is the investigator
for the Professional Standards Commission, as well as Certification Specialist in
the Bureau. We plan to discuss the Praxis II Assessment Program and the

ABCTE Alternate Route to Idaho Certification.



MIKE STEFANIC (presented the following)



PRAXIS II ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

and BACKGROUND



.The U.S. Congress is concerned about the effectiveness of teacher preparation
programs throughout the nation.



.The concern by Congress was addressed over several years with a desire to
have teacher preparation institutions report annually on the quality of teacher
candidates they graduate.



.It was determined by Congress that a more universal method of reporting
needed to be made. Objective, statistical evidence became a requirement of Title
II of the

Higher Education Act.



.In Idaho, State Department and State Board staff, deans of the college of
education and other constituency groups such as the IEA, the IASA and the ISBA
addressed the Title II challenge.



.The conclusion was to recommend to the State Board of Education that the
Praxis II assessment program from ETS (Educational Testing Service) be used
as the vehicle to meet Title II requirements.



.The Idaho State Board of Education unanimously approved the following action
item on Friday, November 17, 2000.



.”It was moved by Mr. Rod Lewis and carried to approve the use of the PRAXIS II
examination as an initial preservice requirement for teacher certification.”



.The first Idaho Title II report was submitted in September 2001 and each April
and October thereafter .



.In the meantime, about 2002, the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) federal mandate
added emphasis on testing, particularly content area assessment.



KEITH POTTER (presented the following)



IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS STATE BOARD DIRECTION TO

USE THE PRAXIS II ASSESSMENT PROCESS



PROCESS FOR CHOOSING PRAXIS II TESTS



ETS, (Educational Testing Services) recommends a specific method for
approving the Praxis II tests.



A. The ETS standard setting process has the state choose a team of 15 to 20
teachers with 7 -years or less of teaching experience. For each test item, the
team was to determine if a beginning Idaho teacher would know the correct
answer. This is a time-consuming process but was implemented for English,
Math and Elementary Ed.



B. An alternative process was suggested to ETS and was accepted because it
saved time and allowed us to review the assessments in a different way. The
process was established so that educators at the university level who prepared
students to teach in a content area were brought to Boise to review Praxis II
content, pedagogy and performance assessments.

.These educators reviewed the test questions, compared the questions to Idaho’s
standards, and determined if the Praxis II assessment was aligned with

Idaho’s standards.



.Idaho reviewed every certificate and endorsement area that had a related Praxis
II assessment. Several endorsement areas require more than one test.

As examples:



1. Music endorsement -The reviewers felt the content area multiple-choice
assessment did not adequately assess a performance-based endorsement.

Ultimately the reviewers suggested a performance test be added. Music majors
are required to take two assessments -content and performance.



2. Standard Exceptional Child Certificate -The reviewers determined that two
assessments were needed. One assessment assesses basic skills

while the other assesses specific special education areas (i.e, mild to moderate,
hearing impaired).



3. Standard Elementary Certificate -Because NCLB requires elementary teachers
to take a pedagogy assessment, candidates must take both the content and
pedagogy assessments.



4. ETS offers a specific content area assessment only for Spanish, French and
German. Other foreign languages are taught in Idaho. A pedagogy assessment,
therefore, is required for other foreign languages.



5. Several endorsements do not have a Praxis II assessment (e.g., Philosophy,
Journalism, and Drivers Ed). The Professional Standards Commission is
discussing how to deal with those endorsements.



MIKE STEFANIC (presented the following)



.The Professional Standards Commission, with the help of Bureau of
Certification/Professional Standards staff, Dr. David Breithaupt- the Research
and Evaluation staff member in the Department, and Dr. Randy Thompson from
the State Board of Education, collaborated to formulate a recommendation to the
State Board of Education regarding Praxis II qualifying scores.



.A recommendation was made by the Professional Standards Commission to the
State Board of Education to approve the Praxis II assessment qualifying scores.
Dr. Randy Thompson submitted the recommendation from the Commission to the
State Board .



.The State Board of Education approved the qualifying scores for Praxis II
assessments as submitted at its December 4-5, 2003, meeting. The approval
states that:



.the qualifying scores for required Praxis II content, pedagogy and performance
assessments are based on the mean of the national data from 2002-2003
minus one standard deviation
. Candidates will be held accountable for meeting
or exceeding the Praxis II qualifying scores on assessments taken from
September 1, 2004, forward.



.A copy of the assessments and the approved qualifying scores are included in
your packet.



KEITH POTTER (presented the following)



How Qualifying Scores Are Chosen



The ETS’s testing year begins in September and goes through June of the
following year. Idaho decided to pilot the Praxis II assessments beginning in
September 2002, with the intent of using the pilot scores as the basis for setting
qualifying scores.



A. ETS requires a minimum of 10 assessment scores in a given area to be
deemed statistically significant.



B. David Breithaupt, State Dept. of Ed statistician, indicated that a high stakes
assessment of this type should have a minimum of 27 scores when setting a
qualifying score.



C. When Idaho received the scores from ETS, there were a number of areas that
didn’t have enough scores to consider setting qualifying scores. A number of

assessment areas had less than 10 candidates who took the assessment. The
concern was -how long would it take to get enough scores so the qualifying score
could be set?



D. After a discussion within our bureau, and with David Breithaupt and Randy
Thompson of the SBOE, it was suggested that the qualifying scores be set
statistically using the national mean minus one standard deviation.



E. The Professional Standards Commission will monitor and review the yearly
scores and, when appropriate, make appropriate recommendations to the State
Board concerning qualifying score adjustments.



Questions were asked by the committee throughout the presentation.



With regards to who has to take this test, it was pointed out that all

teachers are required to take this test and they pay the costs associated
with it.

Break















Chairman Schroeder said there would be a 10 minute break before
hearing about ABCTE.



The Chairman called the meeting to order and said Dr. Stefanic and Mr.
Potter would continue their presentation.



MIKE STEFANIC (presented the following)



ABCTE (AMERICAN BOARD for the CERTIFICATION of

TEACHER EXCELLENCE)



At its December 4-5, 2003, meeting, the State Board of Education approved the
use of the ABCTE certification process in Idaho.



.The staff in the Bureau of Certification/Professional Standards developed an
implementation process to ensure that the American Board certification was an
alternate route to Idaho certification and not an alternative Idaho certificate.



.The bureau worked with ABCTE personnel and Dr. Randy Thompson from the
State Board office on this implementation process. Dr. Thompson and the
ABCTE

officials agree with the process.



.You have in your packet the ABCTE process. I want to address this process.



An American Board applicant for Idaho certification must meet either the
requirements for an Idaho interim certificate or a standard Idaho certificate. The
requirements for each of these options are listed below.



Option 1: To receive an Idaho interim certificate, American Board Certified
Teachers must: (1) successfully complete the American Board certification
process; submit a notarized copy of the American Board certificate; and submit a
completed Idaho certification application (including a $75 fee) and (2) as required
by Idaho statute, undergo a criminal history check on an Idaho fingerprint card
(including a $40 fee). When the American Board applicant meets these
requirements, he/she can be issued a three-year non-renewable Idaho interim
certificate. This certificate provides the applicant a window of time to meet the
requirements for standard Idaho certification and any other State Board approved
requirements in place at the time of Idaho interim certificate issuance.



Option 2: To receive a standard Idaho certificate, American Board Certified
Teachers must: (1) Successfully complete the American Board certification
process; submit a notarized copy of the American Board certificate; and submit a
completed Idaho certification application (including a $75 fee); (2) Take and pass
one of the three State Board-approved Idaho Technology competency
Assessments; (3) Take and pass the Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Assessment
or pass the Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Course (for K-8 teachers); (4) As
required by Idaho state, undergo a criminal history check on an Idaho fingerprint
card (including a $40 fee). Upon meeting the four standard certificate
requirements, the applicant will be issued a standard Idaho teaching certificate in
the area in which he/she is qualified.

Following this presentation, the committee asked questions of Dr.
Stefanic and Mr. Potter.
Chairman Schroeder said there was one person signed up to testify and
that is Dr. Dennis Cartwright, Dean of School of Education at NNU.
Testimony Concerns about Allowing the ABCTE to Serve as the Primary Requirement for

Idaho Teacher Licensure



Testimony submitted by

Dennis D. Cartwright, Ph.D.

Dean School of Education, Social Work & Counseling

Northwest Nazarene University



I urge the Senate Education Committee to recommend that the ABCTE not be
allowed to meet the requirements for Idaho teacher certification for the following
reasons:



.Teacher certification/licensure is guaranteed by the constitution as being a right
of the state. Does Idaho want to give up this right to a test that was developed at
the federal level?



. The ABCTE was approved by the State Board without a public hearing

announcing that it was to be considered. There was not attempt to determine that

the items on the ABCTE align with the state standards for teacher preparation or

with the Idaho K-12 Standards (content validity).



.What is reliability or validity data on the exam? What must be provided is

predictive validity. In other words, are individuals more effective in helping

students learn who score higher on the ABCTE than those who score lower?



.If they are able to establish predictive validity, what score would be high enough

to say a person is qualified to teach? You cannot do a qualifying score setting

exercise until you establish what the test is measuring, that it is measuring it

consistently and that it is measuring what you want measured



.The American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence is planning to do a

longitudinal study, presumably to document the efficacy of teachers certified to

teach by passing this exam. Are we willing to allow children, Idaho children, to

be the guinea pigs for this study? How many years of our children’ s education

are we willing to put at risk to see if this experiment is going to work.



.Research reported by Dr. Linda Darling Hammond demonstrated that students

who have the good fortune of being in classrooms with caring, qualified teachers

score 50 percentile points higher on standardized exams than students of equal

ability who are placed in classrooms without caring, qualified teachers for three

years. This research supports the assertion that the single most critical variable
in

whether or not a child learns is the teacher. (citation available upon request)



.The ABCTE web page states that Idaho joins Pennsylvania as the second state
to adopt the ABCTE as meeting the requirements for state certification. This is an

interesting distinction for a state that has spent so much time and so many

resources, both state and foundation resources, to increase the standards for the

preparation of teachers. Other states, including Texas, have turned down the

ABCTE as meeting the qualification for licensure.



.The NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education)

standards, required of all Idaho institutions that prepare teachers, require

programs to use multiple measures to document what teacher candidates know

and are able to do. I know of no one, knowledgeable of psychometrics, who

would support single measure testing as being capable of making high stakes

decisions about the ability of an individual to accomplish complex functions

involving groups of people and complex concepts.



.The NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education)

standards, required of all Idaho institutions that prepare teachers, require

programs to demonstrate that teacher candidates have a positive impact on the

learning of the students with whom they work. No paper pencil exam taken by

prospective teachers can demonstrate that these candidates can impact the

learning of K-12 students.



.Teacher preparation programs are required to assess the knowledge, skills and

dispositions of candidates before allowing them to be recommended for

certification. Dispositions relate to the candidate’s orientation and attitude toward

children and teaching. These cannot be measured by a paper pencil exam.



.Teacher preparation programs work closely with K-12 practitioners to develop

and assess the skills and dispositions necessary to teach. Both higher education

faculty and K-12 faculty are critical elements in the formula to assure that

candidates are ready to take full responsibility for the learning of students.



.Some individuals who know the content can be successful in helping natural

learners learn. Some students will learn in spite of the skills and knowledge of the

individual who is “teaching” them. Teaching to this relatively small percentage

of natural learners is not enough. We must help all students learn. That is a

complex and daunting task that requires all of the skills and knowledge of an

individual who is well prepared by a program that integrates theory, practice, and

content.



.The ABCTE test for prospective teachers is a high stakes test for the K-12

students who may be placed in the classroom of an individual who “qualified” to

teach by a test score.



.There is a unique moral imperative associated with education, Students in the

public school do not have a choice about the classroom in which they are placed

or the qualifications of the individual who stands before them. This is unique

among the professions. I can choose the doctor or lawyer I will use. If I do not

believe they are qualified I can take my business elsewhere. This is not the case

for students. Therefore, we must be especially vigilant about the persons we

allow to enter our classrooms and how they qualify to be there. We must do

everything reasonable to assure they are individuals with the cognitive ability and

affective orientation to help all students learn.

Several members of the committee expressed great concern that allowing
teachers in the classroom without the proper formal training was
questionable.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Cartwright for his comments. He also
thanked Dr. Stefanic and Keith Potter for their presentations. He then
reminded the committee that the State Board of Education approved the
rules for the Praxis II Assessment Program and the American Board for
Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE) Alternate Route to Idaho
Certification and it is the State Department’s job to implement these rules.
Dr. Stefanic and Mr. Potter were doing their job today as the designated
messengers.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 11 a.m.






DATE: February 6, 2004
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
MINUTES: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 8:30 a.m.
Speaker He welcomed Mike Rush, Administrator of the Professional-Technical
Education, who will present his annual report.



Mr. Rush provided copies of his annual report, plus copies of his
PowerPoint presentation. These documents are on file in the Education
Office. Following are some of his remarks.



Mr. Rush said their mission is to provide technical skills, knowledge and
attitudes for youth and adults and to help them be successful in the
workplace.



He covered three subject areas. Accomplishments – what they did with
the taxpayers money; Accommodations – what they had to do to meet
increased demand with fewer dollars; Anticipation – what they are asking
for in the budget and what those dollars will allow them to do.



The budget is divided into four areas. (1) State leadership and technical
assistance. (2) General programs. (3) Postsecondary programs. (4)
Underprepared adults/displaced homemakers. With regards to the first
area, it includes a quality agenda and aligns curricula with the Idaho
Achievement Standards. The second area includes secondary program
support, guidance and curriculum, workforce training and teacher
education.



The professional-technical schools have grown from 5 schools and 20
programs to 11 schools and 117 programs. The secondary enrollment
growth has increased 17 percent in the last five years and 78% over the
past 10. The average employment growth for all occupations is 15%;
those requiring a bachelor’s degree is 22%; and those requiring a
vocational associate degree is 32%. The general programs in technical
colleges served over 42,000 adults in every region of the state.






There are six technical colleges. Three are part of four-year institutions,
two are part of community colleges, and one is a stand-alone technical
college.



Some of the programs and services provided are:

Single Parents and Displaced Homemakers (served over 1,800
individuals)

Department of Correction (via distance learning, 54 have taken
courses)

Idaho’s Career Information System

Academic Skills Development

Short-Term Work Force Training (Since 1999, over 200,000 adults
have been served)



Mr. Rush thanked the committee for their continued support and the
Chairman thanked him for his annual report.

Next on the agenda was to hear the two remaining rules. Senator
Schroeder said that it doesn’t make any difference what the committee
does – accept or reject the rules – because the House has already
accepted them, and it takes both bodies to reject any rule.



Senator Andreason said he had invited Pam Ahrens to clarify the ruling.
Ms. Ahrens agreed that it would take both bodies to overturn rules. The
Chairman thanked her for speaking to the committee regarding the
matter.

08-0203-0301 Ms. Karen Gustafsen then presented 08-0203-0301 regarding ISAT. The
passing of this test will be required for graduation. It is to be given in the
10th grade and can be retaken up to eight times. This is to start with the
class of 2006.



Senator Goedde then gave the committee members a copy of what his
region is preparing regarding a secondary route to graduation. It is based
on a score of points (385) that include grade point average, assessments,
professional/institution evaluation of student skills and portfolio or
performance measures. Fifty of the 385 points must be earned by
passing the ISAT reading or literacy assessment.



Senator Gannon questioned Ms. Gustafsen regarding the 200 written
comments her agency received prior to the hearings as to for or against
the implementation. She deferred that inquiry to Dr. Randy Thompson.
He said that it was 5 to 1 in favor of the rule and that he would provide
Senator Gannon a written copy.



It was asked if locally established mechanisms for graduation not need
approval by OSBE, but only to provide information to them. Ms.
Gustafsen said that was correct. Dr. Thompson said the intent is to
provide consistency.



Another question asked Dr. Thompson was would there be a different
diploma for passing the ISAT as compared to a secondary route. He
replied that he didn’t have enough information to form an opinion.

Testimony Mr. John Eikum, Executive Director for Rural Schools, said his
organization is not opposed to ISAT, but they are looking at alternative
ways for graduation, referring to Senator Goedde’s handout.



Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director of Idaho School Boards Association,
said they support ISAT but also support alternative routes.

08-0202-0304 Ms. Gustafsen presented 08-0202-0304 relating to NCLB. There was
discussion with regards to ACBTE and AYP. Chairman Schroeder
suggested that ways should be found to help non English speaking
students, students with disabilities, and others to help them pass the test.
He said accommodations must be made for them. The Chairman also
said the test needs to be aligned to the standards, valid and reliable. A
review of this test needs to be conducted by outside testing experts, so if
there should be a court case (as has happened in other states), this
review would be legally defensible. He suggested that the Office of
Performance Evaluations initiate the study and hire outside people to do
that study.
Break Following discussion, Chairman Schroeder called for a 10 minute break.
Call to order Calling the meeting to order, the Chairman asked the committee what
their pleasure was regarding the rules.
Motion Senator Goedde made a motion to approve all rules. It died for a lack of
a second.
Motion Senator Werk made a motion to reject rule 47-0101-0301 because the
process was not in order. Senator Malepeai seconded the motion. A roll
call vote was taken. Voting aye were Senators Malepeai, Werk, Noh, and
Schroeder. Voting nay were Senators Noble, McWilliams, Goedde, and
Andreason. Senator Gannon was absent at the time of voting. The vote
was 4 to 4.
Speaker Chairman Schroeder then asked Mr. Mohan, Office of Performance
Evaluations, to present his report on Fiscal Accountability of Pupil
Transportation. He was assisted by Paul Headlee.



A PowerPoint presentation was given. Handouts were also provided
(Fiscal Accountability of Pupil Transportation and copies of the slide
presentation). Both documents are on file in the Education Office.



A summary of Mr. Headlee’s remarks: Pupil transportation costs for
Idaho’s 114 school districts have increased nearly twice the rate of
inflation during the past ten years. Ridership is up five percent, number of
miles traveled by school buses has increased 20 percent, but
transportation cost have increased 49 percent. The State reimburses
school districts for 85 percent of the allowable costs of pupil transportation
and this amount totaled $56 M in fiscal year 2002. To address the
evaluation findings about state oversight, district administration, funding
cap implementation, contract management, and bus purchasing options,
the OPE made nine recommendations to the State Board of Education,
the State Department of Education, and the Independent School District
of Boise City. Implementation of these recommendations will allow the
state to have better accountability of pupil transportation, reduce
transportation costs, and help ensure safe and cost-effective pupil
transportation.

Adjournment Due to time constraints (the Senate convenes at 11:15 a.m.), the
Chairman thanked Mr. Mohan and Mr. Headlee for their presentation and
said he would schedule them for a future date to hear their remaining
presentation. He then adjourned the meeting at 11:20 a.m.






DATE: February 10, 2004
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
MINUTES: The Joint meeting of the House and Senate Education committees was
called to order by Chairman Barraclough at 8:40 a.m. He welcomed the
Idaho School Boards Association and said serving on a school board was
probably one of the most difficult political jobs in the world. He
commended the audience for their service to the state. He then
introduced the vice chairmen of the two committees – Senator Gannon
and Representative Lake. Chairman Barraclough asked Chairman
Schroeder to make some introductory remarks.



Chairman Schroeder said it was good to have the School Board
Association in town, many of whom he recognized. He thanked them for
attending the Educational Forums this past Fall. He stated that he is
anxious to hear what they have to say, as board members are on the
“front lines” at the local level.

Introductions Chairman Barraclough then introduced Ms. Janet Orndorff, president of
ISBA. She then introduced Wanda Quinn, president elect and Ernest
Jensen, vice president. Ms. Orndorff asked the 12 executive board
members to stand and introduce themselves. Absent was Dr. Cliff Green,
Executive Director of ISBA, who was serving on jury duty.
Speakers Ms. Orndorff said the officers wished to present their report on the Idaho
Reading Initiative (IRI) and she provided the background of the IRI.
Reading intervention was put into place, as well as the Idaho
Comprehensive Literary Course for teachers K-8. The IRI was given
three times a year – Fall, Winter and Spring and this gave teachers the
needed information as to how students were doing at each grade level.



Speaking next was Ms. Wanda Quinn who said their reasons for focusing
on the Idaho Reading Initiative are three-fold. First, the ISBA wants to
compliment the Legislature for their focus on reading at grade level by the
3rd grade. They also appreciate the State Department’s efforts.
Secondly, with regards to ISAT, they want to maintain focus on the
Initiative and the goal to have 85% of 3rd graders reading at grade level
by 2006. Their third and main focus for today is that they believe there
are aspects of the Initiative process that provide guidance in the
implementation of NCLB and ISAT. Specifically, the IRI set realistic goals
and targets for general population and special needs population. There
was funding for staff development and student intervention, as well as
valid and reliable assessments in the Idaho Reading Indicator.



Ms. Quinn said test scores are not the whole story, but they frame the
discussion about what may impact those scores positively and negatively
and allows the school boards to diagnose how well students, schools and
districts are doing. They took the test scores of kindergarten, 2001 to 2nd
grade, 2003, then focused on the 10 largest districts, 10 medium size
districts, and the 10 smallest districts.

Presenting from the smallest district was Ms. Deb Foster from South
Lemhi District #292. Inserted in the minutes is her report.



My name is Deb Foster and I am a School Board Member for South Lemhi
School District # 292, located in Leadore and Tendoy, Idaho. We are a small
rural k-12 school. Our average population is about 120 students, with about 64%
of those falling at or below the poverty level. Though our teacher/student ratio
may be low, every teacher teaches more than one grade level. However, over the
past four years, our school has consistent, outstanding Idaho Reading Indicator
scores.



Sue Smith became principal of our school in September of 2000. Within the first
weeks it became apparent to her that we had high school students with high GP
A’s and who were scoring very low on their ACT tests, direct writing and direct
math tests. This disparity made her believe that we may have students with low
reading levels. Reading assessments were given to 2nd through 6th grade
students. These district-developed tests indicated that 65% of the students were
reading significantly below grade level. Three separate sets of scores were
compared to validate student functioning.



At this time Mrs. Smith introduced a 2nd through 6th grade extended reading
program. Every student in these grades were placed on an individualized reading
plan. In addition to our progressive classroom program, all students read out loud
to a trained reading instructor 15 minutes each day. This program allowed our
elementary students to read a minimum of 40 hours, out loud, to a trained
reading instructor each year. The instructors were existing paraprofessionals
and Tendoy community volunteers.



By spring 2000, scores indicated we now had 29% of our students reading below
level. Having seen that we could meet and exceed our own goal, our new goal
became not to have more than 10% reading below grade level by May 2002. In
other words: a 90% achievement level.



lRI reading scores for South Lemhi show that 92% of our students are reading at
grade level at this time. In order to achieve this goal it was necessary to have:



1. The School Board put reading as a primary focus in elementary classrooms

2. Small class sizes in k-3rd grade classes, with uninterrupted teaching blocks.

3. Excellent classroom teachers

4. Classified staff trained as reading instructors

5. An instructional leader who understands the reading process, and is able to
articulate that process to others and

6. Teacher training



Ms. Foster yielded her remaining time to Ms. Sue Smith, Principal of
Leadore and Tendoy Schools. Her report is inserted in the minutes.



My name is Sue Smith, I am Principal at the Leadore and Tendoy Schools. I am
here today to speak to you because 90% of our elementary students read and
read well.



I. Chairman Schroeder, Chairman Barraclough and members of the committees, I

want to thank you for your involvement in the education process.

a. I value the support you have given in setting high academic expectations

for each child in our state

b. As an administrator I feel the State Standards, ISAT testing, IRI testing and
other indicators set up by the State, Department of Education and State Board of
Education are all valuable tools.

i. We have to know where we are going before we can plan how we are going to
get there

ii. Standards tell us where we are going

iii. The ISAT test is a helpful measure to assure students are mastering goals, we
have found the ISAT scores correlate with other testing instruments we use.

iv. I believe in the No Child Left Behind Act. Every child has the right to quality
education that allows them to work to their maximum potential. However, every
child can not be proficient. 5-10% of our population do not have the cognitive
ability to achieve this goal. We can raise their test scores, for example, their IRI

scores from a low 1 to a middle or high 1, with excellent remediation. If the child
is working at their maximum potential it is not fair to the child to make them feel
like failures because they do not have the ability to get a 2. Even excellent
teachers can not perform miracles.

v. Schools should be held accountable that every child makes progress but they
cannot make every child proficient.



II. Learning how to read is a difficult task

a. A few people have natural phonetic abilities

b. Majority of people, reading is one of the most difficult task they achieve, it
takes four years of hard work. Children learn to read K-3rd grade and then from
4th grade on they use their reading skills to learn.

c. We all know that reading is primary in the education process, if children have
not learned to read by the end of the 3rd grade they probably never will. Failure
in reading means failure in every other academic endeavor.

d. We are dealing with a different society today

i. We have always had about 10% of our population that struggles in academic
world, mostly for cognitive reasons.

ii. There are more socially/emotionally burdened children in school, these
children need immediate identification. In your handout is a list of behaviors of
students who are at risk for learning how to read. It is necessary to set these
children up for success in the first days of school. A teacher needs to be
sensitive to what the child already knows and set lessons in such a way, you
assure their success. If this does not happen the wheel of reading failure can
begin in the first few weeks of Kindergarten.

iii. We have challenges in the education setting, but with a few changes these
challenges can be met.



IIl. Teacher Training

a. Only 1/10 teachers I have worked with throughout the years received quality
education in how to teach reading. Most, with proper training have the ability to
gain these skills.

b. In my undergraduate studies in education I was required to take two reading
classes, neither taught the nuts and bolts of really teaching reading.

c. Learning how to teach reading is a hands on skill

i. You can not learn it unless you are working under quality supervision, with
children

ii. I can sit and listen about how to teach reading all day and gain nothing

iii. I need to listen to children read and be taught phonemic awareness in order to
identify potential problems

iv. I need to listen to children who have not had the opportunity to learn about
semantic or voice as I call it, and learn how is voice taught

v. Teaching decoding skills is an art, and again must be observed



IV. IRI scores in Idaho will not improve until we have Excellent Teachers in every
classroom K-3rd grade.

a. An administrator can work with a poor teacher and make then fair but you will
never make a poor teacher excellent

b. An administrator can put the pressure on poor teachers to produce and if you
are lucky in two or three years they will seek other employment, to the detriment
of how many children?

c. An administrator can move teachers around placing excellent teachers in the
K-3rd grade classrooms, but then again, how fair is that to your upper elementary
students.

d. Of course we have a process to follow to eliminate teachers that have obvious
flaws but it is extremely difficult to remove a fair teacher.

e. Perhaps the biggest noose around an administrators neck in tenure, or
renewable contract status, in what other business do you intentionally lower the
quality of your product.



V. Idaho is doing a good job in preparing Elementary Administrators.

a. They are well prepared to run the business of the school.

b. However, they do not receive adequate preparation to be the instructional

leaders. Administrators need more training in he areas of:

i. child psychology

ii. identifying special needs children

iii. counseling

iv. maturation process

v. and a firm grip on the sequence of learning K-8th grade

c. Also administrators need to be freed from mounds of paper work so they can
spend large amounts of time in the classroom.



VI. For Idaho to achieve 90% Reading scores on the IRI test

a. Principals need to be instructional leaders that can detail and coordinate

the reading program. In most schools I have been involved with the classroom
teacher has her program, Special Education have their own agenda, the Title
programs have even different goals and the paraprofessionals are working on
separate but not necessarily coordinated goals.

b. Schools do not necessarily need more staff but the Instructional leader needs
to train the personnel in the structured reading process so all are working in
coordination to achieve the same goal, teaching children to read.

c. Again I will state we need Excellent teachers that are well versed in the
reading process

i. have the ability to identify at risk children

ii. set these children up for immediate success

d. The bottom line is, in order for children to learn to read they must have the

opportunity to read out-loud to a trained reading instructor 15 minutes each day,
plus their classroom reading program. This can happen in every school, if the
fIrst two hours of each day, every adult in the building is teaching reading. The
handout you received details the successful reading program used at the
Leadore and Tendoy elementary schools.

Speaking next was Ms. Wendy Horman from Idaho Falls, Bonneville
School District #93, representing a large district. Inserted in the minutes
is her report.



Mr. Chairman and Committee members, good morning. My name is Wendy
Horman and I am from Idaho Falls and am a member of the Board of Trustees of
the Bonneville School District, #93, in and around Idaho Falls.



I have been asked today to address some of the ways our district has
experienced success with the IRI. I have broken down our responses by
category.

At a district level:

.the number one response I heard as to why we have experienced success on
the IRI is that our teachers bought into this test as an assessment and
accountability piece. It was recognized that it was an important test and the
results of it would be a reflection on them and their school.

.It created a real focus on reading proficiency as soon as the child entered
school-helped us transition from Kindergarten as an academic experience as well
as a social parent

.As its name implies, it created an indicator or a data resource that is very
helpful in identifying those in need of remediation

.Established uniform objectives that give direction to both teachers and parents
Not every parent is going to help but for those who only lack information

on how to help, it’s very useful.



At a school building level, I started to get responses from principals and
teachers that represented the fundamental tools being used to help students
succeed on the IRI:

Star Early Literacy Test.

AIMSweb Fluency Test

Waterford Early Literacy Program

Saxon Phonics Program, Scott Forsman Program aligned

Remediation/Intervention Programs

Albertson’s TOBI Grant

IRl lnstructional Support Guide



From a parent perspective, which is the one I’m really most qualified to address,
because factors identify what helps their children succeed at reading:

Focus

Effective teacher

Improvement of resources used in teaching (other testing tools-maybe mention

Waterford, computers/technology, curriculum)

Communication of testing results

Very appreciative of positive changes I have seen over the past 11 years when I
put my oldest child in Kindergarten to last year when I put my youngest in school



As policymakers, sometimes it’s hard to know how our great ideas or initiatives
will trickle down. This one has been one where the intent did not get lost in the
translation – a win-win right down to the student classroom level. There is no
question that more children are better readers, getting more effective reading
instruction, as a result of the Idaho Reading Initiative.






Lessons learned from implementation of the IRI which could be used in the
implementation of ISATs .



Teacher Accountability -There are many aspects of accountability and teacher

accountability is one level. It’s important for teachers to understand that although
test scores are not the only thing they are responsible for, they are one
increasingly important element.



Student Accountability I wish there was some initiative that could create a
desire for learning. Let me tell you a story from inside one of our middle schools
that occurred a few weeks ago as we were changing semester. Five 8th grade
students who scored below proficiency on their Reading ISAT were brought in by
the counselor to change their schedule so they could be placed Into an extra
reading class to help get them up to speed. As each one of them met
independently with the counselor, each confessed to not having tried very hard
on their ISAT. This extra reading class was going to deny then an elective so
they were quite motivated to change their circumstance. All asked for another
chance to take the Winter ISA T to prove they didn’t need to be in this extra
reading class. Because the winter ISAT test is not an accountability piece
required by the state, and the results are for internal use to help target
instruction, and, very luckily for them, because the winter testing window still
happened to be open, all five were

permitted to retake the test. Here are the results:



1st RIT Score/Grade Level 2nd RIT Score/Grade
Level

Student 1 200/4th 222/9th ( 22)

Student 2 209/5th 223/9th (+14)

Student 3 212/6th 219/8th (+7)

Student 4 212/6th 221/9th (+9)

Student 5 214/6th 226/10th (+12)



So a lesson to be learned is that accountability isn’t just for teachers,
administrators and school boards-it’s for students as well. There’s a fine line
between putting too much pressure on kids and not enough and it’s different for
every child, nonetheless, we must work to find that appropriate balance.



Data can be used to differentiate instruction. In ordinary English, that means
we can use both IRI and ISAT test data to see where children are and adjust our
teaching to meet their particular needs.

Students aren’t the only group. ..

Where do we go from here? Continue to identify and use research based
practices. As far as how do we get from where we are now to where we need to
be in 2006, keep doing what works. It was just a little over a year ago I was
sitting in my first school board meeting wondering what in the world I had gotten
myself into. But thanks to some really great fellow board members, a strong
superintendent and the training we’ve received from our school board
association, thru conferences, tele-training calls, and workshops, our board is
able to learn what we need to do and to work cooperatively.

Representing a medium size district was Mr. Neil Thompson of McCall-Donnelly. He said the Albertson Foundation provided a grant to help with
curriculum. With the improved curriculum and data, their school is seeing
much improvement and the teachers are excited. He thanked the
Foundation for their support and the Legislature for their efforts.
Wrapping up the session was Ernest Jensen, vice president of ISBA and
from School District #91.



Inserted are the five recommendations from ISBA to help achieve the
statewide goal for reading achievement.






Lessons Learned from the Idaho Reading Initiative (IRI) and

Recommendations for Implementation of the Idaho Student Achievement
Test

(ISAT) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB)



I. lRI: The Legislature allowed public comment and made appropriate
changes to the reading initiative.

Recommendation: Continue to involve board members and other
education stakeholders in the development of state policies on ISAT and
NCLB.



2. lRI: The Legislature funded the reading intervention program for
struggling students.

Recommendation: In order for the ISA T to be as successful as the lRI, a
process for academic intervention and support for students will need to be
funded.



3. lRI: The Legislature funded the Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Course
for kindergarten through eight grade teachers and made the literacy
course a certification requirement.

Recommendation: Support instructional leadership and high-quality
professional development.



4. lRI: The Legislature funded the Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI)
assessment which provided frequent, useful information and clear targets
for teachers.

Recommendation: Fund technology and support staff to provide for the
ISA T and the Idaho Student Information Management System (ISIMS)
project. Estimates are that of the 87,000 computers in Idaho schools,
57,000 are not technologically current enough to run the ISIMS suite of
programs.



5. lRI: The Legislature maximized the use of scarce resources (dollars,
time and personnel) for the lRI requirements and funding.

Recommendation: Continue to communicate with Congress and the U.S.
Department of Education concerning those portions of NCLB which make
poor use of tax dollars or do not work well in Idaho.



Statewide Goal for Reading Achievement

Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade

S 2004 55% 60%

S 2005 55% 65% 70%

S 2006 60% 70% 80% 85%
















Announcements
Chairman Schroeder credited Dr. Bob Barr, BSU, for spearheading the
reading initiative.



Chairman Barraclough allowed time for questions from the committee.



It was announced that the committee members were invited to a luncheon
at the Crystal Ballroom, hosted by ISBA.



The Senate Education committee members are to return to Room 433 for
further business, and the House Education committee members are to
remain in the Gold Room.

Adjournment Chairman Barraclough adjourned the meeting at 10:15 a.m.
Call to order

Room 433

Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order in Room 433 at 10:30
a.m. and said the purpose of the meeting was to finalize budget
recommendations to be presented to JFAC Tuesday morning. At a
previous meeting, there were six issues proposed. They are as follows:



1. Intent language process in JFAC.

2. Restoration of full $8.4 M for technology grants.

3. Restoration of $1 M for Less Restrictive Environment for teacher
training and aides.

4. Ensure that $10,002,100 in Executive Budget marked for
Discretionary Compensation is actually spent on salaries.

5. Do we really want to have a distribution factor which is less than
last year?

6. Support outside review of ISAT by testing experts, working
through Office of Performance Evaluations.

Motions Voting was held on three proposals. Senator Goedde made the motion to
support #2. It was seconded by Senator Gannon. A voice vote indicated
it passed unanimously. Senator Noh made the motion to endorse #4.
Senator Andreason seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it
passed unanimously. Senator Werk made the motion to support #6.
Senator Gannon seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it passed
unanimously.
The Chairman said he would mention #1 if there were no objections.
There were no objections.



Senator Goedde requested that #4 be moved upward on the priority list
and suggested that the base salary be increased for one year, including
benefits. Senator Noh said this could be included in his motion.

Motion Senator Andreason made a motion that the resolution proposed in CEC
should be clearly explained to JFAC so they understand the resolution,
regarding state employees of educational institutions (referring to #4).
Senator Goedde seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it passed
unanimously.
Senator Werk suggested that if funding can be found, there is a need for
money for intervention and remediation.



Chairman Schroeder requested that Tim Hill and Mark Dunham be
present at JFAC when he makes his presentation Wednesday morning.
Senator Andreason suggested that Jeff Youtz be included to answer
questions regarding CEC.

Announcements Senator Gannon announced that the subcommittee will hold a meeting at
1 p.m. Wednesday in the Senate Caucus Room to hear Ms. Janet Aikle
present budget figures for Virtual Schools. They were $1.9 M short last
year. The purpose of the subcommittee is to determine the actual cost for
each student and what it will take to operate the school for one year.
Serving on the subcommittee is Senator Gannon, chairman, Senator
McWilliams and Senator Malepeai.



Chairman Schroeder asked the committee to bring their RS’s to him
Friday or Monday, as Monday is the last day for this committee to have
them printed.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 11:10 a.m.






DATE: February 11, 2004
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator Noh
MINUTES: The meeting was called to order at 8:40 a.m. by Vice Chairman Gannon.
He explained that Senator Schroeder is in JFAC presenting the
committee’s budget suggestions and will join this meeting later.
Motion Chairman Gannon then stated that he had reviewed the minutes of 1/27,
28, 29, 30 and made the motion that they be approved. Senator
Andreason seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated they were
approved unanimously.
Speaker Chairman Gannon welcomed Gerald Meyerhoeffer, president of CSI,
located at Twin Falls, who will give his annual report.



President Meyerhoeffer provided the committee with colored copies of a
PowerPoint presentation which he referred to in his remarks (attached).
He introduced Jeff Duggan who is with the college in an administrative
position. The President also noted that there was not a picture of CSI on
the Education wall of the room and that perhaps something could be done
about that.



President Meyerhoeffer said the campus consists of 160 acres and has a
total enrollment of 7,000 students. As a community college, their mission
is to:

  • Serve diverse student population:
  • Two-year degree programs
  • Four-year transfer students
  • Technical students
  • Under-prepared and low-literacy students


  • Provide Center for Region’s Educational Needs, Economy and
    Cultural Events
  • Collaborate with K-12 Education
  • Partner with Universities
  • Promote Community Economic Development


The student growth at CSI has increased 71.2% over the last ten years.
President Meyerhoeffer said that CSI students who transfer after earning
a CSI degree maintain a higher average GPA than do students who
transfer prior to earning a degree.



During the 2003 fiscal year, CSI served 2,138 students with nearly
110,000 hours of adult basic education and/or English as a second
language instruction at 17 sites throughout the eight county service
region. The counties served are Camas, Blaine, Gooding, Lincoln,
Jerome, Minidoka, Cassia and Twin Falls. During calendar year 2003,
CSI offered 339 dual credit sections to over 2,000 students at 34 sites
throughout Idaho and also via the Internet. During the same period, tech
prep courses that can be articulated to 61 CSI courses were offered at 20
Idaho locations.



President Meyerhoeffer stated that they are good stewards of their money
because over the past two fiscal years, CSI has reduced expenditures per
full-time equivalent student over 15%.



He then talked about economic development and the partnerships with
industry. CSI helped Dell Computers meet its goal of more than 800
employees in the Twin Falls facility by fall 2002.



They have now established training partnerships with Freightliner and
Penske. During the past two years, CSI has provided 195 training
courses to 1,525 students at 77 different sites across the country.

Chairman Gannon turned the meeting over to Senator Schroeder who
joined the meeting.
President Meyerhoeffer closed his presentation by talking about the
budget of CSI.
Following questions by the committee, Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr.
Meyerhoeffer for his update on CSI.
Announcements The Chairman reminded the committee that Monday is the last day for
RS’s to be turned in.
Adjournment He then adjourned the meeting at 9:25 a.m.






DATE: February 12, 2004
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
The Chairman announced that the committee would consider the three
RS’s on the agenda first, then proceed to S 1233.
RS 13926 Chairman Schroeder said that Ryan Kerby, sponsor of this bill was unable
to attend today, but he assured Mr. Kerby that his RS would be
introduced. It relates to kindergarten attendance – to provide full-time
kindergarten attendance for specific students and provides for inclusion in
the kindergarten attendance factor.
Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to send RS 13926 for printing.
Senator Malepeai seconded the motion. Senator Goedde inquired as to
where the funding would come from. Chairman Schroeder said perhaps
Mr. Kerby could answer that when the bill will be in committee. A voice
vote indicated that the motion passed unanimously.
RS 13973 Senator Noh provided copies of the Idaho Code which relates to this RS.

Because this provision is in a different code section from most other
ethics in government provisions, it is easily overlooked and, in fact,
through oversight, is not included in the handbooks published by the
Office of the Attorney General to guide public officials and employees. It
is a crime, under Idaho Code 67-5718, for an officer or employee of state
government to influence or attempt to influence the award of a contract to
a particular vendor. No officer or employee shall conspire with a vendor
or its agent, and no vendor or its agent shall conspire with an officer of
employee to influence or attempt to influence the award of a contract.
The first is a misdemeanor; the second is a felony.

Motion Senator Werk made the motion to send RS 13973 for printing. Senator
Gannon seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated that the motion
passed unanimously.
RS 13983 Senator Gannon said the purpose of this legislation is to eliminate the
confusion that exists about charter schools accounting for and reporting
the use of State funds. It would require the same standards of
accountability for charter schools’ board of directors that exist for School
Districts’ Board of Directors. It requires the preparation of annual financial
reports, publishing the annual statement of financial condition, annual
audit of financial statements and authorizes investment of excess cash
with the interest accruing back to the charter school.
Motion Senator Goedde made the motion to send RS 13983 for printing. Senator
Andreason seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated that the motion
passed unanimously.
S 1233 Chairman Schroeder then called on Senator Stegner, sponsor of S 1233,
to brief the committee on this bill.



Senator Stegner said this bill started out as a very simple bill. He said
that it is a misdemeanor for a parent or guardian to knowingly fail to
provide an education for a child and a court may impose conditions as
needed to enforce this section. He then explained that two school
principals from the Lewiston school system contacted him concerning this
issue. This is about innocent small children left at home because of the
parents failure to get them to school. Senator Stegner then read from the
Constitution regarding children’s education. (He provided the committee
members with a folder containing documents that he will be referring to
[i.e. statutes, code, etc.]) He also said this bill has generated a lot of
interest from the home-schooling industry and he said it is not an attack
against home-schoolers and any relevance to home-schoolers is very
limited.



In the bill on lines 12 and 13, probate court will be deleted and replaced
by magistrate court. On line 21, Youth Rehabilitation Act will be replaced
by Juvenile Corrections Act. This is explained in Title 20, Chapter 5. S
1209 is a corrections bill – it doesn’t change the meaning of the law – and
was requested by the Supreme Court. The Senate has already passed
this bill this year. However, that bill is not in effect yet, so it is necessary
to replace the terminology on lines 12, 13, and 21.



Senator Stegner said he needed to talk about the Juvenile Corrections
Act. In the 2nd sentence, third line, ….in the purview of the Juveniles
Corrections Act….. Then it talks about the parents of the juvenile offender
held accountable. He said his main point is that the only way this code
section has any jurisdiction over parents is after the juvenile has created
an offense. What this legislation is trying to achieve is to protect the
innocent children who have broken no law. It would go after parents,
rather than the child. He said Title 33, Chapter 202, there is a
Constitutional responsibility and a statute responsibility. Another term
that you will hear is competently instructed.



The first complaint that Senator Stegner has received in many e-mails is
in reference to a misdemeanor on line 16. He said he is not creating a
misdemeanor, it is already a misdemeanor under the Juvenile Corrections
Act. In that Act, 20-526 …..shall be guilty. The child has to be accused
first.



The second most complaint is the term “competently instructed”. Again,
this term is already in the law. Senator Stegner feels it should be in the
education code.



The third complaint pertains to the last three lines of the bill, emergency
clause. This changes the implementation date. The practical purpose is
that it could be used this Spring, rather than waiting until the Fall
semester. On line 16 of the bill, Senator Stegner said the word
“knowingly” has been added and the words failing, neglecting or refusing
have been deleted. He feels this will strengthen the law.



The real difference between this bill and what the current law is that the
Juvenile Corrections Act was not made for adults, it was made for kids.
Senator Stegner said the question that needs answering regarding this bill
is, “Do we want to continue to file charges against children for the wrongs
of their parents?” Senator Stegner said this language needs to be in the
Education Title, Title 33. School districts right now can file an action
against a child, then come around through the back door of the Juvenile
Corrections Act, and charge the parents with a misdemeanor.

Safeguards that would be in place so that parents could not be charged
wrongly are: (1) school districts are not interested in prosecutions, but are
interested in kids; (2) prosecuting attorneys are gatekeepers; and (3)
Judges need proof.
There was discussion regarding truancy and enforcement. The Juvenile
Corrections Act is enforced by county prosecutors and the magistrate
court system. The state does not have juvenile judges – it is handled by
magistrates.
Testimony Senator Stegner introduced Craig Lenzmeier, an elementary principal in
the Lewiston School District.
Mr. Lenzmeier gave a brief history of the proposed legislation. In 1999, a
group of community professionals representing Nez Perce County Court
Services, Lewiston School District Administrators, Nez Perce County
Prosecutors Office, Lewiston Police and a Magistrate Judge began
meeting to discuss this issue. They have been working the past five
years addressing student attendance. Resources they have used to try to
improve attendance included phone calls to homes by the secretary, the
teacher, the principal, the social worker, guidance counselor, and
community resource worker; parent conferences; referral to student
teacher assistance team; attendance letters mailed to homes by the
principal and correspondence from community resource worker; home
visits by community resource worker and resource officer; coordinating
services through Health and Welfare; truancy requests to the County
Prosecutors Office and letters from the Prosecutors Office to the parents.
Mr. Lenzmeier said they got some students back in school through the
help of these resources. However, some students are still truant. He
gave some examples.
Testimony Senator Stegner introduced Dr. Joy Rapp, Superintendent of the Lewiston
School District for the past 11 years.



Dr. Rapp said that she supports this legislation for three specific reasons.
It replaces outdated references to the Youth Rehabilitation Act and
Probate Court. S 1233 further clarifies it would be a misdemeanor for a
parent or guardian of school age children to knowingly fail or neglect or
refuse to educate a child. This law would make it clear there are
consequences for not complying with the compulsory attendance law,
which is already in Idaho Code 33-202. Inclusion of a misdemeanor
would eliminate the need to reference other sections of code and would
provide clear guidance to school personnel, parents and the court system.
Idaho Code 33-202 stipulates that attendance is compulsory for all
children between the ages of 7 and 16 years and that parents and
guardians are responsible to ensure that children are in attendance. Dr.
Rapp said that clarification is needed in Idaho Code 33-207 and that S
1233 places responsibility on the adults responsible for the children.

A question was asked regarding home-schooled children and how this
would affect them. Dr. Rapp replied that in the 11 years that she has
been Superintendent in Lewiston, there has never been an attempt to
prosecute home-schooled children. She said their concern is about
students enrolled in public school.
Dr. Rapp said the school administrators are in support of this bill. Their
local school board is also in support and requested support from the
ISBA. She indicated that she had not received an answer from that
organization.
There were more questions from the committee that involved home-schooled children. Dr. Rapp said that if a parent states that they are
home-schooling their children, at that point, the school district ends any
investigation they might have had. If neighbors of such children continue
to notify the school, they are then informed to contact Health and Welfare,
not the school.
Break Chairman Schroeder said there would be a short break.
Call to order The Chairman called the meeting to order, then welcomed Robert
Donaldson, principal of a junior high school in Lewiston.
Testimony Mr. Donaldson said his testimony will focus on the language of current
Code 33-207 and the subsequent revisions contained in S 1233. He
stated that he is not an attorney, but is speaking as a public school
principal who has faced repeated frustrations with truancy of students and
the failure of courts to hold parents responsible who knowingly fail,
neglect or refuse to have their children attend school. These are parents
who have their children enrolled in public schools, not those parents who
choose to home-school their children. Mr. Donaldson said the language
is out-dated in Code 33-207. After numerous reviews, the language was
brought before several groups for consideration. The groups included the
Lewiston School District Board of Directors, Idaho Association of School
Administrators, Idaho School Boards Association, Idaho Prosecutors
Association, Idaho Coalition of Home School Educators, Idaho State
Department of Education, and a representative from the Governor’s office.
In November, Mr. Donaldson said he contacted Mr. Barry Peters, legal
counsel for the Idaho Coalition of Home School Educators, regarding the
proposed changes. He reviewed the proposal and requested one change
and that was the misdemeanor language be replaced with the provision
that the parents are subject to the provisions of section 25-26 of the
Juvenile Code. This section makes reference to individuals who, by after
neglect, shall be guilty of misdemeanor as well. However, this reference
would require the juveniles to be under the jurisdiction of the court and a
minimum, charges would need to be filed against the child or adjudicated
as a condition for action to be taken against an adult. After reviewing
various input, Mr. Donaldson said they determined that their proposed
language would better serve to hold parents accountable.
Mr. Donaldson said this bill ensures that no child shall be left behind due
to a parent’s refusal or neglect to educate their child.
A question was asked how this bill would not apply to home-schooled
children. Mr. Donaldson replied that the intent is to address the problem
of the children enrolled in public school and there is no relevance if a
parent indicates he/she is home-schooling their children.
Testimony Dr. Phil Kelly, Professor of Educational Policy, BSU, said he wanted to
speak in support of S 1233 as it protects the interest of the children.
Testimony Dr. Barry Peters, an attorney in private practice and legal advisor for the
Idaho Coalition of Home Educators testified next. He stated that he had
sent a letter earlier to the committee members that addressed some
questions to this bill. Dr. Peters said that if a child is brought in under the
Juvenile Corrections Act, it is not a long range detriment, as the record
can be expunged or sealed at age 19. He said it brings that child and that
family under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court Judge and that is where
they need to be at that moment. Under that Act, the Judge has three
options. (1) He can decide that it is a minor violation that can be
corrected (or already has been corrected) and not proceed with any action
against the parents at all; (2)He can enter into a contract with the parents
and define expectations. If the child or parents violates the contract, he
can then impose a monetary fine against the parents up to $1,000 and/or
could impose a contempt sanction against the parents. (3) If the parents
are unwilling or unable to make corrections, the Judge can convict the
parents of a misdemeanor crime, punishable up to six months in jail. Dr.
Peters said he felt S 1233 removes this flexibility for a Judge.



Dr. Peters said if there are concerns within the public school arena, a bill
should be drafted that is specific to the public school arena. He feels S
1233 is a mistake and encouraged the committee to vote against the bill.

During the period of questions, the following dialogue was exchanged
between Senator Gannon and Dr. Peters.
Sen. Gannon: In order to be truant, they have to be enrolled in school. Is
that true?

Dr. Peters: No, that is not correct. You can have truancy in any one of
the parallel education systems that we have in this state.
You can have it in the public school system, private school
system, parochial schools or in home education. If they
are not receiving the instruction they are required to
receive, they fall into the category of habitual truant.

Sen. Gannon: You just classified home education along with public and
private schools, so I interpret from that the State has
recognized home education as a legitimate form of
education?

Dr. Peters: Senator Gannon, the phrase you will see that starts in
Idaho Code 33-202, it says that unless the child is
otherwise comparably instructed the child shall be enrolled
in public, private or parochial school. The otherwise
comparably instructed is the mantle that covers home
education, so yes, ………

Sen. Gannon: So then, you would say that home education is a
comparable form of instruction?

Dr. Peters: ……it is comparable and oftentimes superior, but it is not by
itself automatically comparable. For example, if there is
evidence of someone who claims to be home educating,
who in fact is not doing their job because they lack the
skills or lack the will to do the job, they are not providing
instruction that is comparable to that available in the public
school system. Therefore, that doesn’t mean that gives
them a get out of jail card……

Sen. Gannon: In that case, then what law would we use, or what code
would we use to go after that parent and I have a specific
example in mind without naming names. I know of a
situation where we have a parent that was an eighth grade
dropout, that is home schooling children ­ quote­ home
schooling her children. She gives home schooling a black
eye and I guess as the home schooling attorney, you
would not want us to go after her using this code, without
trying to figure some way to ingest her children into the
Juvenile Corrections system.

Dr. Peters: Senator Gannon, please understand, all of you, ….claims
to the educating of his or her children at home and is not
doing the job, you have our full blessing to see them
prosecuted. We would never want to shield any of those
children from having their parents prosecuted.



Testimony

A question that was asked was, “Is there different treatment (from the
court) for home schooled children as compared to public school students
in reference to this bill?” Dr. Peters replied that they should be treated the
same. If there is evidence of educational neglect, whether it be sending
your child to public school or teaching your child at home to an
appropriate level, if there is a violation, they should be treated the same.



Next to testify was Ms. Linda Larson, principal, Emmett Primary School.
She said that she has been in education for 34 years, with 18 of those
years in administration, and attendance has always been a frustration.
She stated that you cannot educate children if they are not there. With
the NCLB requirements of holding schools accountable, schools need the
support of the parents to ensure that the children are there. As an
administrator, she said that being held accountable is okay, but if the
children are not there, the school and teachers cannot be held
accountable. Ms. Larson said she feels this bill is a good start to making
parents responsible and urged the committee’s support for it.



Ms. Ronalee Linsenmann, a Nampa parent, stated that bills should say
what they mean and mean what they say.



Next to testify was Ms. Sandra Stange. A copy of Ms. Stange’s testimony
is inserted in the minutes.

Testimony Chairman Schroeder and Senate Education Committee members, I want to
thank-you for the opportunity of speaking in support of Senate Bill No.1233.



I have been a School Social Worker for the past sixteen years and have worked

extensively with children from at risk families. The families are “at risk” for many

different reasons, but one of the most frequent symptoms we see at school for
these children is their lack of regular and consistent attendance. It is often the
case that when a parent/guardian is not able to function fully in their own lives,
one of the first things that goes is the effort they must make to see to it that their
children are in school on time and on a daily basis. It seems to me that we cannot
necessarily “fix” all the reasons that families are at risk, but as a community we
can raise the bar of expectations for parental responsibility . There are many
studies and statistics that indicate the correlation between school attendance and
school success. When children develop early patterns of being non-attenders,
they are at a much greater risk of truant behavior in adolescence, and
consequently at greater risk of dropping out of school. Early elementary
students, in particular, are quite dependent on their parents to see to it that they
are in school on time and every day. I am often called on to visit with families who
are unable to meet this goal. They generally say they’d like their kids to attend,
but

they just can’t get them up on time, or any number of other excuses. Sometimes
we are able to provide assistance, or implement an intervention that solves the
problem. Other times, no matter what we do, the family continues to short change
their child’s education, by not solving the attendance problem. While the school
understands children are sick, and all families have an occasional calamity , or
good reason for their student not to be at school, we are concerned about the

chronic non-attenders. These are children who miss 30 or 40% of the school
days each year, and they are children who do this year after year. It would be
most helpful in attempting to hold these parents/guardians accountable to have
an Idaho Code in which the court could impose misdemeanor charges, or better
yet court imposed conditions, against the parents of these children. During
elementary, it is not the children who are to blame for chronic truancies; they are

only the victims of parents who are unable or unwilling to carry out their duties. It
is this worker’s observation that some families will only respond if faced with legal

ramifications for their lack of getting their children to school. It would be a limited
number of families who would need to be referred. We would continue to problem
solve and provide support services to families before sending them into the court
system. However, a law holding parents accountable would provide us with

further options, when we come up against a family where nothing else motivates
them.



Thank-you for your time and consideration of passing Bill No. 1233

Chairman Schroeder thanked the committee and said discussion of S
1233 would continue tomorrow.
Adjournment He adjourned the meeting at 11:05 a.m.






DATE: February 13, 2004
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
MINUTES: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 8:30
The Chairman said there are eleven RS’s on the agenda to review.
Senator Gannon made the motion to print all RS’s before the committee.
Senator Andreason seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it
passed unanimously.
The eleven RS’s are as follows:
RS 13843 It would increase the Robert R. Lee Promise B Scholarship from $500 to
$600. Sponsored by Senator Stennett.
RS 13857C1 Amends current law removing the authority of a district school board to
review and accept or reject a special waiver request when considering
hiring a bus driver that is insulin dependent. Sponsored by Dr. Cliff Green
and John Watts
RS 13906 Clarifies that public charter schools qualify for a property tax exemption on
that portion of rental property used by the public charter school.
Sponsored by Senator Werk.
RS 13907 To provide that a charter is valid unless revoked for cause and to provide
a period of probation and remediation. Sponsored by Senator Werk.
RS 13989 Amends intent and clarifies charter school law. Sponsored by Bob Henry
and Jon Allen.
RS 13990 Gives granting authorities another option other than revocation to bring a
charter school back into compliance with Idaho Code or the Charter.
Sponsored by Bob Henry and Jon Allen.
RS 14005 A Joint Memorial regarding NCLB. Sponsored by Representatives Bedke,
Jaquet, and Barraclough and Senator Schroeder.
RS 14023 Aligns charter school directing boards with the same ethics in government
statutes that apply to traditional public school trustee boards. Sponsored
by Senator McWilliams.
RS 14064 Removes limits on the number of charter schools and to require a review
of a proposed charter by the State Department of Education. Sponsored
by Senator Schroeder.
RS 14069 Authorize the State Department of Education to withhold funds of a
charter school not in compliance with state law. Sponsored by Senator
Schroeder.
RS 14078 OPE recommended that SDE improve accountability of funds; ensure
accurate, equitable and consistent reporting. Sponsored by Senator
Goedde.
Introduction The Chairman welcomed Ms. Kris Yeoumad, teacher from Potlatch and
the 33 students (with the Potlatch Dance Team) who are in town for the
annual dance competition. They are spending the morning visiting
committee meetings and touring the Capitol. Chairman Schroeder
encouraged the girls to apply as Pages when they are in their senior year.
Chairman Schroeder said that discussion would continue on S 1233 and
asked Mr. Barry Peters if he had any further testimony. Mr. Peters
indicated that he did.



Mr. Peters said that after hearing testimony from the school administration
yesterday, it gave him a deeper understanding of their concerns that they
have and the battles they are facing. Mr. Peters said he has suggested
some language to Senator Stegner that would narrow the focus, but still
accomplish the purposes that Senator Stegner and the public school
administrators were attempting to accomplish.



Senator Stegner said he has just been handed the proposed revisions to
the bill, dealing with 33-207, and to assess this, he said he would need
some time to review it with Legislative Services and also the school
administrators. However, he said it appears there are two standards.
One standard for children enrolled in public school and another standard
for all other children. He feels this would be a sweeping change in public
policy. The Constitution says the state has a responsibility to educate all
the children and he prefers to speak to S 1233 as written.



Mr. Peters said he is adamantly opposed to S 1233 as it is now written.
He said it is a shotgun approach with too broad of target.



Senator Gannon said to Mr. Peters: “When there is an alleged home
school situation, with a seven year old who has not been ingested into the
Juvenile Correction System and they are not being home schooled
properly, are you still defending the State’s right to not go in and try to
intervene?” Mr. Peters said he was not saying that. He said the State
would always have the right to go in and intervene, as that is currently in
the statute. He said the bill does not affect that. Senator Gannon said
that as he understands the system, the student has to be ingested into
the Juvenile Correction System before the State can go after the parents.
Mr. Peters said that is correct under the current system the process is
brought under Juvenile Corrections. He said it brings the child in, but
what it does is open up an arena and array of varied approaches the
Judge can take – he can rule with a velvet glove, not a hammer. Mr.
Peters said he was not willing to loose that flexibility.



When Mr. Peters was asked if students enrolled in public schools would
be treated differently than students enrolled in home schooling, he said
the language in the compromise language that he would like to be
pursued, then yes, that would be the case.



With regards to testing of home schoolers, Mr. Peters said the testing that
their organization administers is purely voluntary. He said if there are
cases where there is genuine educational neglect going on under the
umbrella of home education, if there is any credible evidence of a
problem, then that case needs to go to the County Prosecutor’s Office.
He said that statute is on the books to allow those to be prosecuted. Mr.
Peters said that all that needs to be shown is that the education being
provided to a particular child is not comparable to that of a public school.
If a prosecutor proves that simple task, then a conviction can occur.

Testifying next was Tom Frost, an attorney for the Idaho Supreme Court.
A copy of his testimony is inserted in the minutes.
Testimony My name is Tom Frost. I am a private practitioner in Boise who works on

assignments of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Especially at this time of

year much of my work relates to legislation which may impact the court system.

During my earlier tenure with the court system, I had occasion to staff the

Supreme Court Committee on Juvenile Rules for the implementation of the

Juvenile Correction Act and the Child Protective Act.



A few weeks ago Senator Stegner asked the Administrative Director of the

Courts to get the view of judges who devote a substantial amount of the calendar

to juvenile cases to get their views relating to the role of SB 1233 in addressing

the failure of a parent to place a child in school or allowing or causing a child to

become truant. Senator Stegner also asked for a description of existing juvenile

procedures for correcting parent misconduct with respect to a child’s truancy and

any problems or uncertainties in applying existing procedure to a parent’s neglect

or failure in allowing a child to become an habitual truant.



Before I share with you the analysis and comments of the judges I talked with, I

would point out that nothing I say, nor any comments of any judges that I relate to

you, should be regarded as a constitutional position by the Supreme Court,

official or otherwise, regarding the merits of this legislation, either for or against.
The Supreme Court is always concerned about intruding on the prerogatives and
policy decisions of the legislature and my sole purpose is simply to furnish
information that you may find helpful in making the decision that is before you.



Juvenile Judge vs. Judges of the Magistrate Division of the District Court

Magistrate judges who decide cases under the Juvenile Correction Act are often

referred to juvenile judges and juvenile proceedings or juvenile court and I lapse

into this shorter description of them once in awhile.



First, if I may go to the existing language in section 33-207, which this bill

proposes to amend, you will note at line 20, if a parent knowingly fails, neglects

or refuses to place the child in school, or allows a pupil to become an habitual

truant, proceedings shall be brought against the parent under the provisions of
the

Youth Rehabilitation Law. As you heard yesterday, the Youth Rehabilitation Law
is no longer in existence and it was superseded in 1995 by what is known as the
Juvenile Correction Act. A word about the character of the JCA.. Violations
under the Act are prosecuted by the county prosecuting attorney. The juvenile is
entitled to a public defender. Violent offenses can be transferred to adult court
for prosecution and sentencing under adult criminal laws. The juvenile can be
taken into custody, sentenced to a long commitment with the Department of
Juvenile Corrections, indeed, at a certain age, an offender can find his way to the
State Penitentiary on what is known as a blended sentence. The rules of
evidence that apply in criminal proceedings apply to juvenile proceedings. The
standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt the same as a criminal action.
Many persons would regard the JCA as quasi-criminal, rather than civil.



A sketch of Sections in the JCA that apply to truancy cases

Section 20-527 of the Juvenile Correction Act provides that when a juvenile of

compulsory school age is expelled or reported to have violated the attendance

regulations of the school district, the court on a petition of the prosecuting

attorney “may proceed against the juvenile’s parents” pursuant to section 33-207.

However, 33-207 describes the nature of the proceedings or the sanctions that

attach when a knowingly violates these and refers one back to the Juvenile

Correction Act. This creates a whipsaw and 33-207, as presently written, and 20-

527, taken together, are not especially helpful in dealing with this type of case.

Sentencing alternatives available to a judge in the Juvenile Correction Act do not

work well for the parents.



There is also section 20-526 of the Juvenile Correction Act, which prevents any

person under threat of a criminal misdemeanor from doing any act that

encourages, aides or causes a juvenile to come within the purview or jurisdiction

of the Juvenile Correction Act. However, section 20-526 does not. apply unless

the child is charged as a juvenile and found to come within the purview of the

Juvenile Correction Act as a result of the child’s violation of the truancy laws.

As I understand it from the previous testimony, the prolonged truancy situations

sought to be covered by SB 1233 are cases where the child is not at fault.



Other judges proceed under section 20-522 of the Juvenile Correction Act when

there is evidence that the child truancy has been caused, at least in part, by the

actions or inactions of the parent. Section 20-522 provides that when a juvenile

is found to have violated the Juvenile Correction Act, the court has jurisdiction to

have the juvenile’s parents enter into a contract as a part of the juvenile’s

probation, including conditions that the juvenile’s parents must adhere to as a

condition of the probation. However, before this happens, there must be a

finding or it may include innocent or non-willful act. Secondly, the misdemeanor

offenses set forth in 20-526 do not require that person knowingly commit an act

which causes a child to come under the JCA . But the sanction for a parent’s

violation of this contract is the forfeiture of a monetary sum not to exceed $1,000,

based on a breach of contract.



Section 20-522 goes on to say that in addition to the probationary contract, the

court may order parents to attend parenting classes and/or participate in
treatment or counseling, and that this order may be enforced by contempt.
However, this imposes another set of problems when the parents do not have the
financial ability to pay any monetary sum.



The other possible authority of law for dealing with a parent’s knowing failure to

send a child to school or allowing a child to become truant is through a chapter of

the Code known as the Child Protective Act. This Act applies when a parent

commits a wrong against the child, rather than the child committing some offense

under the Juvenile Correction Act, such as truancy. The Child Protective Act

applies when a child has been “neglected,” “abused,” or “abandoned”. A child is

neglected under the Child Protective Act when he or she is without proper

parental control or subsistence or education, medical, or other care essential to
his health and well-being because of the conduct or omission of his parents. The

ultimate sanction of this law is to remove the child from the home and after a

termination of the parent/child relationship. Because of its serious consequences

and the limited resources of Health and Welfare to investigate and monitor the

case, this law is not used to address truancy unless the child has also been
abused or subjected to some other form of neglect because of malnutrition,
beatings, or abandonment.



This sums up my survey of existing procedures to address and correct parent

misbehavior in respect to a child’s truancy. With the exception of the Child

Protective Act, the child, by necessity, must be a participant in the juvenile

proceeding before the court has authority to review the parent’s conduct. In that

regard, judges have observed SB 1233 authorizes an action directly against the

parents, without any stigma to the child. In that sense, the judges I have talked to

view the bill as providing another remedy to deal with and deter the willful failure

of parents in these cases. The prosecuting attorney of course is free to pursue a
case under the JCA, if that is appropriate, or to prosecute a violation under S
1233.



Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions.

There were questions directed to Mr. Frost by the committee.
Testimony Other testimony in favor of S 1233 was Dr. Cliff Green, Executive
Director, Idaho School Boards Association; Kathy Phelan, President,
Idaho Education Association; John Eikum, Executive Director, Idaho Rural
Schools Association; Mike Friend, Executive Director, Idaho Association
of School Administrators.
Next to testify was Heather Reilly, Deputy Ada County Prosecuting
Attorney, representing the Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association
(IPAA). Inserted in the minutes is information provided by Ms. Reilly.
Heather Reilly, Deputy Ada County Prosecuting Attorney, representing the Idaho Prosecuting
Attorneys Association (IPAA)

The IPAA supports Senate Bill 1233. Current I.C. 33-207, standing alone, has no teeth to address
parents who fail, neglect or refuse to place their child in school or allow them to become habitually
truant.

Under current law, in order for the court to address these parents the child must be petitioned under
the Juvenile Corrections Act.
In the prosecutors’ view, SB 1233 does not create a new misdemeanor. Parents may be charged with
a misdemeanor under current laws for this type of behavior. However, it would be charged under I.C.
20-526 Encouraging a Violation of the Juvenile Corrections Act.

Even though this code section is within the JCA, the parent would be charged in magistrate court and
treated the same as any other adult charged with any other misdemeanor, subject to up to 6 months
in jail and/or a $300.00 fine.

The problem with the current law, as you have heard, is that the child must first be petitioned or
charged with a crime, albeit a status offense, for the parent to come w/in the statute.

The Juvenile Corrections Act is criminal not civil. The JCA sets out procedures to address a juvenile
who violates criminal law. Juveniles are charged w/the same crimes that adults are charged with,
such as battery under I.C. 18-903, the penalties and procedures are just different. A juvenile can be
sentenced to up to 30 days in detention for a status offense (an offense based upon age) although
juveniles are not sent to detention on a first time status offense and may only be sent to detention if
the judges orders are not followed; 90 days for a misdemeanor; and 180 days detention for a felony.
The juvenile must first be convicted of the offense, which requires the prosecutor to prove the charge
beyond a reasonable doubt.



Habitual truancy is defined in I.C. 33-206 and states in part: any public school pupil who has
repeatedly violated the attendance regulations or parents who have failed or refused to cause a child
to be instructed pursuant to 33-202.

I.C. 33-202 does set out framework re: comparably instructed. It states in part: a parent shall cause
the child to be instructed in subjects commonly and usually taught in the public schools of the state of
Idaho.



Under I.C. 33-206, what I will term the attendance prong of the habitual truancy code, (repeated
violation of attendance regulations) only applies to public school students.



SB 1233 does not require a prosecutor to file a misdemeanor in all cases. Prosecutors’ screen
reports and have the duty and obligation to determine if a crime has been committed, if in the interest
of justice the charge should be filed and if the charge can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecutors and judges have flexibility and will continue to have flexibility upon the passage of SB
1233. Even if a charge is filed, the state must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a judge or a
jury. Then the judge can and will determine a fair sentence.

It has been my experience, mirroring the education professionals testimony, that the school board
referring a parent or child for consideration for charges is a last resort only after every other option has
been attempted and has not been successful.

Time was allowed for questions to Ms. Reilly.
Chairman Schroeder asked Senator Stegner to provide closing remarks
regarding S 1233.



Senator Stegner said this was not an orchestrated effort. It started in
Lewiston by two concerned principals and was not intended to be a turf
fight. It was felt that at some point, something needed to be done.
Senator Stegner said it started out simple, but became complicated.

Motion Senator Gannon made a motion to send S 1233 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Goedde. A voice
vote indicated it passed unanimously.
Break Chairman Schroeder said there would be a 10 minute break, then
reconvene at 10:30 a.m.
Reconvene Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order and said Mr. John Eikum
would introduce the speaker.
Mr. Eikum said that Dr. Gene Davis, Idaho State University/Center for
Policy Studies, Education Research, and Community Development (ICEF)
was invited to speak to the committee about the research that has been
conducted on Virtual Schools across the United States.
Speaker Dr. Davis provided a copy of the Center’s Policy Brief to the committee
members and referenced his presentation to it (attached). He said that
the 24 states they looked at, the description of virtual learning is mixed.
Each state has their own goals and objectives for virtual learning. As far
as funding, some states used federal money. Other states used private
money, some used challenge grant money and others used state money.



Dr. Davis pointed out that their objective was to look at the policy issues
of the virtual schools. Most of the virtual learning schools are at the
secondary level and oversight is with the State Department of Education.
The issues focused on were (1) curriculum has to be standards based
and aligned to the state curriculum (assessment, accountability, etc.). (2)
Supervision has to be through an existing governmental body and
teachers are to be certified. (3) Funding is based by some states on ADA
(average daily attendance); other states use adjusted figures
(maintenance, transportation, capital expenditures). Some states delete
any funds for technology because they feel the state has already provided
technology to the public schools and that technology is available to any
student who would want to access virtual learning. Florida has reduced
their funding about $1,300 per student in virtual learning, compared to the
ADA formula for students in traditional schools. Texas has three pilot
programs. One site is using the ADA formula (about $7,000 per pupil).
Another site only takes care of instruction, curriculum, and oversight,
which is $1,172 per pupil. Another site does not have an administrator for
the program except at the state level and the classroom teachers develop
the curriculum and monitor the students. Dr. Davis said there are no
instantaneous solutions to this complex problems. Dr. Davis said
accountability is necessary for students and an honesty policy by parents
is also necessary.



Some concerns of the committee included testing for graduation (to make
sure it was the student taking the test, not by someone else); contracts;
funding; and transfer of credits.



When asked if he could conduct research on a specific request relating to
virtual learning, Dr. Davis said that he complies with what his boss, Dr.
Dean Harris, instructs him to do. A committee member indicated that a
letter would be forthcoming.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 11 a.m.






DATE: February 16, 2004
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
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m.
The Chairman announced that today is the last day for RS’s to be
submitted and that is the purpose of the meeting. Ordinarily, the
committee does not meet on Monday’s.
RS 13911C1 Representative Ringo represented the sponsors of this RS. The purpose
is to change Idaho Code dealing with appointment to the State Board of
Education. The intent is to better assure that the interests of the people,
and of education, are served. Other sponsors are Senators Calabretta,
Werk, Burkett, Kennedy, Stennett, Marley, and Malepeai.
Motion Senator Noh made the motion to send RS 13911C1 to print. Senator
Werk seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated the majority voted for
the motion.
RS 14077 Senator Goedde is the sponsor of this bill. He said it incorporates the
Office of Performance Evaluations recommendations and provides an
appeal process relating to pupil transportation
Motion Senator Werk made the motion to send RS 14077 to print. Senator
Gannon seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it was unanimous.
RS 14079 Senator Goedde is the sponsor of this bill. This bill conforms school
districts to the same status as cities, counties, and highway districts
regarding State contracts.
Motion Senator Noh made the motion to send RS 14079 to print. Senator
Andreason seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it was
unanimous.
RS 14011 Senator Schroeder is the sponsor of this bill. It is a concurrent resolution
requesting an assessment of the Idaho Standard Achievement Test by
the Office of Performance Evaluations.
Motion Senator Noble made the motion to send RS 14011 to print. Senator Noh
seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it was unanimous.
RS 14067 Senator Schroeder is the sponsor of this bill. It is an act relating to
charter schools to provide criteria governing the attendance area of a
charter school.
Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to send RS 14067 to print. Senator
Werk seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it was unanimous.
RS 14065 Senator Schroeder is the sponsor of this bill. It is an act relating to
charter schools to authorize advance payment of a portion of estimated
transportation costs.
Motion Senator Noble made the motion to send RS 14065 to print. Senator
Gannon seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it was unanimous.
RS 14068 Senator Schroeder is the sponsor of this bill. It is an act relating to
charter schools to require a process for an open election of the Board of
Directors of a charter school and to prohibit compensation.
Motion Senator Gannon made the motion to send RS 14068 to print. Senator
Andreason seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it was
unanimous.
RS 13883 This bill is sponsored by Senators Stennett, Burkett, Malepeai, Marley,
Werk, Calabretta, and Kennedy. Senator Malepeai represented the
group. This bill clarifies and defines the roles of the State Board of
Education and the State Department of Education.
Motion Senator Noh made the motion to send RS 13883 to print. Senator
Andreason seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it was
unanimous.
RS 13638C2 This bill is sponsored by Senator Marley, Representatives Moyle and
Bayer. Senator Marley represented them. It amends Idaho Code to bring
regulatory requirements of the State Board of Education over private and
commercial drivers education businesses in line with private industry.
Motion Senator Werk made the motion to send RS 13638C2 to print. Senator
Goedde seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it was unanimous.
RS 14081 This bill is sponsored by Dr. Bob West and Don Robertson. It amends
Idaho Code 33-1209 pertaining to proceedings of the Professional
Standards Commission.
Motion Senator Noh made the motion to send RS 14061 to print. Senator
Goedde seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it was unanimous.
RS 14080 This bill is sponsored by Dr. Bob West and Don Robertson. It gives the
Professional Standards Commission the discretion to decide whether any
felony conviction is grounds for denial, revocation, or suspension of an
Idaho teaching certificate.
Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to send RS 14080 to print. Senator
Noble seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it was unanimous.
RS 14093 This bill is sponsored by Dr. Bob West and Don Robertson. It amends
Idaho Code 33-5207 regarding an appeal to the State Board of Education
by petitioners of a charter school.
Motion Senator Gannon made the motion to send RS 14093 to print. Senator
Noh seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it was unanimous.
RS 13604 This joint memorial is sponsored by Janet Lesko. It is a memorial to
repeal the No Child Left Behind Act.
Motion Senator Gannon made the motion to return RS 13604 to the author.
Senator Werk seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it was
unanimous.
RS 14124 This bill is sponsored by Senator Werk. It would require that the
Legislature provide a minimum of $5 million for compensatory and
remedial programs for students that are unable to achieve a passing
grade for any standardized achievement test to be used as a requirement
for high school graduation.
Motion Senator Malepeai made the motion to send RS 14124 to print. Senator
Werk seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Voting aye were
Senators Malepeai, Werk, Andreason, and Schroeder. Voting nay were
Senators Noble, McWilliams, Goedde, Noh, and Gannon. The motion
was defeated, 5-4.
Break Chairman Schroeder called for a 5 minute break before considering the
remaining RS’s.
Call to order Calling the meeting to order, Chairman Schroeder said they would hear
the remaining RS’s.
Motion Senator McWilliams made a motion that they all be sent to print. Senator
Malepeai seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated that it was
unanimous.
Following are the RS’s:



RS 14129

Relating to charter schools. Sponsored by Senator Schroeder.

RS 14127

Relating to Virtual Distance Learning Charter Schools. Sponsored by
Senator Gannon.

RS 14125

Relating to charter schools. Sponsored by Bob Henry

RS 14005C1

Relating to NCLB. Sponsored by Senator Schroeder,

RS 14096

Relating to charter schools. Sponsored by Dr. Bob West

RS 14104

Relating to charter schools. Sponsored by Dr. Bob West

RS 14101

Relating to charter schools. Sponsored by Dr. Bob West

RS 14113

Relating to charter schools. Sponsored by Dr. Bob West

RS 14107

Relating to charter schools. Sponsored by Dr. Bob West

RS 14112

Relating to charter schools. Sponsored by Dr. Bob West

RS 14123

Relating to charter schools. Sponsored by Dr. Bob West

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m.






DATE: February 17, 2004
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
MINUTES: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 8:30
Announcements He announced that there are three handouts in the blue folders. They
are: “The Challenges of NCLB” provided by Senator Andreason; a copy of
a letter sent by Senator Schroeder to JFAC regarding Sam Byrd’s
concerns about English Language Learners; and the “Findings of Fact” by
the State Board of Education in which they granted a charter school on
appeal.
Chairman Schroeder then asked Senator Malepeai to present his bill, S
1255.
S 1255 An act relating to reimbursement for driver training courses; Amending
Section 33-1707, Idaho Code, to increase the average cost per pupil
reimbursement to public school districts for driver training courses from
one hundred ten dollars to one hundred twenty-five dollars.
Senator Malepeai said he calls this bill an “all is well bill”, both financially
and emotionally. It increases the amount of money to districts from
dedicated funds, not from general funds.
Testimony Testifying in favor of this bill, and also available to answer technical
questions, was Beth Weaver, Driver Education Specialist for the State
Department of Education. She said the source of funding comes from
driver licensing fees and student fees. The cost of driver education in the
public schools has increased 59% since 1995 from an average of $140
per student to $223.83. Student fees for driver education have increased
145% since 1995 from an average $31.56 per student to $77.40 in 2003.
The average adjusted cost after deducting student fees is $134.97 per
student. After deducting the $110 reimbursement, the average out of
pocket cost to the district during fiscal year 2003 was $24.97. Ms.
Weaver cited two reasons why sufficient funds are available in the driver
training fund. She said commercial driving schools have grown and
consequently, this has resulted in a reduction of reimbursements to
school districts and the 8 year license has caused an additional $592,436
to be deposited to the driver training fund.
Motion Senator Goedde made the motion to send S 1255 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Werk seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated that it passed unanimously. Senator Malepeai is the sponsor of
this bill.
Presentation Chairman Schroeder said the remaining time of the meeting will be given
to the Office of Performance Evaluations, Mr. Rakesh Mohan, Director,
and assisted by Chris Shoop, Ned Parrish, Brook Smith, A.J. Burns, and
Paul Headlee.



This part of the PowerPoint presentation is the remainder of the report of
February 6th regarding “Fiscal Accountability of Pupil Transportation”.

Pupil
Transportation
Paul Headlee provided the following information:



Fourteen districts were visited. It was found that pupil transportation
costs are higher than most state agency budgets. This cost was placed
at $56 million.



The Department provides limited oversight. There is five years between
spot inspection review; one year between desk audits; and 40 years
between a program review.



Recommendations were: (1) the SBOE clarify the department’s
responsibilities in conducting in-depth program reviews, follow-up, and
financial reviews. (2) the department should: a. increase program and
fiscal review; b. expand spot inspections to include documentation; c.
require districts to submit and adhere to a corrective action plan; and d.
audit districts subject to the funding cap. (3) Department submit a plan to
governor’s Office and Legislature outlining resource needs.



More efforts are needed to improve fiscal accountability. OPE found that
expenditures not routinely analyzed; buses may not be fully used;
comparison of contractor vs. district-operated transportation not analyzed;
and districts seldom pursue Medicaid reimbursements.



Recommendations were: (1) The department should [a] provide trend
analysis on website; [b] include percent occupancy in bus Run Report; [c]
develop best practices for Idaho districts; [d] request DHW assistance for
districts’ use of Medicaid; and [e] require reporting of Medicaid
reimbursement. (2) Boise School District renegotiate contract rates or go
back to bid in three years.



Some districts have taken cost-saving measures. It includes consolidated
and reduced bus routes; reduced non-bus driver staff; reduced or limited
field and activity trips; maximized use of full-time drivers; and reduced
number of drivers receiving benefits.



Regarding contracting for busing: contractors were paid $21 Million in
FY2002; department’s role in approving contracts unclear; not all districts
use model contract; asking contractors to review routes for efficiency; and
some districts did not include all route information in their bid request.

Recommendation were: (1) SBOE should direct the department to [a]
require districts to use model contract; [b] clarify department’s role in
approving contracts; [c] develop bid review guidelines for districts. (2)
SBOE should request a formal AG’s opinion whether information about
bus routes is proprietary.



Regarding bus purchasing, the OPE found that districts combined do not
purchase enough buses for large discounts; department defining
reimbursable bus options; neighboring states can provide guidance; and
districts do not have bus replacement plans.



Recommendation was the department should develop a model bus
replacement plan based on mileage, age, and use criteria.



Transportation funding cap controls costs are as follows: limits
reimbursements to 110% of statewide average cost/mile or cost/student
(rider); districts above both averages are capped; cap decreases to 105%
in FY06 and 103% in FY07; districts can apply for a waiver or loan.

School District
Administration
and Oversight
Chris Shoop, Ned Parrish, and Brook Smith presented this part of OPE’s
presentation.



Mr. Shoop said they visited 11 districts and their presentation outline
covers administrative staffing and salary levels; oversight and fiscal
accountability; purchasing and contracting; and district health insurance.



They found the staffing data insufficient for accountability purposes. The
Department of Education annual reports do not provide adequate staffing
information; administration category only includes certified administrators;
does not include district-to-district comparisons and change in staffing
levels over time; and information provided on website is limited.



Recommendation – The State Department of Education should improve
data reporting about administrative staffing.



The following five areas were found to be deficient: Accountability,
reporting of fiscal data, fiscal data inconsistencies, school district financial
audits, audit scope and oversight limited, department reporting
insufficient.

Recommendations were: The Department of Education should (1) Take
steps to improve accuracy and uniformity of fiscal data reported by school
districts; (2) Strengthen its oversight of financial audits to ensure they
include a review of data districts submit to the state; and (3) Improve
statewide reporting of district financial information and information
available on its website.



Regarding school district purchasing and contracting the OPE felt the
purchasing practices could be improved. Competitive shopping not
usually required – only $25,000 and above; differs from state and local
governments; bids or quotes are not required for many services of any
cost. The approval process not clearly defined or followed and written
agreements not always in place.



Recommendations – (1) The Legislature should consider [a] price quote
requirements for districts; [b] giving specific statutory authority to districts
for use of statewide contracts; (2) The State Board of Education should
consult with the division of Purchasing to develop bid requirements for
purchased services; and (3) The State Department of Education should
[a] ensure annual financial audits review district purchasing processes; [b]
consult with the division of Purchasing to develop model contracting
components; [c] determine opportunities for cooperatives; [d] explore
opportunities to use Internet; and [e] encourage district staff to attend
state training.



Regarding health insurance benefits, it was found that costs are high and
growing; district health plans vary; and statewide pooling may help control
costs.

Recommendation made was the Legislature could consider authorizing in-depth study of potential cost savings of statewide health insurance plan
for districts.
Mr. Shoop said the four key points of this presentation were:

Administrative staffing has grown more than other district staff;

Staffing and fiscal data is insufficient to promote accountability;

Purchasing options may reduce costs; and

Statewide plan may help contain health insurance costs.

Higher
Education
Residency
Requirements
Mr. Ned Parrish and Ms. Brook Smith presented this part of the program.



Mr. Parrish said they visited BSU, ISU, LCSC, and UI. The major
conclusions were: (1) Residency law may not reflect legislative intent and
(2) Residency law not consistently implemented. The Board of Education
has not set uniform procedures and the institutions lack adequate
controls.



The 1992 amendment of the Residency Statute

Before 1992: “…student has continuously resided in the state of Idaho for
twelve months next preceding the opening day of the term during which
the student proposes to attend the college or university.”



Added in 1992: “and who has in fact established a bona fide domicile in
this state primarily for purposes other than educational.”



Mr. Parrish said the Attorney General’s legal analysis is that a student
must reside in Idaho for 12 months, but can establish domicile at any
time; Law and rule do not specify which or how many factors must be met.



Recommendation 1. Legislature should consider amending Idaho Code
to clarify: a. Whether full-time, nonresident students are presumed to be
in Idaho primarily for educational purposes; b. whether nonresident
students must maintain a domicile for 12 months to qualify for residency;
c. whether students who are granted residency on the basis of a parent
should be financially dependent or under a certain age; d. the factors
needed to show domicile has been established, including whether any
factors should be weighted.



Recommendation 2. Board of Education should address the lack of
uniformity by: a. amending rules to provide uniform residency
determination process; b. modifying application form to conform to state
law and rules; c. setting nonresident fees for part-time students in the
same manner as full-time students.



Recommendation 3. Institutions should improve residency determination
process by: a. implementing measures to identify high-risk cases for
further review; b. collecting information that addresses all factors and
basing determination on full consideration of all factors.

The presentation was followed by questions from the committee.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. Mohan and his staff for the information.
He then adjourned the meeting at 10:25 a.m.






DATE: February 18, 2004
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
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m.
Announcement

and
presentation

The Chairman announced that our Page, Collin Starry, would be leaving
Friday and he wished to acknowledge the work that he has done for the
Committee. He then presented him with a letter of recommendation
signed by all the Senate Education Committee members. Collin was also
presented with a Senate watch, which he exclaimed as “awesome”. He
thanked the committee and Senator Schroeder for the letter and watch.
Presentation Jeff Duggan, Administrative staff member from CSI, presented Senator
Schroeder with a beautiful framed picture of CSI to be hung on the
Education wall in Room 433. Senator Schroeder thanked Jeff and
instructed Senator Gannon to rearrange the pictures to accommodate the
additional one.
Speaker Chairman Schroeder welcomed Mary Jones, who will present the annual
report for the Infant Toddler Program. Inserted in the minutes is a copy of
her presentation.
My name is Mary Jones, Manager of the Idaho Infant Toddler Program. Mr.

Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for welcoming the

Interagency Coordinating Council and the Department of Health and

Welfare before your Committee to report on a critical element in Idaho’s

system of educational services.



Why, you may ask, is a Program administered by the Dept. of Health and

Welfare claiming to be part of the educational system? Because, babies are

born ready to learn. Because babies brain growth during the first year

exceeds that for the remainder of his life and because the neuro-pathways

that are established in the first three years of life are critically important in

laying the foundation for all learning. In Idaho, the Department of Health

and Welfare has served as the lead agency for the early intervention

system that is administered federally through the US Department of

Education, Office of Special Education Programs.



Not all infants and toddlers have the same early experiences–some events in

the development of the fetus or during infancy leave many children with

early disadvantages to their learning potential. Influences that range from

congenital conditions, extreme pre-maturity, sensory impairments like

deafness or blindness, or disruption of the home environment can negatively

impact the infant’s ability to develop and learn. These situations can

potentially leave children lagging behind their peers when it is time to enter

school. Early intervention services are designed to assure that every child

who needs early supports and therapeutic interventions receives those

services needed during the window of time when they can have the most

positive life-long impact.



Recent advancements in technology have had a direct impact on Idaho’s

early intervention system, the Infant Toddler Program, and have contributed

to a count of eligible birth to three year old children that continues to grow.

Last year, the Idaho Infant Toddler Program served 2,719 children through

the provisions of an Individualized Family Services Plan or IFSP. Many of

these children would not have survived or would not have been recognized

as needing specialized services only a few years ago.



Medical technology that allows a fetus to successfully survive at 24 weeks

gestational age is a feature of our modern world. Many of these infants with

the right care and supports can thrive physically and can compete in all other

aspects of development with full term peers. This kind of success does,

however, require critical early care.



Until about 5 years ago, children who were deaf or hearing impaired were

typically not identified until approximately 2 ½ years of age when language

had failed to emerge as expected. Now, with newborn hearing screening

in all of Idaho’s birthing hospitals, we have lowered the age of identification

allowing the opportunity for evaluations, assistive technology, the use

alternative language modalities, and special instruction to facilitate cognitive

and language development at a level much closer to their hearing peers.

This early language development and capacity is all about pre-Iiteracy and

is directly correlated with outcomes in reading and later school success.

Cochlear implants are providing yet another relatively new strategy to

improve a child’s potential for successful language development.



The recent advent of multi-phase metabolic screens, identifying dozens of

conditions that previously went undetected until there were often devastating

in their effects to the developing infant. These screen have provided

information for preventive and treatment options that will decrease

morbidity, offering lifesaving treatment. With early intervention most of

these children have every potential for approaching the school door with the

skills and capacity to succeed.



We have recently employed a new vision screening device that identifies a

number of detrimental eye conditions that can result in impaired vision or

blindness. This new equipment of called a Photo-Screener and functions

like a Polaroid camera. It shoots a picture at different angles and provides a

good indication of whether there is an eye problem that requires further

evaluation. For about a dollar per child, children who would have struggled

for many years may be detected and sent for corrective lens, treatment or

special instruction as required.



All of this body of knowledge is changing the world of early intervention

and contributing to growth in the number of very young children who will

benefit from early intervention services in our state.



This background about technology provides only part of the story. Please

join me in reviewing the Progress Report that has been jointly prepared

for you by the Interagency Coordinating Council and the Infant Toddler

Program.



The Interagency Coordinating Council (or state ICC) provides advice and

assistance to the Dept. of H & W and to other agencies who provide early

intervention services to young children with developmental delays,

disabilities, or conditions that may result in developmental problems, if not

treated. Should you have specific questions about the Council, the chair,

Mary Dunne, is here today and could later respond to questions. Pages 2

through 5 represent the Council’s portion of the report. On page 4, you will

find specific recommendations from the Council to policy makers.



Throughout the report you will find short summaries of families’ stories.

Please take a few minutes to read these and understand more about the Idaho

families who have been willing to share their lives, their successes and their

challenges. We are so grateful to each of them for opening their hearts to

help others understand the importance of early intervention to their child and

their family. They come from all walks of life in all parts of the State.



Starting on page 6, you will find a summary of the key elements that make

up a coordinated, interagency, system of care for infants and toddlers and

their families. On page 7, find the list of services that can be provided in

response to the unique needs of specific children and their families.



On pages 8 and 9, there are a few elements of the program data that we

use regularly to help us refine the program. On the far left, you can read

about developmental monitoring, one activity to help inform families of

children who have risk indicators about developmental expectation and ways

to enhance their babies growth and development. 5,508 parents of infants

and toddler are enrolled to receive questionnaires (ASQs) they can complete

and return by mail for screening. This safety net/identification program is

operated through contracts with the Public Health Districts. 16% of

children who become eligible for E.I. Services were previously enrolled in

development,11 monitoring. This is one way to identify children early if their

development lags.



Each of us in this room is a primary referral source if we know of a family

who needs help with their infant or toddler. Please see the chart on the top

center of page 8. These are where referrals of eligible infants and toddlers

were initiated. Below that is the data for the past program year. This

represents all unduplicated count of the children served by the Infant

Toddler Program. These children received one or more of the services listed

on page seven. Services are provided in natural learning environments

where a child has the best potential to learn and where they would typically

do their learning if they didn’t have a disability. We have moved

increasingly away from center-based services in segregated settings to

supports and services that are embedded within the child’s and family’s

routines. In addition to being optimum for learning, this integrated approach

keeps children connected with families and families connected with their

neighbors and communities. The chart on page 9 shows service settings

where e. i. services are delivered.



The bottom of page 9 has particularly interesting data for those of you

primarily concerned with the formal education system. As a child

approaches three year’s of age, transition planning begins to make sure that if

continued services or supports are needed the family is informed of their

options and the resources within their communities. Part of that process is

transition planning with the local school district. In the past year, we have

developed a new protocol for planning transitions from early intervention to

other community resources with special focus on transition to early

childhood special education or preschool services. Last year 52% of the

children exiting the Infant Toddler Program at age 3 were determined to be

eligible for and need school based services. 16.7% “graduated” from e. i.

services by achieving the outcomes on their individual plan before the age of

three! It is really a short window of opportunity to make a long, life-long

difference.



For a view of Idaho demographics and regional contacts, see pages 10-11.

You can see by county the number of children served in the past year.



As lead agency, we couldn’t do it-have a quality interagency early

intervention system– without many partners. A few of those who make it

happen are listed on page 13. There are many more and we truly are

appreciative of all the collaborative work we get to do with.



Now, I’d like you to hear from one parent who volunteers her time to serve

on the Interagency Coordinating Council. Kristina Rice is a parent of four

children. I’ll let her tell you more about that.



Mr. Chairman, before Kristina starts, I’d be pleased to answer any questions

the Committee may have. Thank you.



(The Idaho Interagency Coordinating Council & Infant Toddler Program
Progress Reports 2003 that Ms. Jones referred to is on file in the
Education office.)

Testimony Ms. Kristina Rice shared her family’s success story with the committee.
Chairman Schroeder thanked Ms. Jones for her presentation and Ms.
Rice for her testimony.
He welcomed the five Eagle High School students (from a government
class) who are in attendance today.
Adjournment The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m.






DATE: February 19, 2004
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
MINUTES: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 8:30
He said he asked Mr. Terry Coffin from the Attorney General’s Office to
speak to the committee regarding RFP’s and if the law had been followed
by charter schools and other schools on purchasing of various things.
Mr. Coffin provided the committee with copies of:

Idaho Code 33-5202. Legislative intent.

Idaho Code 33-5210. Application of school law-Accountability-Exemption
from state rules.

Idaho Code 33-601. Real and personal property-Acquisition, use or
disposal of same.

Idaho Code 33-5204. Nonprofit corporation-Liability-Insurance

These documents are attached.



Mr. Coffin said Idaho Code 33-5202, the first paragraph sets forth the
legislative intent, which says “It is the intent of the legislature to provide
opportunities for teachers, parents, students and community members to
establish and maintain public charter schools which operate
independently from the existing school district structure but within the
existing public school system as a method to accomplish all of the
following:

1. Improve student learning;

2. Increase learning opportunities for all students, with special emphasis
on expanded learning experiences for students;

3. Include the use of different and innovative teaching methods;

4. Utilize virtual distance learning and on-line learning;

5. Create new professional opportunities for teachers, including the
opportunity to be responsible for the learning program at the school site;

6. Provide parents and students with expanded choices in the types of
educational opportunities that are available within the public school
system;

7. Hold the schools established under this chapter accountable for
meeting measurable student educational standards.



The next handout is 33-5210. He called attention to subsection 2 which
states “the local board of trustees and the state board of education are
responsible to ensure that each charter school program approved by it
meets the terms of the charter, complies with the general education laws
of the state unless specifically directed otherwise in this chapter 52, title
33, which is the charter school chapter.



Mr. Coffin said the question arises if the purchasing statutes that govern
the school districts in general also govern purchases made by charter
schools. He said he finds no exemption from the purchasing statute.
Handout #3 – 33-601 starts out by stating the board of trustees of each
school district shall have the following powers and duties. Subsection 2
states “to contract for the construction, repair, or improvement of any real
property, or the acquisition, purchase or repair of any equipment, or other
personal property necessary for the operation of the school district.” He
said if it is under $25,000 it is not necessary to use the process, but over
that, notice must be given.



Mr. Coffin then called attention to handout #4, 33-5204, which is nonprofit
corporation, liability, insurance. In subsection 1, it says a charter school
shall function independently of any school board of trustees, except as
provided in the charter. That indicates again that you are not trying to
make the board of trustees or school district do the bidding or purchasing
for charter schools. Mr. Coffin said it further states that a charter school
shall be considered a public school for all purposes and shall comply with
the audit reporting requirements.



In subsection 2, a charter school may sue or be sued, purchase, receive,
hold and convey real and personal property for school purposes, and
borrow money for such purposes, to the same extent and on the same
conditions as a public school district.



The question was asked what happens when a charter school can’t pay
its debts. Mr. Coffin said they would probably file bankruptcy. He also
said they are organized under the non profit laws of the State of Idaho, so
theoretically they are non profit.



Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. Coffin for the information he provided.

SJM 108 Next on the agenda was SJM 108.



Senator Schroeder said the purpose of this joint memorial is for the Idaho
Legislature to urge Congress to support amendments to the No Child Left
Behind Act that will accomplish the following:

1. Allow determinations of “adequate yearly progress” to be made on the
basis of individual student growth from year to year;

2. Target options for choice and supplemental services to specific
subgroups that fail to make adequate yearly progress rather than to all
children in a school;

3. Provide flexibility and more reasonable rules for English Language
Learners so that these students are exempt from the calculation of a
school’s participation level until they have been in the United States for
one full academic year; that scores of such students may, at the state’s
option, be exempted from adequate yearly progress proficiency
measurements until they have been in the United States for three years;
and that students who become proficient in English will be allowed to
continue to be included in the English Language Learners subgroup; and

4. Permit states to identify, for school improvement only, those schools
that fail to meet adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years in the
same subject and for the same subgroup.



It is also requested that the United States Department of Education and
the states to continue progress on the open communications that have
started in implementing the No Child Left Behind Act.

Testimony Speaking in support of SJM 108 were the following people:
Representative Jaquet; Representative Bedke; Phil Kelly, Professor at
BSU; Jim Shackelford, IEA Executive Director; Tom Farley, Federal
Programs Bureau Chief; Mike Friend, IASA; and Cliff Green, ISBA. A
letter of support for this memorial was received from Sam Byrd, Council
on Hispanic Education, (attached).
Motion Following the testimony, Senator Andreason made the motion to send
SJM 108 to the floor with a do pass recommendation. Senator Werk
seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated that it was unanimous.
Senator Schroeder is the sponsor of this bill.
RS 14132C1






Chairman Schroeder then presented RS 14132C1. It is an act relating to
alternative teacher qualifications and to impose limits upon adoption of an
alternative teacher qualification program and to require research and a
report. The Chairman asked for unanimous consent of the committee to
send this RS to the Judiciary and Rules Committee for a hearing to print,
then have it returned to this committee. There were no objections.
Chairman Schroeder announced that he asked Tim Hill to talk to the
committee regarding the budget actions of JFAC yesterday. Mr. Hill
provided a PowerPoint presentation and also had five handouts for the
committee. The white copy is an explanation of the budget that was
approved; pink copy – experience and education; yellow copy – 2003-2004
distribution factor; green copy – 2004-2005 distribution factor; and blue
copy – comparison of the request made and what JFAC approved.
Inserted in the minutes is Mr. Hill’s memorandum of the Public School
Budget that was approved by JFAC on 2/18/04
Presentation Following is a brief explanation of the public schools budget that the Joint
Finance

Appropriations Committee approved today:

REVENUES

.General Fund appropriation of $964,706,500 for statutory and special

distributions as outlined in five appropriations.

o Estimate submitted was $985,794,700.

.Dedicated Fund spending authority of $42,907,800, including $4,700,000 for the

safe and drug-free program and $11,300,000 of lottery funds.

o Estimate submitted was $43,750,000.

o Reflects recent Land Board decision to reduce beneficiary distributions

based on 5% formula (previously 7.5%).

o FY 2005 Lottery funds include $1,000,000 of FY 2004 dividends in

excess of appropriation that were not distributed-

.Federal Fund appropriation of$157 ,980,000.

PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONS

.Property Tax Replacement $75,000,000

o Estimate submitted was $75,000,000.

o Reflects effect of statutory cap ($1,600,000 not distributed based on

estimated Dec. 31, 2003 market value of $76.6 billion).

o Equalization of state funds will take cap into consideration.

.Transportation $57,600,000

o Estimate submitted was $63,020,700.

o FY 2005 transportation reimbursements (based on FY 2004 allowable

expenditures) will be limited to 110% of the more favorable

reimbursement if they exceed 110% of state average cost per pupil and

110 % of state average cost per mile. Percentages will be 105% for FY

-2006 (FY 2005 expenditures) and 103% for FY 2007 (FY 2006

expenditures) and thereafter .

o “Basic” bus is in process of being defined.

Border Contracts $800,000

o No change in estimate submitted.

.Exceptional Contracts and Tuition Equivalents $5,000,000

o No change in estimate submitted.

.Floor $1,300,000

o No change in estimate submitted.

.Program Adjustments $300,000

o No change in estimate submitted (Booth Memorial Home expenditures).

.Salary-based Apportionment $684,339,900

o Estimate submitted was $684,613,400, based on 12,950 support units and

1% increase in Instructional, Administrative, and Classified base salaries.

o Apportionment based on 12,925 mid-term support unit estimate (SDE

revision). FY 2004 preliminary mid-term support units are 12,759.

o Base Salaries

.Instructional- $23,210 (no change)

.Administrative- $33,760 (no change)

.Classified- $18,648 (1% increase)

o Index Caps

.Instructional- increased to 1.59092 to reflect only education

movement in FY 2004 and FY 2005.

.Administrative -remains at 1.86643 (no change ).

o All school districts and charter schools instructional and administrative

salary-based apportionments will be reduced proportionately if statewide

average index increases from statutory caps.

o Minimum Salary -Increased from $25,000 to $27,500. Instructional

salary apportionment will be increased by the amount necessary for each

full-time equivalent instructional staff member placed on the experience

and education index based on a minimum of $27,500.

.Teacher Incentive Award $696,400

o No change in estimate submitted.

.State-paid Employee Benefits $124,704,900

o Estimate submitted was $124,754,300.

o Includes $1,250,000 of unemployment insurance claim expense.

o Benefit apportionment to be based on combined instructional,

administrative, and classified apportionment, limited to the smaller of total

actual or total salary apportionment of employees.

o All school districts and charter schools instructional and administrative

state-paid employee benefits will be reduced commensurate with salary-

-based apportionment reductions due to capping instructional and

administrative statewide average indexes.

o Reflects PERSI employer rate increase from 9.77% to 10.39% effective

July 1, 2004.

.Early Retirement Incentive $4,000,000

o No change in estimate submitted

.Safe & Drug-free $4,700,000

o No change in estimate submitted.

.Bond Levy Equalization Support Program $2,000,000

o No change in estimate submitted.

o Source of funds is annual lottery dividend to public schools. Public

School budget submitted requested to be funded with general funds.

o Remainder of lottery dividend (net of HB 315 Facilities Transfer, see

below) to be distributed per current statute (see also School Facilities

Funding below).

.Technology Grants $8,400,000

o No change is request submitted.

o $300,000 to fund Libraries Linking Idaho (LiLI).

o $173,000 for ICTL administrative expenses.

o $3.4 million ongoing and $5.0 million one-time to be distributed in FY

2005 per the Idaho Council for Technology in Learning (ICTL).

.Idaho Reading Initiative $2,800,000

o No change in request submitted.

o Public School budget request asked that $500,000 of FY 2004 funds be

used for ISA T intervention.

.Limited English Proficient $4,850,000

o No change in request submitted.

o Additional funds due to increased number of LEP students-

.Idaho Digital Learning $450,000

o No change in request submitted.

.ISA T Intervention $0

o Estimate submitted was $5,000,000

.Least Restrictive Environment {LRE) (teacher training) $0

o No request submitted.

o Public School budget request asked that FY 2004 funds be used for ISA T

intervention.

.Gifted and Talented (teacher training) $500,000

0 No change in request submitted.

..Achievement Standards Implementation $0

0 No request submitted.

0 Public School budget request asked that FY 2004 funds be used for ISA T

intervention.

.Annual Contract Support Program $0

0 Request submitted was $2,000,000.

0 Statutory requirements in I.C. 33-514 still in effect.

.Federal Funds for Local School Districts $157,980,000

0 No change in estimate submitted.

.School Facilities Funding $8,922,500

0 Estimate submitted was $11,300,000

o Annual Lottery dividend not used to fund Bond Levy Equalization

Support Program and HB 315 Facilities Transfer (Whitepine School

District) to be distributed according to existing statute (see Bond Levy

Equalization Support Program above).

.HB 315 Facilities Transfer $377,500

0 No request submitted.

0 Funds to be transferred from the School District Building Account to the

School Safety and Health Revolving Loan and Grant Fund and

subsequently distributed to the Whitepine School District.

0 Source of funds is annual lottery dividend to public schools.

0 Remainder of lottery dividend (net of Bond Levy Equalization Support

Program, see above) to be distributed per current statute (see also School

Facilities Funding above).

OTHER

.Education Stabilization Funds $0

0 No request submitted.

0 Funds can be accessed for Public School portion of future holdback,

shortfall in endowment / lands distribution. or if distribution factor less

than established in appropriation bill.

0 Unanticipated funds in excess of distribution factor established in

appropriation bill to be transferred to the Education Stabilization Fund.

0 Education Stabilization Fund has a cap of 3% of annual appropriation.

No request submitted.

0 Funds can be accessed for Public School portion of future holdback,

shortfall in endowment / lands distribution. or if distribution factor less

than established in appropriation bill.

0 Unanticipated funds in excess of distribution factor established in

appropriation bill to be transferred to the Education Stabilization Fund.

0 Education Stabilization Fund has a cap of 3% of annual appropriation.

.Net State Funding Available $20,873,100

o $1,621.84 per support unit based on estimated support units of 12,870

(SDE support unit revision)

o Estimate submitted was $2,175.19 per support unit based on 12,900

support units-

.o Decrease of$658.85 per support unit from FY 2004 appropriation (offset

by increased M & O property taxes and replacement tax, see Net

Equalization below).

.Equalization $311,504,804

o No change in estimate submitted.

.District Taxes not Equalized $17,700,000

o Estimate submitted was $17,900,000 (SDE revision)

.Net Equalization $293,804,804

o Estimate submitted was $293,604,804.

o $22,828.66 per support unit based on estimated support units of 12,870

(SDE support unit revision).

o Increase of $663.03 per support unit from FY 2004 appropriation (offset

by decreased net state funding, see Net State Funding Available above).

.Distribution Factor $24,450.50

o Request submitted was $24,935.25.

o FY 2005 Distribution Factor basically the same as FY 2004 Distribution

Factor.

o No adjustment for inflation.

Adjournment Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. Hill for his presentation, then adjourned
the meeting at 10:20 a.m.






DATE: February 20, 2004
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
MINUTES: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 8:30 a.m.
S 1310 He asked Senator Gannon to present his bill, S 1310.



Senator Gannon said the purpose of this legislation is to eliminate the
confusion that exists about charter schools accounting for and reporting
the use of State funds. It would require the same standards of
accountability for charter schools’ board of directors that exist for School
District Boards of Directors. It requires the preparation of annual financial
reports, publishing the annual statement of financial condition, annual
audit of financial statements and authorizes investment of excess cash
with the interest accruing back to the charter school. Senator Gannon
said the bill should go to the amending order as there is a need to expand
the requirements, but would also put it in the section that is labeled
application of school law accountability and exemptions from state rules.

Motion Senator Noh made the motion to send S 1310 to the 14th order. Senator
Werk seconded the motion.
Testimony Testifying in support of S 1310 was Paul Powell. A copy of his testimony
is inserted in the minutes.



Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.



My name is Paul Powell. I am Chairman of the Board of Directors for Hidden
Springs Charter School in Boise. I also serve on the Board of Directors for the
Idaho Charter School Network.



Public charter schools are based on the concept of accountability. Therefore, we

embrace the financial accountability contemplated in SB1310.



In fact Idaho’s public charter school’s already comply with the same audit
reporting requirements, and file the same financial and statistical reports as the
school districts. This is not optional. This requirement is clearly defined in section
33-5204 (1), Idaho Code.



For example, I have with me the audited financial statements of Hidden Springs
Charter School for the last two years. These can be found on file with both the
State Department of Education and the Boise School District.



Unfortunately, many Idahoans don’t understand how public charter schools
operate. They think because we are exempt from many of the rules governing
school districts which have been promulgated by the State Board of Education or
by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, that we somehow operate outside the
law. This couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact section 33-5210 (2), Idaho
Code states:



“The local board of trustees and the state department of education are
responsible to ensure that each charter school program approved by it meets the
terms of the charter, complies with the general education laws of the state unless
specifically directed otherwise in this chapter 52, title 33, Idaho Code, and
operates in accordance with the state educational standards of thoroughness as
defined in section 33-1612, Idaho Code.”



I appreciate Senator Gannon’s effort with this bill to put people’s mind at ease
regarding the financial accountability of public charter schools. We all need to
work together to get beyond the misperceptions and half truths about public
charter schools. Then we can focus on the important task of educating Idaho’s
children.



Mr. Chairman I would stand for questions if the committee has any.

Testimony John Eikum, Executive Director of the Idaho Rural Schools Association,
said his organization wished to go on record as in support of this bill.



Also testifying in support of S 1310 were Laurie Boeckel and Cindy
Schiller, both from Nampa.

Motion carried There being no further testimony, Chairman Schroeder said there was a
motion before them. A voice vote indicated that the motion carried
unanimously.
SCR 125 Chairman Schroeder said as he traveled around the state presenting the
Educational Forums, he heard a lot about the standard achievement test
and words like “reliability” and “validity”. There is a concept that there
needs to be an outside review of ISAT, with respect to three parameters:
whether that test is aligned to the standards, reliability of it, and the
validity of it. The Chairman said if diplomas and professional
advancement of teachers are based on results of the test, when they get
to the accountability phase, some may sue the State. Chairman
Schroeder said if we don’t have a legal leg to stand on, our liability
exposure will be such that it will cost the State money. He said the best
offense is a good defense. He talked to Senator Keough, who serves on
JLOC, and to Mr. Mohan with the Office of Performance Evaluation. It
was indicated that the way this would be set up is the OPE would retain
not less than three nationally recognized testing experts who would
review ISAT, then make recommendations. The Chairman said the study
could be done quickly for $20,000 to $25,000 or a more in-depth study
that could cost up to a quarter million dollars. He feels this amount is a
“drop in the bucket” compared to the $35 million that was lost in the
trucking lawsuit a few years ago. In summary, this SCR would authorize
Mr. Mohan to conduct this study. Chairman Schroeder said when he
talked to JFAC, he identified some places where the money could
possibly come from but they would need to find the money to do it.
Motion Senator Noh made the motion to send SCR to the floor with a do pass
recommendation. Senator Andreason seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated it passed unanimously.
Senator Andreason suggested that ECS (Education Commission for the
States) be contacted to see if they can help cut the cost down and also to
help with the selection of the testing experts.
S 1328 The Chairman then asked Senator McWilliams to present S 1328.



Senator McWilliams explained that this bill clarifies ambiguities that
currently exist within the law. There are areas of the statute that implicate
that the ethics in government laws apply to charter schools; however, it is
just an implication. There are other areas of law, such as non profit
provisions, that suggests otherwise. He feels there is confusion over this
and this is an area that could be litigated to find the answer. Senator
McWilliams feels it would be easier to provide the answer and he said that
is what this legislation does. However, he said he found a problem with
the bill, just this morning – it did not address Section 33-507. He
suggested it be sent to the 14th Order to include Section 33-507.



Chairman Schroeder asked Senator McWilliams to describe 33-507.
Senator McWilliams said, “That section states that trustees cannot have a
pecuniary interest in any transactions or contracts involving a school
district. The question that remains, with regard to that language, is should
that same language apply to the charter school? Or should the language
be adjusted to where the Board of Directors cannot have an interest with
regards to that charter’s business? Is the Board of Directors not to have
any pecuniary interest with any business throughout the district, involving
the district and the charter or just the charter?” He said there is potential
for conflict of interest if the chartering authority has a financial interest in
that charter school or a Board of Directors of the charter school having a
financial interest in the district.

Testimony Mr. John Eikum, Executive Director of Idaho Rural Schools and also
representing IASA today, indicated that both organizations are in support
of this bill.
Motion Senator Werk made the motion to send S 1328 to the 14th Order for
amendment. Senator Gannon seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated it passed unanimously. Senator McWilliams will provide the
amendments and is the sponsor of this bill.
S 1356 Senator Gannon said this bill came about due to some testimony
regarding virtual schools. This bill would put a moratorium on the creation
of any more virtual charter schools, but would allow brick and mortar
schools to continue to have distance learning (such as the Mountain
Home High School).



He read from a publication from Arizona State University, Profiles of For
Profit Education Management Companies
. “…Seeing the similarities with
health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that manage the health care
process, Wall Street has used the term “EMO” or “education management
organization,” to describe for-profit companies involved in the
management and administration of public schools.” Senator Gannon said
this business has gotten large enough for Wall Street to come up with an
acronym to describe it. Senator Gannon went on to read from the
publication “..In the latter half of the 1990s, EMOs have taken the
opportunity afforded by permissive charter school legislation and focused
on the management of publicly funded charter schools. ….Public policy
governing the for-profit operation of publicly funded schools will have
profound effects on the character of public schooling. For this reason,
policy making in relation to the for-profit sector will be among the most
important challenges education policy makers face in the years ahead.”

Senator Gannon said he feels that Idaho is on the leading edge of that
prediction. He said we have seen the virtual charter school hit Idaho,
have seen the virtual charter school run in the hole by $1.9 million last
year. He also said this report has a lot of statistics on the company that
has been contracted to provide the administrative and education services
of the Idaho Virtual Charter School. Senator Gannon said one of the most
important challenges we are facing in education policy, it would be a good
idea to call “time out” and put a moratorium on it until decisions can be
made about funding and where it should fit in with regards to the
educational policy in Idaho.



Chairman Schroeder said there are three types of education in Idaho –
traditional public school, charter schools and virtual schools. All are
viable opportunities. He agreed with Senator Gannon that a time out
needed to be called, have an interim committee study, and get the code
and public policy in line, then proceed. He said there is a funding
challenge with the present virtual school.

Testimony Mr. John Eikum said the organizations he represents support the bill.
Motion Senator Noh made the motion to send S 1356 to the floor with a do pass
recommendation. Senator Werk seconded the motion.
During the discussion, Senator Gannon asked Tim Hill, from the State
Department of Education, if funds could be withheld if anyone tried to start
a virtual school. Mr. Hill replied that through legislative intent, minutes of
this meeting and the language of the bill, it is clear that a district or
chartering entity would not be able to approve a virtual program with these
definitions.
Substitute
motion
Senator Goedde felt it was not a “time out” but a “drop dead”. He feels
the bill should be sent to the 14th Order and put a date (7/1/05), that at
some point in the future, upon which they would look at virtual distance
learning. He offered a substitute motion to do that. Senator Noble
seconded the motion.
Vote A roll call vote was taken on the substitute motion. Voting aye were
Senators Noble and Goedde. Voting nay were Senators Malepeai, Werk,
McWilliams, Andreason, Noh, Gannon, and Schroeder. The motion was
defeated 7-2. A voice vote was taken on the original motion. The
majority voted in the affirmative, with two nay votes (Goedde and Noble).
Break Chairman Schroeder called for a five minute break.
Call to order The Chairman called the meeting to order, then asked Dr. Cliff Green to
explain S 1323.
S 1323 An act relating to school bus drivers; amending Section 33-1509, Idaho
Code, to delete provisions which allow a medical waiver for individuals
with insulin dependent diabetes mellitus.



Dr. Green, Executive Director of the Idaho School Boards Association,
said this bill affects school trustees statewide. The trustees voted
overwhelmingly to support a resolution amending 33-1509. The
amendment would remove the waiver for insulin dependent diabetics
transporting school children. This waiver was put in place in 2000.

Testimony Mr. Brian Jullian, an attorney, said the bill in 2000 put school districts in a
position to weigh medical evidence and they do not have the expertise to
make these determinations. Mr. Jullian indicated that the state would
follow the Federal Motor Carrier safety regulations, like they did prior to
the 2000 waiver. This amendment will require a licensed physician, not
the school board, to make the determination about the fitness of a person
with diabetes to drive a passenger school bus.
Testifying next was Ms. Karlette Merrick, Grandview School Board
Trustee and Chairman. She said she doesn’t want the responsibility and
the school board doesn’t want the responsibility to make medical
decisions. They contacted their local health care physician and asked his
opinion. He said he would not grant a waiver of this type.
Ms. Dulcie Roberts, also of Grandview, (formerly from Idaho Falls where
she was a dispatch supervisor for 10 years for the I.F. police department,
county sherif’s department and the fire and ambulance) testified. She
said she has 9 children, 8 ride the bus. She cited examples of accidents
that happened due to insulin dependency.
Following the testimony, there were some questions from the committee.
Motion Senator Gannon made the motion to send S 1323 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Werk seconded the motion.
Rod McKnight, Transportation supervisor, said they requested that some
language be removed that is apart from the insulin issue. It is the issue of
a permit, which goes back to the 60’s, prior to CDL licensing.
Vote A voice vote indicated that the motion passed unanimously. Senator
Gannon will be the sponsor of this bill.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder thanked the committee for their hard work, then
adjourned the meeting at 10 a.m.






DATE: February 24, 2004
TIME: 8:35 am
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






none
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:49 a.m. He
welcomed the guests to the Joint meeting of the House and Senate
Education Committees. He introduced Chairman Barraclough of the
House Education Committee and the vice chairmen of the committees,
Senator Gannon and Representative Lake.



Chairman Schroeder said he wanted to assure everyone here that the
Chairmen and Vice Chairmen view charter schools as a component of
future education in Idaho. They see three components of public
education; the virtual experience, the traditional charter schools, and the
traditional public schools. The challenge in the Legislature is how to
make them work, both from a practical standpoint and the financial
challenges.



He then asked Chairman Barraclough to make some introductory
remarks.



Chairman Barraclough said he feels they can make better decisions if
they are better informed, so he is looking forward to today’s presentation
to learn about virtual schools. He said he agreed with Chairman
Schroeder about looking at the three components of education, but to
stop the comparison and decide these are three legitimate forms of public
education and then how can they mesh without making it a contest or
battle.



Chairman Schroeder said the nine page handout was made available by
Representative Andersen.



The Chairman then welcomed and introduced David Gencarella, Board
Chairman of the Idaho Virtual Academy.



Mr. Gencarella said they wanted to demonstrate how their program works,
then will answer any questions. He then introduced Ms. Kelly Rouse from
Coeur d’Alene.

Speakers Ms. Rouse said she comes from a traditional school teaching background
and has been with IDVA for two years.



She brought attention to the materials displayed on the front table that are
available for students’ use, along with the online curriculum and teacher
support. Using a PowerPoint presentation, she demonstrated the
components of the system. Parents set up a weekly schedule and can
view lesson plans; lesson lists provide all of the units for a course and
issued by teachers to assess learning and parents can work with children
at different grade levels; teachers view the progress reports and see what
lessons are started or in the process or completed; lessons and
assessments are viewed to see if students have mastered the skills
required before advancing; and attendance is monitored to see how much
time is spent.



Ms. Roush demonstrated a lesson on hearing as to what students would
actually view. There were animated illustrations that showed how the
inner ear works, audio pronunciations, key words identified, and indicators
to identify where students can find lessons and materials.



As new curriculum is developed by K-12, it can be downloaded and
Idaho’s curriculum can be updated. Virtual teachers still assess the
students work and are accountable. Parents help the students at home,
similar to help a student would receive from teacher aids.

Mr. David Gencarella said that prior to joining IDVA, he was employed by
a pharmaceutical company and choice is great, whatever the industry and
that one size does not fit all.



He reviewed IDVA’s current funding problem. The original charter was
granted in April 2002 by the Butte School District and the State
Department of Education, with an original budget proposal of $5,400 per
student. They based their budget on those figures and in February 2003,
they found out they would actually be paid $2,600 per student. Mr.
Gencarella said Tim Hill, Bureau Chief of Accounting with the State
Department of Education, did all he could to assist them within the
parameters of the funding formula. The State Board of Education
adopted temporary rules to address the issue, but withdrew the rules in
January. Mr. Gencarella said IDVA’s need for $5,000 per student is less
that the average of $6,800 for public schools and $6,500 for other virtual
schools.

Mr. Gencarella said some frustrations compounding the problem is that
misinformation has been circulated. They are not the same as home
schooling, and they are not robbing the public schools. They do use
certified teachers. Regarding K-12, K-12 is their primary vendor; has a
contract; charges IDVA $1,100 per student; and has invested $50 M in
developing their curriculum. Should IDVA not continue, 89 percent of
their students will go back to public school. The other 11 percent were
home schooled students.
Clarification Chairman Schroeder said there was a need to clarify the action of the
State Board of Education. He said Idaho’s Constitution doctrine was
written with separation of powers. It broke the government into three
branches – Judicial, Executive, and Legislative. Black’s Dictionary of legal
terms definition says the Legislature makes the laws, the Executive
branch enforces them, and the Judiciary decides the constitutionality of
the laws and settles disputes. The Constitution sets up the Chief
Executive (Governor) as the head of the Executive branch and charges
him to faithfully execute the laws the Legislature passes. It cannot make
laws on its own. It can write rules that are necessary to execute those
laws, but it cannot write rules without statute authority. Anytime a rule is
written without statute authority, that rule is unconstitutional. No branch of
government can delve into one of the branches expressly reserved for the
other, which means the Executive branch cannot legislate. Appropriation
bills, which are budget bills, are Session laws. They are laws passed by
the Legislature and when the State Board, with good intentions, wanted to
redirect funds, that was unconstitutional. In an effort to avoid a court
battle, Chairman Schroeder wrote a letter to the Attorney General asking
for clarification on the actions of the State Board. He briefly described the
duties of the State Board and said the Constitution states that they shall
supervise education in Idaho subject to law. He indicated the first thing
that needs to be done is to allow the IDVA to continue one more year; a
six member subcommittee (three from the House and three from the
Senate Education Committees) will determine costs for the next year for
IDVA to operate; then establish an Interim Committee to look at all virtual
offerings in the state and identify those sections of code that doesn’t fit.
Discussion Members of the Joint Committees asked numerous questions regarding
funding, management of IDVA, and cost issues.
Mr. Tim Hill, SDE, explained why IDVA was not eligible for more funding.
Administrators are paid by K-12, so they were ineligible for benefits.
Teachers were paid based on the experience index, and the cost per
student was based on grade level, Special needs and other factors.



Mr. Tom Farley, SDE Federal Programs Bureau Chief, testified that Title I
funds are allocated by the Federal government, based on the poverty
count in the county, and those funds flow to the schools in that district
which meets the poverty count. The district in Butte County set a poverty
count of 50% and IDVA had a 48% poverty count. Consequently, IDVA is
not qualified to receive Title I funds.

Chairman Barraclough said after hearing the testimony, it comes down to
funding. He asked Mr. Gencarella what he would recommend to avoid
the train wreck. Mr. Gencarella replied that the legislature needs to pass
legislation to provide a long-term solution.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder said that the Joint Committees want to make sure
we have a virtual experience in Idaho. He then adjourned the meeting at
10:25 a.m.






DATE: February 25, 2004
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator Malepeai
MINUTES: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 8:30 a.m.
Senator Gannon said he had reviewed the minutes of February 3, 4, 5, 6,
10 and 11 and found them to correctly reflect what transpired in those
meetings. He made the motion to accept the minutes as written. Senator
Andreason seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated that the motion
passed unanimously.
RS 14173 Chairman Schroeder said this RS was brought about as a result of a new
charter school wanting to build along side of an existing charter school.
Charter schools are funded as small schools and the funding is based on
ADA. This RS would strike a limit on the number of charter schools and
would impose a proximity limit on the location of new charter schools.



Mr. Bob Henry said the Nampa School Board was made aware of this
situation when the Canyon County Commissioners informed them that the
new charter school, approved by the State Board of Education, wanted to
build next door to Liberty Charter School, (which would mirror that
school). This RS would put a distance of two miles between charter
schools.



The question was asked would it make a difference if the new school was
totally different in its teaching. Mr. Henry said he felt the existing school
could ask to extend its curriculum, rather than have a totally new school.

Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to send RS 14173 to a privileged
committee for printing. Senator Goedde seconded the motion. A voice
vote indicated that the motion passed unanimously.
S 1344 Senator Goedde said the Office of Performance Evaluations did two
studies, one of which was on pupil transportation that relates to this bill.
This bill spells out that the Department of Education will have oversight
responsibilities of contracts; districts submit contracts and get approval; if
there is a problem, an appeal can be made to the State Board of
Education.
Motion Senator Werk made the motion to send S 1344 to the floor with a do pass
recommendation. Senator Gannon seconded the motion.



There being no further testimony, a voice vote indicated that the motion
passed unanimously. Senator Goedde is the sponsor of this bill.

S 1331 Senator Goedde said this bill is the second part of the recommendations
made by the OPE. It deals with a more responsible oversight of school
busing expenses and the procedure by which the department does its
reviews. The OPE found that Reviews were done every 40 years and
Senator Goedde feels that is not a responsible schedule. The fiscal
impact would be about $190,000; however, Senator Goedde said the
process could very well pay for itself and JFAC is aware of this.
Motion A motion was made by Senator Gannon to send S 1331 to the floor with a
do pass recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Noh.
Testimony Ms. Janet Orndorff, president of the Boise School Board, said they are in
favor of this bill. Their only concern was that the same district would not
be audited year after year.



Mr. Rod McKnight, when asked about the funding for FTEs, said the
budget analysts’ are aware of this.

A voice vote indicated that the motion passed unanimously. Senator
Goedde is the sponsor of this bill.
S 1347 Chairman Schroeder said what this bill does is to provide transportation
for a new charter school with advance payment of estimated
transportation costs, rather than waiting a year. It would give the school,
up-front, 80% of those costs and it would give everyone an equal
opportunity for their children to attend. This bill is designed for new
schools only.
Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to send S 1347 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Gannon. A voice
vote indicated it passed unanimously. Senator Schroeder is the sponsor
of this bill.
S 1358 Dr. Bob West, Department of Education, said this bill is to amend the
code and delete from the code obsolete language.
Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to send S 1358 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Werk. A voice vote
indicated it passed unanimously. Senator Andreason is the sponsor of
this bill.
S 1361 Dr. West said this proposal would amend Idaho Code 33-5205 to require
a petition to establish a charter school contain a copy of the articles of
incorporation and the bylaws of the non-profit corporation. The reason for
this is a result of an oversight.
Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to send S 1361 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Goedde. A voice
vote indicated it passed unanimously. Senator Andreason is the sponsor
of this bill.
S 1345 Senator Goedde said this is the final piece of legislation of
recommendations made by OPE regarding administrative evaluations. It
has to do with purchasing contracts, especially to “piggyback” state
contracts. There are some districts that have been using state contracts
without agreements in place and this would make them legal.
Motion Senator Werk made the motion to send S 1345 to the floor with a do pass
recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Gannon. A voice vote
indicated it passed unanimously. Senator Goedde is the sponsor.
S 1348 Chairman Schroeder said this bill pertains to an open election of the
board of directors of charter schools and to prohibit compensation. He
stated that when he visited charter schools in his travels, the public had
many questions regarding the elections. His proposal requires that in the
petition of a charter school, it would state the process of how the board of
directors would be elected in the second year of operation. Then the
Board of Trustees of the school district can then decide if they approve
the process.
Motion Senator Werk made the motion to send S 1348 to the floor with a do pass
recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Goedde. A voice vote

indicated it passed unanimously. Senator Schroeder is the sponsor.

Introduction and
welcome
Chairman Schroeder welcomed and introduced seven students from
Timberline High School. They indicated they are attending today as a
result of their government class.
S 1350 Dr. West said this bill is to expand the options available to the
Professional Standards Commission regarding unethical conduct.



It was asked where this request originated from and Dr. West replied it
was from the Standards Committee of the Professional Standards
Commission. When asked how many people were on the Committee, Dr.
West said there are 18 people on the Commission, and perhaps half were
on the Committee.

Testimony Jim Shackelford, Executive Director of the IEA, said the Department of
Education had shared with him S 1350 and 1351. He said he later met
with Dr. West and the Deputy AG assigned to the Department and they
had good discussions regarding these bills. The IEA had some
suggestions regarding these bills, but the suggestions failed to reach Dr.
West. Mr. Shackelford said he could continue his testimony or consult
with Dr. West later today.



Chairman Schroeder asked Dr. West what he wished to do. Dr. West
agreed to meet with Mr. Shackelford and asked that S 1350 and S 1351
be postponed until tomorrow.



The Chairman asked that the committee be informed by letter, later today,
the results of their decision regarding this matter.

Adjournment The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:25 a.m.






DATE: February 26, 2004
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
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.



He stated that the packet of information the committee received late
yesterday afternoon pertained to S 1350 and 1351.

S 1350 The Chairman then asked Dr. Bob West to continue testimony on S 1350.

Dr. West said the proposed changes in S 1350 and S 1351 resulted from
collaboration between the Idaho State Department of Education and the
Idaho Education Association. It will allow flexibility and the IEA requested
that the word “reasonable” be added.



In the correspondence yesterday from Dr. West and Jim Shackelford, IEA
Executive Director, it stated:



It is understood in the modified SB 1350 that the Professional Standards
Commission may conduct investigations of alleged unethical practice
initiated by the Chief Certification Officer because a person in that
position is an individual with a substantial interest in matters of unethical
conduct by educators holding Idaho educator credentials, as now already
given in current subsection (1) (a), of Section 33-1209, Idaho Code.



It is also understood in the modified SB 1351 that a conviction, finding of
guilt, withheld judgment, or suspended sentence in Idaho or any other
state of any felony is qualified by the requirement that it renders the
educator unfit to teach or otherwise perform the duties of his or her
position.



Dr. West said that if these amendments are approved, it is likely that more
ethics cases will reach negotiated settlements rather than proceeding to
full hearings, resulting in a savings to the state for the costs of holding
hearings.

Testimony Jim Shackelford said the IEA supports these changes.
Motion Senator Noh made the motion to send S 1350 to the 14th order. Senator
Gannon seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated that it passed
unanimously. Chairman Schroeder asked Senator Gannon to prepare the
amendments and also to be the floor sponsor.
S 1351 Dr. West stated that these changes in statute are in line with the recently
approved changes in the Idaho Code of Ethics for Educators.
Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to send S 1351 to the 14th Order.
Senator Noble seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it passed
unanimously. Senator Andreason will be the sponsor of this bill.
S 1363 Dr. West said this bill relates to charter school teachers and
administrators and would place it in the charter school code.
Motion Senator McWilliams made the motion to send this bill to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Malepeai seconded the motion. A voice
vote indicated that it passed unanimously. Senator McWilliams will be the
sponsor of this bill.
S 1329 Chairman Schroeder described S 1329. He said Carolyn Mauer in the
State Department reviews charter school petitions because she is asked
to do that, by some schools. She makes suggestions to them if she sees
there could be improvements made. The Chairman felt it would be a
good idea to have the State Department review the petitions, with the idea
it would help the schools to improve on their petitions.



Dr. West said their department sees the charter after the fact, as it is now.
It takes six people about four hours to review the charter, line by line. If
they find a problem, then they send it back to be changed, which may or
may not be changed.

Testimony Linda Sharp did not speak to this bill, but said she is an advocate working
to improve charter school laws. She urged the committee to look at
Arizona’s charter school law.
Motion Senator Andreason made the motion to send S 1329 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Malepeai seconded the motion.
Substitute
motion
Senator Goedde suggested that the time to submit a petition for review
would be the final document and he would like to make a substitute
motion to send S 1329 to the 14th Order. Senator Noble seconded the
motion. Chairman Schroeder said to clarify the motion, that after the
petitioners and trustees have reached an agreement, then the State
Department would review it for legality and policy. Senator Noh
suggested it be worded to say “submitted to the board for final approval”.
Ms. Julie Van Orden, school trustee said that she is in favor of the
amendment. Had this been in place, it would have saved their trustees a
lot of time. As it is now, they are going through an amending process.
Vote A voice vote indicated that the substitute motion carried unanimously.
Senator Goedde is the sponsor.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m.






DATE: February 27, 2004
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
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
The Chairman called on Senator Werk to present his bill. S 1270
S 1270 The Statement of Purpose states: this legislation would remove the cap
from the experience and education index that is used in the salary-based
apportionment formula for distributing state money to public schools. The
formula was the product of years of effort and consensus agreement in
1995 to provide a better and fairer method of allocating state funds. Even
without the cap, schools would not receive funds for all of the teachers
they employ. Schools use local property tax funds, tax override money
and state discretionary funding to employ 500 teachers and 550 other
staff who are not covered by the formula. With recent state appropriations
more schools are going to override levies. Fifty two districts enrolling a
majority of Idaho public school students have overrides in place and the
override total increased from $62 to $66 million in 2003.



Senator Werk said what this bill does is that it eliminates the cap imposed
upon the experience and education multiplier. He said he would not
attempt to explain how it works or impacts districts. Senator Werk said it
is draining money from poorer districts that have less resources and it is
not an effective, equitable or fair way to control spending.

Testimony Senator Werk requested Tim Hill to provide information to the committee.



Mr. Hill had two handouts – the Index History on pink paper and the Index

Cap Analysis FY 2004 on blue paper. These documents are on file in the
Education Office. Mr. Hill said that the mechanics of the law say that in
the event the state average exceeds the cap, then all districts will be
reduced proportionately.



Mr. Hill said the projected fiscal year’s appropriation, the cap has been
increased to reflect movement in education, but not experience. It is
impossible to project what the actual index will be. This year’s cap, based
on last year’s number, was not reflecting any movement in education or
experience, and next year’s cap is allowing movement in education, and
he would expect that the dollar impact would be lesser. Districts had
roughly $900,000 less money because of the minimum of $25,000 that
was not fully funded. There was discussion that districts next year,
because of the $27,500 minimum that was going to be fully funded, the
districts would have an additional $900,000 in their discretionary funds
because the unfunded mandate was funded. Mr. Hill said he would
suggest that this is going in the opposite direction and because of the
salary schedules that have been in place, districts without renegotiations
are still obligated to their salary schedule and would have a net deficit
with the cap in place.

Testimony The Chairman said there needs to be clarification as to why the multiplier
table was put into effect. He asked Dr. Phil Homer to explain.



Dr. Homer, representing the School Administrators Association, said
several years ago, when he was a superintendent in Blaine County, what
they saw was an equity issue. They tried to devise a system that would
take care of a lawsuit that was filed against the state because the funding
was not equitable. It took several sessions and a lot of hard work to
devise a plan that would allow distribution of funds in a more equitable
manner than what was in place at that point. The superintendents
reached an agreement and as a result, the lawsuit was dropped.

Dr. Bob Haley, State Department of Education, said he was the one that
developed the matrix at that time. He said the way he arrived at his
figures, if you started a beginning teacher on the index at 1, the
experienced teacher would be double that. The purpose was for an
equitable distribution of funds. It didn’t say it was a salary schedule, but if
you put the base salary in the corner, you have a salary schedule. Dr.
Haley said about half the districts in the state use it as a salary schedule.
Testifying in favor of this bill were the following:

Jon Abram, Superintendent, Shelley School District;

Rick Miller, Superintendent, Caldwell School District;

Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, IASA;

Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director, ISBA;

Ms. Kathy Phelan, President, IEA;

Mr. John Eikum, Executive Director, IRSA.

Announcements Chairman Schroeder said the discussion on this bill would be continued
until next Tuesday and the remaining bills on the agenda will be moved to
that day also.



Wednesday’s meeting will be a Joint meeting in the Gold Room at 8 a.m.
to hear a presentation by ABCTE and Dr. Bob Barr’s report on the IRI.

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






DATE: March 2, 2004
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, Anderson (Noble), Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator McWilliams
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. He said
minutes of previous meetings needed to be approved.
Motion and vote Senator Gannon made the motion for approval of the minutes of 2/12 and
2/13. Senator Malepeai seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated the
motion passed unanimously.
Motion and vote Senator Malepeai made the motion for approval of the minutes of 2/16,
17, 18, 19, and 20. Senator Goedde seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated the motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Schroeder announced that Senator McWilliams had reviewed
last week’s minutes, but is not here today because of illness.
Welcome The Chairman welcomed Ms. Linda Anderson who will be representing
Senator Noble for the next few days.
RS 14217 Chairman Schroeder said this proposal will direct the legislature to
establish a study committee to undertake and complete a study of the
statutes governing charter schools, and how to improve them. If this
resolution is adopted and the committee is appointed, any expenses
would be paid from the existing legislative appropriation to the Senate and
House and there would be no additional fiscal impact.
Motion and vote Senator Werk made the motion to send RS 14217 to a privileged
committee for printing. Senator Gannon seconded the motion. A voice
vote indicated the motion passed unanimously.
S 1270 This bill was introduced to the committee last Friday by Senator Werk.



Tim Hill was asked to talk about the fiscal impact of this bill. He reviewed
what was discussed in last Friday’s meeting regarding the caps and
removing them completely. Mr. Hill said he wanted to clarify the initial
fiscal impact of S 1270 and that was $7.4 M. The initial estimate for
FY2004 was $3.7 M to not put caps on instructional and administrative
index for 2004. The actual information received last fall was more like
$2.7 M. The $7.4 was a function of two years’ estimates. Their data now
suggests $2.7 M.



Mr. Hill said it is more likely to fund a $26,400 minimum because the
actual instructional growth will be closer to .3 percent as opposed to the
.45 percent.



Senator Goedde inquired as to putting the matrix back in place with no
cap and could it be done somewhere between $26,400 and $25,900,
assuming the growth is the same, for no additional money? Mr. Hill said
that was correct.



In summary, Senator Werk said because the cap affects every district, the
poorer districts are forced to hire teachers with less experience. The
single largest determining factor in academic success for the students is
the experienced, well-qualified teacher in the classroom. He also said the
matrix was developed as part of an overall plan to make funding more
equitable throughout the system.

Motion and vote Senator Werk made the motion to send S 1270 to the floor with a do pass
recommendation. Senator Gannon seconded the motion. A roll call vote
was taken. There were eight ayes, one absent. Senator Werk is the
sponsor of this bill and Senator Gannon will be a co-sponsor.
S 1308 Mr. Ryan Kerby, Superintendent of New Plymouth School District #372,
explained his bill by saying it would provide full-time kindergarten
attendance for specific students and providing for inclusion in the
kindergarten attendance factor. The fiscal impact would be $7,395,000.



Mr. Kerby said his district has a large Hispanic population and he is trying
to figure out how to meet AYP; learn a new language (Spanish); and work
with behavior and academic problems. He feels that the Hispanic
population of kindergarten age children are in real need of the opportunity
to attend school to learn a new language (English), as well as motor skills,
etc. Many of the students are behind when they start school and never
catch up. This bill would allow the bottom 20 percent of children in
kindergarten to attend all day, based on their IRI scores.

The fiscal impact was discussed and it was generally agreed that the
fiscal impact did present a problem.
Motion and vote Senator Goedde made the motion to return the bill to the sponsor and to
invite him to come back next year with a new and improved bill. Senator
Gannon seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated the motion carried.
Voting no was Senator Schroeder.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.






DATE: March 3, 2004
TIME: 8:00 am
PLACE: Gold Room
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Anderson
(Noble), Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






None
MINUTES: The Joint meeting of the House and Senate Education Committees was
called to order by Chairman Barraclough at 8:05 a.m. He welcomed
everyone and said he appreciated their attendance and the cooperation of
those involved with education.
Introduction Chairman Barraclough welcomed and introduced Dr. Bob Barr. Dr. Barr
is with the Center for School Improvement and Policy Studies, College of
Education, Boise State University and will provide a report on the Idaho
Reading Initiative (IRI).
Speaker Dr. Barr stated that four or five years ago, meetings were held to talk
about the importance of reading and young children. He said there is an
enormous amount of research regarding the importance of reading and
how essential it is for young children to read and to read well at an early
age. If they can’t read, they are at a greater risk of failing and dropping
out of school. When an illiterate teenager drops out of school, they are no
more successful in society than they were in school. Over 60 percent of
the men and women in prison in America are illiterate and it seems to be
a problem that can be tracked from school into society. The more that is
learned about reading, the more it is recognized as to the complexity. Not
only is it a complex task, but at each grade level, it becomes
sophisticated.



He commended the Legislature (both the sitting and the colleagues who
have gone before) for passing the Idaho Reading Initiative. It was a bold
and visionary thing to do and was ahead of its time.



Dr. Barr said it could be administered in a very short time, teachers
receive feed-back within two weeks, and the feed-back identifies the
deficiencies and the demands of the student learner. The process is
assessed three times in Kindergarten, three times in first grade, three
times in second grade, and three times in third grade. It is a powerful
foundation for the new legislation of “No Child Left Behind”. There is a
direct relationship between teacher preparation, teacher training and
student achievement. A year ago, intensive training was provided to all
first grade teachers and it was called Idaho Reading Academy. Ninety
percent of the teachers received additional training and the first grades’
scores increased by eight percent in achievement. Dr. Barr said this was
a result of teacher preparation and student achievement.

Dr. Barr said Senator Schroeder asked him last year to report this year on
teaching reading to poor children, low socio-economic students and
minority students. Dr. Barr recognized the people who helped make this
report possible. They were Stacey Joyner, William Parrett, Sam Byrd,
Terry Boom, Jesus De Leon, Mari De Leon, Teresa Harrison, and Teri
Wagner. The report is in booklet form, consisting of 17 pages. (It is on
file in the Education Office.)
Dr. Barr pointed out a few facts for the committee.



Page 5 – 1999 17,000 students reading below grade level

2003 9,503 students reading below grade level

In four years, the composite was raised ten percent.



Page 7 – Changing Demographics in Idaho

Hispanic population is growing three times faster than the general
population. Overall population growth in Idaho was 3.2 during 2000-2002;
the Hispanic population increased by 10.6 percent. In Idaho, more than
15 percent of children less than five years of age are Hispanic.



Page 8 – In the year 2003, Hispanic and Native American students were
still arriving at kindergarten behind White and African American students,
but they were arriving slightly improved when compared to 2002 and
2001.



Page 9 – Second and third grade comparisons.



Page 10 – Observations/Conclusions: Summary

In Fall 2003, 59 percent of all K-12 students were reading at grade level
and only 13 percent were below grade level.



Dr. Barr said what all this means is that we are slowly closing the gap
between the affluent white children and the minority and poor children.
He said it will continue to be our greatest challenge, but we are doing a
better job of providing the education that is needed.



Pages 10 and 11 – Success stories

Sacajawea Elementary, Caldwell School District

Lapwai Elementary, Lapwai School District



Pages 12, 13, 14,15, 16 – Recommendations

Dr. Barr asked the committee members to review these
recommendations.



In Dr. Barr’s closing remarks, he said that if we want to continue to have
poor and minority children reading at grade level, we should start as early
as possible. The finest investment of money would be to invest in all day
kindergarten for poor and minority students. The payoff would continue
through their lifetime. Extra time (for reading) is also needed, as well as
summer support programs.



Dr. Barr said the most noble educational goal of all is to teach children to
read. It has a lifelong payoff. He congratulated the legislators for their
work in the past and encouraged them to think of the kids with the
greatest need.

Chairman Barraclough thanked Dr. Barr for his presentation, then asked
Chairman Schroeder to make a few remarks.
Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Barr for the good work that he has done
over the years and pointed out that Dr. Barr was also the primary
inspiration for getting Idaho going on the reading program. Chairman
Schroeder said he was pleased to see that progress is being made with
minority students.



Chairman Schroeder asked Dr. Barr the following question: “We are
embarking on a program in Idaho in which we’re allowing people to take a
computer test, then we’re certifying them as teachers. Are you
comfortable with having someone take a computer test, then be placed in
the classroom to teach reading to elementary students?” Dr. Barr replied
that he is not. Dr. Barr said research has shown that if a child has an
ineffective teacher one year at the elementary level, it will take that child
two years to catch up what they lost during that one year. If a child has
two ineffective elementary teachers back-to-back, it is likely that child will
never catch up.

Chairman Barraclough asked several other committee members to speak
about the history of IRI.
Introductions The Chairman introduced Dr. Bennett who is substituting for
Representative Trail and Senator Anderson who is substituting for
Senator Noble.
Questions Some questions were asked of Dr. Barr and in response to a question
regarding teachers, Dr. Barr said that he is convinced that teachers K-2
are the most important teachers in the K-12 curriculum. He also
emphasized that adequate funding is necessary, with emphasis on
remediation, summer activities, all day kindergarten and teacher training.
Chairman Barraclough thanked Dr. Barr for his presentation.



He then asked Dr. Randy Thompson to give a brief introduction on the
next presentation, which is about the American Board for Certification of
Teacher Excellence.

Introduction for
Presentation
Dr. Thompson, a member of the State Board of Education, said the
current process for certifying teachers in Idaho includes the option for
consultant specialist. A consultant specialist is one who has content
knowledge and in many cases, has a degree and work experience, and is
allowed to teach in a classroom, based on a waiver from the State Board
of Education. This allows them to teach without certification. It has been
the practice in Idaho to allow this to occur and has averaged over 200
consultant specialists in the classroom each year. To meet the highly
qualified teacher requirements, established by the US Department of
Education, a new method needs to be developed to fill the positions
formerly held by the consultant specialists. The work of Idaho’s Most
committee came up with three alternate certification routes to identify a
tool or vehicle that will make the requirements work in Idaho. A number of
states have internship programs. Through conversations with the staff of
the US Department of Education, members of the State Board of
Education became aware of the American Board for Certification of
Teacher Excellence program, which had initially been sponsored by a $35
million grant from the US Department of Education.



Dr. Thompson said discussions were held in August, October, and
November regarding ABCTE. In November, based upon their analysis,
they approved ABCTE, through rule, as one option for teacher
certification.



He then introduced Dr. Kathleen Madigan, President of ABCTE. She has
over 20 years of experience in education, been a regular and special
education classroom teacher, principal, college professor, curriculum
coordinator and research project director.

Speaker Dr. Madigan asked that the committee look at what ABCTE is all about
and not think of it as “just” a computer test.



The Passport to Teaching certification is a career pathway for
professional individuals interested in teaching who hold a Bachelor’s
Degree or higher. There are two models of certification – process based
and standards based. Idaho will be using the standards based model that
is based on individual assessment. There are two levels of certification –
Elementary (K-6), English and Math (6-12), and the Master Teacher for
existing teachers. To earn the Passport to Teaching certification, the
candidates should: (1) Submit an application; official college transcripts;
and an FBI records check (includes fingerprinting) to the American Board;
(2) Complete the candidate self-assessment and design and individual
learning plan with the support of an American Board advisor; and (3)
Prepare and register for the certification examinations.

Dr. Madigan said the American Board has a partnership agreement with
Promissor, a company renowned for quality test development and
delivery. They (Promissor) possess all the industry-leading strengths and
skills that the American Board was seeking in a partner.
Following is some information provided by Dr. Madigan.



A bi-partisan group developed computer-based assessments of rigorous
standards in subject areas and professional teaching knowledge that
require a maximum level of competency. Computer based exams and
virtual assessments are used in many fields, such as medical and military.
Through simulations and interactive video and audio segments,
candidates will be asked to assess specific situations and skills and
respond accordingly. Forty percent of the candidates have advanced
degrees, with the average age of 36. Partnerships are being created for
ongoing support and mentoring can be provided through virtual
technology. The US Department of Education will follow the candidates.
There are no studies showing that if students go through the College of
Education they are better prepared. Twenty of the top education colleges
do not teach classroom management.

Dr. Madigan said there is a rumor that Pennsylvania no longer accepts
American Board candidates. She said that is not true, as they have 100
or so candidates. There are 12 other states that are in various degrees of
accepting and adopting the American Board as part of their routes of
certification.
When asked about the grant given to the American Board by the US
Department of Education, Dr. Madigan said it was a $35 million multi-year
grant to expand the number of academic areas for which it offers
certification and to also develop a Master Teacher certificate that would
be similar to what the National Board of Certification offers.
Time was allowed for a few questions from the committee members.



When asked how many teachers ABCTE had certified, the reply was none
to date, but there are approximately 150 individuals in Pennsylvania and
Idaho who are in the process of preparing for certification. Of this
number, 40 percent are at the Master or Doctorate level and over 50
percent are men.



Dr. Madigan was asked what her organization’s relationship is to the
Education Leaders Council and how is ABCTE funded today. Dr.
Madigan replied that the Education Leaders Council and the National
Council on Teacher Quality formed a partnership five years ago and
founded ABCTE. ABCTE has now moved beyond their initial charge.
When asked if Mrs. Karen McGee, a member of OSBE, had been
involved in the process, Dr. Madigan said she met Mrs. McGee just
yesterday.



When asked about applicants, it was stated that they will be observed
through interviews, resumes and how they respond to simulations. It will
take approximately six months to a year for certification. The teaching
methods will cover facilitating learning, cooperative learning and explicit
learning.



There was concern voiced by one committee member that OSBE and
IACI have both given their approval to an organization that hasn’t certified
any individuals.



Dr. Thompson responded by saying that we are on the forefront of
leadership and it appears that this program is built on sound principals
and incorporates techniques that have been used effectively in colleges of
education. It is not to be used as a replacement, but rather as an
alternative route.

Chairman Barraclough asked Chairman Schroeder to make some closing
remarks.



Chairman Schroeder said, “We’ve had a good session today and I just
want to make one statement. From my perspective, I’m becoming
increasingly frustrated by the constant progression of federal folks who
regard us as some backward state ripe for exploitation. And the Judases
of Idaho who are willing to sell us out for an ‘atta boy’ and a bag of gold.”

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






DATE: March 4, 2004
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
MINUTES: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 8:35 a.m.
He announced that the hearing on S 1327 and S 1357 will be postponed
until March 5 at the request of the sponsors.
S 1330 Chairman Schroeder said with regard to S 1330, there are situations
existing where charter schools just don’t obey the laws. He said he has
toyed with various ideas for several years, but thought perhaps the best
thing to do was to allow the State Department to withhold funds if they are
out of compliance with the law. Lines 15-20, page 2, of the bill states: “If
at any time, the state department of education determines that the charter
school is out of compliance with state law, all or any portion of the
apportionment of state funds may be withheld until the charter school is
again in compliance with the law. An appeal of a determination to
withhold funds may be made to the state board of education.”
Testimony Ms. Kerri Whitehead, Executive Director, Idaho Charter School Network,
testified that they are not opposed to complying with the law and working
with the State Department, but are opposed to this bill. She said it is the
job of the Judicial Branch to determine if a law has been violated, not the
State Department of Education. Also, to withhold funds violates the
process of innocent until proven guilty and it will unjustly harm the school
and the students.
Chairman Schroeder asked Ms. Whitehead if she would help write an RS
to provide criminal sanctions for charter schools that disobey the law.
She indicated that she could. He said he would sign an authorization
form to allow her to work with Legislative Services in this endeavor.
The Chairman asked Dr. West, SDE, to explain why funds were withheld
in a previous situation.



Dr. West explained that the Department received a complaint that some
teachers were teaching without proper certification in a charter school.



When asked if funds have been withheld from public schools, Dr. West
replied they had and it was also related to the certification issue.

Chairman Schroeder said he had a sincere concern that people are taking
tax dollars and spending them in an illegal fashion and that sets a bad
example. Actions of a few people could give charter schools a bad image
and he does not want that to happen. Discussion will continue tomorrow
on this bill.
S 1346 Chairman Schroeder explained this bill. It relates to charter schools and
amends the Code to provide criteria governing the attendance area of a
charter school. Page 1, lines 18, 19, and 20 of the bill states: “The
attendance area of a charter school, as described in the petition, shall be
composed of compact and contiguous areas.”



There was discussion on the term “compact and contiguous” and the
intent of the language. Vice Chairman Gannon said it is a term used in
the zoning code and people in that realm would have a good
understanding of the intent.



Last year, there was an application for a charter in which areas were
chosen at random. The Chairman said that charter was not approved and
this bill addresses that problem. Charter schools should be for all people,
not “pick and choose”.

Testimony Ms. Kerri Whitehead said their network would be monitoring this bill, but
they support the definition of compact and contiguous. They do not
support charter schools who select certain areas; however, many times
without a clause in legislation that allows founders children to be in the
school, that often is the result.
Motion Senator Werk made the motion to send S 1346 to the 14th Order to clarify
the language of contiguous and define what the state is. Senator Goedde
seconded the motion.
Testimony Ms. Terry Anderson, trustee from Pocatello School District #25, said it
appears some charter schools ignore their local districts. When they are
out of compliance, it creates problems for the districts, and the trustees
are accountable to the voters. Ms. Anderson feels if districts had the
ability to put charter schools, who are not in compliance, on probation and
work with them, it would benefit all.
Vote A voice vote indicated the motion passed unanimously. Senator Werk will
prepare the amendment. Senator Schroeder is the sponsor.
S 1352 Chairman Schroeder asked Dr. Bob West to explain S 1352. Inserted in
the minutes is a copy of his testimony.
TO: Senate Education Committee

FR: Bob West, Idaho State Dept. of Education

RE: Senate Bill 1352 ­ Charter School Appeal Procedure



This bill should be approved by the Committee, because:



1. When a local Board of Trustees rejects a petition for a charter school, an appeal
may be made. The amount of time in which this is to take place is inadequate. It is not
practical or reasonable to find a trained hearing officer available to meet and hold a
hearing at a time the hearing officer, the petitioners and the school district trustees are
also available within the 30 day time-line now in the statute.



2. The amendment allows 30 days for the State Superintendent to identify a trained
hearing officer, and 30 days within which to schedule and conduct a hearing at times
during which the hearing officer, the petitioners and the school district Board of Trustees
are all available.



3. If the Trustees of the school district continue to deny the petition, after the
hearing officer’s decision has been sent back to the district, the petitioners may appeal to
the State Board of Education, which, under current law must grant the appeal if the State
Board determines the school district’s denial resulted from (1) a failure to appropriately
consider the petition or (2) an arbitrary decision to deny the petition. The current Board
President lamented their limited choices.



4. The amendment allows the State Board some flexibility in considering the
appeal. It may approve the appeal as requested, if it finds the denial was arbitrary, or it
may remand the matter back to the local board of trustees for the parties to reconsider the
issues keeping the petition from being approved. Or, the State Board may uphold the
Trustees’ denial.



5. The amendment allows Board of Trustees to hold a hearing within 30 days after
an appeal has been remanded and after reconsideration of the issues, and calls for a
written decision on the petition within 10 days after the hearing.



6. If the Trustees again deny the petition, the petitioners may make an appeal to the
State Board of Education which may approve the petition if the Trustees’ denial is
viewed as arbitrary, it may approve the Trustees’ denial or it may remand it back again to
the trustees.



Example:

*A petition was submitted to a school district

*The district did not consider it, because it was not within the window to receive
petitions

*Petitioners appealed the Trustees’ rejection. Trustees had not read the petition

*A Hearing officer decided the Trustees had the right to set a window to receive petitions

*The Trustees affirmed their original decision.

* If the petitioners had appealed to the State Board, and they had found the
Trustees had (1) failed to appropriately consider the petition or (2) had acted arbitrarily,
they would have had no choice but to approve the request ­ even though the Trustees had
not read the petition for its merits. It may have been a good petition or a very poor
petition.

Motion and vote Senator Malepeai made the motion to send S 1352 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Werk seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated the motion passed unanimously. Senator Malepeai will be the
sponsor.
S 1355 Chairman Schroeder explained this bill. It relates to charter schools and
would amend Section 33-5205 to provide for a process to notify citizens of
vacancies in enrollment, to require a selection process to be conducted
anew each year, and to further govern the conduct of the selection
process. It would also amend Section 33-5206 to provide a correct code
reference.



Basically, it is an attempt to let citizens know there is a charter school and
their children can attend. It addresses the selection of students. It also
allows for the list of students’ names to be discarded at the end of the
year, rather than be maintained from year-to-year. This can be found in
the bill on lines 36-44, page 2.

These two provisions are tied together – making the public aware that the
school is there and the list cannot be maintained more than one year.
Also, priority will be given to siblings the second year, if there are
openings.
The bill also provides how the selection process is conducted. The
random selection of students will be conducted by at least two persons
not associated with the charter school as employees, parents of students,
or in any other way.
Chairman Schroeder said this bill is about fairness.
Adjournment Due to time constraints, the discussion on this bill will continue tomorrow.
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m.






DATE: March 5, 2004
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
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
Motion and vote Senator McWilliams made the motion to approve the minutes of February
24, 25, 26, and 27. Senator Goedde seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated the motion passed unanimously.
The Chairman welcomed Ms. Janet Orndorff, Vice President of the Boise
School Board, who will report on the “Finding of Facts” by the Office of
Performance Evaluations regarding Boise School Bus Transportation.
Speaker Ms. Orndorff provided “Boise School District 2003 Bus Contract Summary
of Findings Report” to all committee members. A copy of this report is on
file in the Education Office. This report was conducted by Balukoff,
Lindstrom & Co., P.A., Certified Public Accountants.



Inserted in the minutes are two additional handouts – the Executive
Summary and the Update of Transportation Cost Saving Measures.



BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT

2003 BUS CONTRACT FINDINGS REPORT

FEBRUARY 12, 2004

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On January 15, 2004, the state’s Office of Performance Evaluations (OPE)
released a report, Fiscal Accountability of Pupil Transportation, which indicated
the Boise School District allowed Laidlaw, Inc. to substitute l00 used buses for
new buses, but did not adjust the cost of the contract to reflect the substitution.

The auditors went on to estimate that this decision cost the taxpayers
$2,433,300.



The attached audit report of the Boise School District’s current transportation
contract shows the District did not cost taxpayers $2.4 million dollars as indicated
in the OPE report. The independent audit of the Boise School District 2003-06
transportation program bid process was conducted as an effort to provide
information to District officials, legislators and the public, about the costs
associated with the 3-year services contract with Laidlaw, Inc.



The OPE report is welcomed by the District and has allowed us the opportunity to
further investigate this matter by way of our own independent audit. The District
engaged our independent audit firm of Balukoff, Lindstrom & Co, Certified Public
Accountants, to examine fully this contract. The enclosed independent audit
shows the 3-year bus contract is estimated to cost Laidlaw, Inc. $31,000 more
than what the costs would be for operation of new buses (see page 3 of the audit
for further information). That determination was made taking into account higher
repair and maintenance costs for the used buses, lower interest expenses
associated with the used buses, and lower fuel costs associated with the used
buses.



OPE’s report has given us a deeper understanding and appreciation of our own
school bus contract. As a result of the OPE audit, and our own independent
audit, the District is instituting improved management controls that will ensure
that such changes in contracts of this magnitude do not take place without the
approval of the Board of Trustees.



The District’s intent in conducting an independent audit of our school bus
transportation contract was not to criticize the OPE report, but rather provide a
comprehensive and detailed analysis of the costs associated with the three-year
contract, and to determine whether the District had an obligation to renegotiate
the contract.



For further information please contact Dan Hollar, public information and
communications, Boise School District, 287-2064.






BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT

UPDATE OF TRANSPORTATION COST SAVING MEASURES

February 20, 2004



Eight routes were eliminated at the start of second semester. We estimate the

savings during the 2003-2004 school year to be $132,000. We continue to review
the potential for additional route cuts during the current school year.



We solicited bids for an independent contractor to study potential changes to

school start and end times as a means of decreasing the number of buses
needed to transport eligible students. The “bell time study” is in progress and we
expect to have the results within a few weeks. Each bus route eliminated would
save the district approximately $33,000 annually.



We have decreased the use of busing for special education community work

programs. We estimate the savings during the 2003-2004 school year to be
$8,000, and annual savings thereafter of $16,000.



We have decreased the use of buses for Jr. High athletic teams to games within

the district. We estimate the savings to be approximately $2,500 during the
current school year, and annual savings thereafter of approximately $5,000.



We have made changes to the sites used for summer school programs in order
to allow more efficient transportation. We estimate that the district will save
approximately $28,000 during the 2003-2004 school year, and annual savings
thereafter of approximately $56,000.



We have started billing Medicaid for the cost of transportation for eligible
students. We estimate that we will receive approximately $4,000 annually from

Medicaid.



We have developed a procedure limiting the use of motorcoach transportation.

We have solicited bids for the use of motorcoaches in an effort to get the lowest
price for the service.



We have an ongoing dialogue with Valley Ride to explore opportunities to

provide transportation for some secondary students on the city bus system
instead of offering school bus transportation. Valley Ride is in the process of
changing their routing structure, so the District has not yet made any decisions in
the matter.



We have developed a plan to limit which session kindergarten students may

attend if they are provided busing. This will allow a decrease in the number of
mid-day kindergarten routes needed. We estimate a savings of approximately
$25,000 annually beginning in the 2004-2005 school year.



We are in the process of reviewing all of our attendance area boundaries to see if

any boundary changes could be made that would eliminate the need for busing.



Ms. Orndorff turned her remaining time to A. J. Balukoff, a trustee of the
Boise School Board.

Speaker Mr. Balukoff said he appreciated the OPE auditors bringing this
transaction to the attention to the board of trustees and the
superintendent. He said that prior to their audit, they were not aware that
the substitution of buses had taken place. As a matter of responsibility
and prudence, the board felt the need to investigate this matter more
deeply. The board engaged auditors to look into the transaction and to
find out what happened. Because the auditors were not transportation
experts, they engaged a transportation consultant from Minnesota to
provide them with information about operating a fleet of buses.
Mr. Balukoff said one major issue was when a change in a contract is
made, whether it is perceived to be a significant change or not, those
changes should be brought back to the board of trustees and
superintendent and not done by an employee. He said this was a major
breech of procedure and they have since taken steps so that it does not
happen again. Their policy committee is in the process of writing a policy
to address this issue and to also tighten procedures.
Time was allowed for questions from the committee.
S 1327 Mr. Bob Henry, Nampa School Board member, explained this bill. He
said the purpose is to give granting authorities another option other than
revocation to bring a charter school back into compliance with Idaho Code
or the Charter. It would also increase the time of a charter from five to ten
years. In lieu of revocation, the original granting authority may place a
charter school on probation for a period not to exceed 90 days, allowing
the charter school time to remedy the violation. If a charter school is
placed on probation, the SDE shall withhold ten percent of the funding
until the probation is lifted. A granting authority may not place a charter
school on probation more than two time in any five year period.



Chairman Schroeder said he wanted to talk about another charter school
bill before taking any action on S 1327.

S 1355 This bill provides a process to notify citizens of vacancies in enrollment,
requires a selection process to be conducted anew each year, and to
further govern the conduct of the selection process. It also amends
Section 33-5206 to provide a correct code reference.
Testimony Paul Powell, legislative committee chair for the Idaho Charter School
Network, said they recognize the need for fairness in the enrollment
process, but they oppose S 1355 for two reasons. The bill eliminates the
preference for siblings in the initial year of operation and would increase
the chances of children in a family being sent to other schools.
Conducting a new lottery each year to reshuffle the waiting list is also
unfair.



After some discussion by the committee members, Chairman Schroeder
said he will return S 1355 to the bill writers to clarify some of the
language.

S 1325 The Chairman asked Senator Werk to explain S 1325. Senator Werk said
that current law states that a charter granted to a charter school is valid
for a period not to exceed five years. It has led to difficulties for charter
schools in obtaining long term financing for facilities construction. The bill
also adds a negotiated probationary period to allow a public charter
school to address areas of concern identified by the chartering authority.
This added flexibility can be used by the chartering authority to ensure
compliance with charter provisions without resorting to revocation.
After some discussion, Senator Werk indicated that he now preferred S
1327 as compared to S 1325. Senator Goedde suggested that language
be changed to read that it should be applied to all schools.



After more discussion, the Chairman explained the committee’s intent. By
sending S 1327 to the amending order, it will provide for the probationary
period, but remove the language of withholding 10 percent of the funds.

Testimony Paul Powell testified that he is opposed to S 1327 and likes S 1325 better.
He said he feels charter schools should follow the law and they should
work cooperatively with their districts. In cases where there are disputes,
he would like to see discussions and other paths taken, rather than
revocation.
Motion and vote Senator Noh made the motion to send S 1327 to the 14th Order. Senator
Andreason seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated the motion
passed unanimously. Senator Goedde will take care of the amendment.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m.






DATE: March 8, 2004
TIME: 8:00 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator Noble
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
Announcement The Chairman announced he would be keeping the agenda flexible, due
to the possibility of hearing part of the Governor’s charter school bill.
S 1353 Senator Marley is the sponsor of this bill and he said the purpose is to
amend Idaho Code sections, 33-1702, 49-2101, 49-2102, and 49-2103 to
bring the regulatory requirements of the State Board of Education over
private and commercial drivers education businesses in line with private
industry.



At the time that current code was adopted there were minimal private
driving business in existence. To date, private driving businesses have
increased to 37 throughout the state of Idaho. The rules resulting from
the code have not been changed since 1996 and the proposed
amendments will allow the opportunity for commercial drivers education
businesses to conduct business as private entities.



There were some questions for Senator Marley by the committee
members.

Testimony Public testimony was taken and first to speak was Mike Ryals of Ryals
Drivers Training LLC. Inserted in the minutes is his submitted testimony.



Chairman Schroeder, Members of the Committee:

I appreciate and welcome the opportunity to speak with you on behalf of myself
and as President of the Idaho Association of Professional Driving Businesses. I
bring with me today 32 yrs. of drivers Training Experience, both public and
private, and 12 years as a private driving business owner, as well as a Masters
Degree in Secondary School Administration. I am also proud to have been the 1
st State Skills Tester for Drivers Licensing in 1998 as the Idaho Department of
Transportation moved to the third party testing program. I see the end results of
both Public and Private Drivers Training programs as students take their last step
in becoming licensed drivers. I tell you this because I want you to understand that
the knowledge I have, regarding drivers education has been earned through
endless hours in the classroom and in the car with teen drivers. It is called

practical experience, hands on involvement, and personal observation, often
times thru trial and error of what works best in different situations. We view each
of our Business Owners and Instructors as Professionals, some with more
experience, and some with less experience but none the less, Professionals. I
am not going to come to you with a bunch of numbers and statistics from around
the country or what a survey shows. I personally believe that for every survey
you show me, I can find one that will disagree with yours. We are concerned with
Idaho and what is happening with teen drivers in Idaho as it relates to each of our

communities, whether it is rural Troy or Buhl or the affluency of a Sun Valley or
the population of the Treasure Valley .This is Idaho and that should be our focus,
and I am not suggesting we stick our heads in the sand, but let’s approach it from
a practicable and common logic point of view from those involved with the day to
day operation of running a private driving business.



Many of us have operated our Driving Businesses under the regulations of

the State Department of Education through the changes of each Administration.
We’ve seen Driving Specialist come and go and we continue with our
businesses.



About 3 yrs ago, regulations begin to tighten and change and then 2 yrs ago
Private Businesses determined that Idaho Code needed to be changed if they
were to survive as “Businesses” and not employees of the State or Public
Schools. Reminder: As a private commercial business, we receive no funding
from the State of Idaho (and that’s a choice we made when we opted to do
private business). Our livelihood comes from tuition paid by teens and parents for
a service that we offer which includes flexibility, smaller classes and
individualized instruction. We are businesses offering a service. They are
consumers, shopping for what fits their needs and what they can afford. We are
not an elitist business catering only to those of higher income. You would be
surprised at how many lawns are mowed and cars are washed to pay for Drivers
Education.



As we reviewed the current State Code for private Driving Businesses, we begin
to question the terminology and the broad interpretation, and liberties that had
been taken with those terms.



If l could direct your attention to 49-2101, Line (6) of senate Bill 1353: Our first
question was with the wording “to protect the public”. To protect the public from
what exactly? We are very concerned about the protection of the public. The
Department of Education has used this term to micro-manage our businesses
without our input.



As we had membership meetings around the State, we begin to put together
some ideas that we thought would “protect the public”. If you’ll look at 49-2102,
Line 24. We have listed (4) major areas that we perceive as “protecting the
public”.

1. We want safe facilities in which to hold our classes and that can be
accomplished thru local Fire Marshal Occupancy Inspections.

2. We want safe vehicles that are inspected and insured. This is client protection
as well as owner protection. This is our business and we can’t afford to be at risk.

3. Certified Instructors are our guarantee of maintaining integrity and a
professional approach to the commercial driving industry .

4. We have listed the same “Course Standards” that are currently used in the
State of Idaho for Public Schools and private Businesses. If we are to remain
competitive, we must have a viable end product that matches the determined
standards. Currently, we have proven that we are producing a good teen driver.
What we are asking is that we be given the opportunity to meet those standards
in a way that meets the needs of our clients and is conducive to the private
Businesses. Just as there are many ways to get from Boise to Meridian, there are
many ways to teach Drivers Education.



You’ll also note on Line 28,29, and 30 of49-2102 the addition of the current
requirements for Drivers Education in Idaho. These were listed in Public School
Code 33-1702 (referred to on the I st page) but were not listed in the Codes for
Private Businesses. This change was done to clearly set forth the course

of instruction for private businesses.



As for the crossed out portions of Code 49-2102:

1. Equipment: It was proposed as regulation to have a 27″ television, a VCR,
individual desk, posters on the wall, so many square ft, per student, etc. As a
business owner, I want to determine the equipment that I need to serve my
clients, not what the Dept. of Ed theorizes that I need. Why not tables & chairs,
and a 25 “TV, or a DVD, and sq ft .is determined by the Fire Marshal during an
occupancy inspection. As for posters on the wall. ..we have a business that holds
classes in the basement of a church and the only picture on the wall is one of
Jesus. If posters on the wall make a better driver, then perhaps this classroom

has the one most appropriate poster .

2. Sources of Instruction: As business owners we receive our daily quota of
instructional materials available from companies. If I am given a course of
instruction that includes 30 hrs. Classroom, 6 hrs. Behind the wheel and 6 hrs. of
observation, and a final measurement of students passing a State Written and
Driving Test, as a business I want to determine the sources I use. We have
instructors who say the Idaho Driving manual is their primary teaching resource
and it is augmented by other lesser materials, including the “approved”
textbooks. As private businesses, we don’t think we should be required to use
what the Dept. of Education has determined is the “right” source? As a private
business, we’d like the flexibility to determine what works best for our clients.
One of the currently listed approved Textbook has just offered an abbreviated
version to meet shorter private driving business course lengths which would
indicate, there is a National

market out there for such material.

3. Previous Records of the School and the Instructors: Remember now, I am a
business man, why does the Department of Education need the previous
records? Let’s say I purchased a driving business, be it good or be it less than
good, doesn’t my ability or inability, to run a business stand on its own? What
evaluation or standard is used by the Dept. of Education when collecting previous
records? And as for Instructors previous records, they are not applying for a job
with the Dept. of Education or public schools and Federal Law prohibits the

solicitation of certain records. They’ve satisfied the hiring needs, thru interviews,
of a private business and they have met the certification requirements to become
an instructor. That should be enough.

4. Schedules of Fees: We questioned why the Department needed the fees

charged to our clients. The answer was “in case someone calls our office wanting
the information”. Let’s say that I see something in the window of a store that I
really would like…maybe it’s a riding lawn mower. Do I pick up the phone and call
the John Deere Company and ask how much the store is charging for that
mower? Or do I pick up the phone and call the store and ask how much it cost?
Better yet, I am going to call several stores and see what the price range is and
then I’ll determine where I do business, according to the information I’ve
gathered. Since several members of this Committee are in private business, I can
only assume that your business sets its fee schedule according to your business
needs. Are you required to file those fees with the State of Idaho? Remember,
we’re not a securities company. We’re Drivers Training. As we did our homework
for this legislation we found that Attorneys, Doctors, Dentist, and other
professionals were not required to list fees with the State. The fee schedules for
the private driving businesses in Idaho are varied, according to what the “market

will bear. ” Should private business be required to list those fees with the
Department of Education ? We are the only private business regulated by the
Department of Education. That’s correct. Private tutors, the music instructor, the
computer teacher, pre-schools, Learning Centers such as Sylvan or Horizon are
not regulated by the Department of Education and yet, they are duplicating public
school curriculum but in an individualized program. And what if there is no fee for
Drivers Education? I give my nephew drivers training and he mows my lawn

for the summer. My choice. We have Instructors who give driving instruction to
refugees that are part of their church missionary work. No compensation. Is it
legal in Idaho? Depends on who interprets the Code and Rule.

5. Financial Statements: In the latest meetings to resolve rule issues, the

Department of Education would like to have private business owners submit a
Profit and Loss Statement which includes a cash flow statement for the past 2
yrs. This met with overwhelming objections from the members of our Association.
How many of you turned in a Profit and Loss Statement to be licensed?
Teachers, Doctors, Dentist, Attorneys, Engineers, Truckers. ..none of these have
that requirement. Some of the business owners run their business and their
personal

records together. That information should be between the business and their
accountant. If you’re borrowing money from your banker to start your business,
that’s another issue between the bank and you and certainly not the Department
of Education. Even the bank and accountants see this as a privacy issue.

6. Character & Reputation of the Operator: In who’s opinion and what are the
guidelines for this subjective evaluation? If the Department needs this, then I
want to decide who gives that review. Wouldn’t it be foolish to ask the parent of a
student that I failed to provide a good recommendation? However, if I wanted to
suspend or revoke a businesses license, that’s exactly the kind of information I
am looking for, commonly referred to as a “witch hunt”. However, the private

driving businesses have all agreed that we are in favor of having a criminal
background check (49-2103, line 42). Our thinking is that it removes the
subjectivity and approaches it from a legal and judicial point of view. That is fair
and equitable to all.

7. Previous personal & Employment Records: (49-2103, line 40) Again, I remind
you that we are in private business and we are not applying for a job with the
public schools or the Department of Education. What does it matter to the
Department if I dug ditches before applying for an instructors or business license,
as long as my criminal background check says I am clean and I have met all of
the requirements to apply? At what point do Department of Education regulations
become invasive to my rights as an individual ? Again, Federal Law prohibits
asking for some of this information.

8. Certification: (49-2103, line 48) This has presented a problem for Public
School Instructors that have wanted to work for private businesses. Currently, all
instructors are required to take the same courses for Drivers Education
certification. Of course, the public school instructors also need a teaching
certificate. If they choose to pick up extra work or do some teaching for a private
business, they must fill out another application, take another physical and pay
another fee to do that. Why? An instructor, is an instructor, is an instructor. We
are not asking that private business instructors be allowed to teach in the public
system, unless the business is contracted to a public school which is currently
allowed, but why duplicate the process when the public school instructor has
already completed the same process for the public schools?



I’d like to take just a minute to address the professionalism of the Private Drivers
Education Instructor. In a meeting that was recently held, a comment was made
alluding to the fact that Superintendents in the School Districts were hesitant to
have private instructors in their programs that were not of their “higher
standards.” Thinking we may be out of touch with the School Districts we did
some checking in different parts of the state, including the Treasure Valley
.Current rule allows Districts to contract with private business and use the
instructors that are licensed with that business. Overwhelming support of the
professionals that are working

with School Districts. One Superintendent reminded me that many Districts allow
non-certified persons to substitute teach on a daily basis and that he certainly felt
confident with the private certified instructors that were working with his District.
As you begin to research the academic background of private driving instructors,
you’ll find many of the individuals with Teaching Certification (some still teaching),
Business Degrees, Administrators in the University system, Professors and

professionals with 20 plus years in Banking and business. We are not a rag tag
bunch looking to make a fast buck. Are we doing what we do for money? Do you
do what you do for money or is it because you are good at what you do, you
enjoy it, and you can make a living doing it. If we are not safe, and reputable, in
what we do, we will have no clients and there will not be any money. Safety and
money go hand in hand in the business we have chosen.



When we were asked to provide background information in regards to what had
prompted our attempt to change Code, it became impossible to do this without
also giving you examples of what has happened and what we would like to have
happen to correct some of the unreasonable attempts by State to micro manage
private business. As an Association, we are now representing 28 of the 37
private businesses. Our membership continues to grow as we represent the
needs of private Drivers Education Businesses.



Changes to these Codes can be accomplished without Fiscal Impact. That’s
right. We are not asking for any money…just the opportunity to make rules
through an amended Code that will allow us to operate as private businesses.



If you are looking for a bad apple, you will find it and the rest of the apples will be
tarnished and suspect. Our businesses are no different than other businesses.
However, it is our contention that the professionals who are teaching in that
classroom everyday and sitting in that front seat with those teen drivers, as well
as running a business that affects their livelihood, have a lot at stake. These
people have invaluable insight into the needs of the industry. If their credibility is
ignored and their input becomes selective, they begin questioning regulations
and the enforcement of these regulations.



Rest assured, we are not advocating a deregulation of private commercial

driving businesses. We are looking for a business friendly agency, not a policing
agency. An agency that is willing to accept us as private commercial businesses.
We’re in need of a good partner whom Webster describes as an ally or a
collaborator.



With the current Code, we are trying to participate in a rule making process with
our hands tied, voices unheard, and ideas limited to fitting in the correct little box.
Ever tried playing poker without cards or chips? Same idea.



Mr .Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of myself and the 28

Businesses that I represent, we appreciate your interest in Drivers Education as
a private business and look forward to working with each of you. If there are any
questions, I’d be happy to answer those at this time.



Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Testimony Ms. Elizabeth Weaver, Driver Education Specialist for the Department of
Education, said they have concerns about this bill’s amendment. Inserted
in the minutes is a copy of her testimony.



SB 1353 amends an existing law that established the requirements for licensing
commercial driving schools and instructors. Commercial driving schools have
grown by almost 300% during the last nine years. All but one of the current
driving schools are in business primarily to train new teen drivers so they can be
eligible for a driver’s license before age 17. The requirement for opening a
commercial

driving school is one of the most common questions I receive from the public.

Obtaining a commercial driving school license in Idaho is easy.



Parents want their teen licensed to drive so that they can help relieve them of
driving chores and schedule conflicts. Teens want the privilege of having a
driver’s license and the freedom that goes with it. It’s a rare parent who will file a
complaint if they are unhappy about the course of instruction or treatment of their
teen. They fear that if they do complain, their teen will be failed and the tuition
paid would have to be paid again to another driving school. No teen wants to
start the class all over again and not many can afford to pay the tuition twice.
Licensing a commercial driving school needs to meet the highest standards
possible while supporting opportunities for those who own the business. Parents
and their children also need to be supported with knowledge that when the state
issues a license to a driving school, it includes minimum standards for the
instructors, the classroom, vehicle, and course of instruction. We have concerns
about this bill’s amendment and offer comments for your consideration.



Page 2. line 32-42. (33-1702)

During Driver Education Steering Committee meetings, this law was reviewed
and it was agreed upon by all committee members that it needed to remain. The
removal of this section of the law will affect teens and parents moving into Idaho
who seek approval for the driver education course they completed before moving
to Idaho. Currently this law permits the observation time to be completed with a
parent if four or less students are enrolled. Some states do not include the six
hours observation time required by Idaho. In some states the commercial schools
only provide in-car instruction and only one student is permitted in the vehicle,
resulting in one person being enrolled in that class. When this situation occurs,

we use this law by requiring parents to provide an affidavit and a log that
describes the dates/times that the observations were completed during the in-car
instruction. If all other instructional requirements are met, the course is accepted
and the student does not have to repeat the course in Idaho. This law is a useful
law and should not be repealed.



Page 2. line 6 (49-2101)

This section removes the state’s ability to inspect a school’s facilities. Inspection
procedures need to be in place for schools enrolling teens aged 14 ½ -17 to help
ensure the facility and equipment are conducive to teaching and learning. When
a parent enrolls a student into a commercial driving school that is licensed by the
state, there is an expectation that the state’s licensing procedures include

minimum requirements for a classroom and that there is inspection of the
facilities as there are for other businesses. If it is removed from statute, will there
be the ability to include it in rule?



Page 2. line 20-21

This section removes the requirement for a financial statement and schedule of
fees. During the summer of2002, Boise Driving School was closed. The closure
occurred because of a complaint and a follow-up investigation by the Department
and the Idaho State Police. The investigation identified student safety was at risk,
among other issues. At the time, over 50 students were enrolled in two separate
classes. The students enrolled in Boise Driving School did not get a refund, and
at least one family had two students enrolled at a cost of $275 each.



The public needs to be protected from schools that close without warning and
have an opportunity to get their tuition refunded. We recommend commercial
driving schools should be required to provide a surety bond with the license
application. The amount of the bond needs to be determined.



We are aware that some, but not all, driving schools object to giving information
to the state about the student fees they charge. We have collected fee
information for teen drivers on the license application and through an annual
survey that requests the number of teen drivers trained. This information has

only been used to identify an “average” cost of instruction by commercial driving
schools. This information is also collected from the public school programs.
Results are published in the Driver Education Annual Report. This information is
also requested of Idaho by other states and organizations preparing reports or
studies on the status of driver education in a particular state or for a nationwide

study. Individual school fees have not been made available to any person or
organization by the Department of Education. If knowing the average tuition
charged by commercial driving schools in Idaho is desired, this law needs to
remain.



Page 3, line 23

We have concerns for the removal of the term “and other matters as the state
board of education may prescribe for the protection of the public.” The required
closing of Boise Driving School was for the protection of the public. If this
statement is removed from statute, will there be a provision to add similar
language to rule?



Page 3. line 26

“. course of instruction for teen drivers aged fourteen and one-half (14 1/2) to
seventeen (17) years. …”This statement identifies the hours required for driver
education but does not address the standards for teen driver education and
training programs. For well over two years, the department worked with public
and commercial schools to draft new rules that included standards for teen driver
education that would be the same for all driving programs. Last year the revised
rules were approved for the public schools but not commercial driving schools.
There were some commercial schools opposed to the proposed rules and
consequently, the proposed rules were withdrawn by the Department.



The effort to draft new rules continues to meet the same challenges that existed
last year, and the year before -lack of agreement among the commercial schools
as to what the rules should contain. A student attending a public school driver
education program must meet a higher standard than students attending a
commercial driving school. Parents in Coeur d’ Alene, Buhl, Kuna, or Kimberly
should be able to have the confidence that their teen will have a course of
instruction that covers minimum standards of instruction for knowledge and skills
that a teen will have during driver education in Boise, Moscow, Caldwell, or
Pocatello. The department feels the instructional standards should be the same
for public and commercial driver education programs. Consider putting the higher
standards identified in the public school rules for the “Approved Teen Driver
Education and Training Program Standards” in statute to help ensure the same
essential knowledge and skills are taught by both public and commercial driving
schools.



Page 3. line 49

The use of the word “authorized” may need to be changed to “licensed.”



Thank you for this opportunity to talk with you about this bill. Commercial driving
schools serve a need in Idaho. We ask that you consider how you want
commercial driving schools to be licensed and what requirements and standards
they need to meet when operating a school to teach teens how to drive. The
issue is not about “business” but about establishing an environment that teaches
teens good driving habits that will help them survive the high-risk years as they
learn how to drive.

Questions were asked of both Mr. Ryals and Ms. Weaver by the
committee.
Motion Senator McWilliams made the motion to send S 1353 to the floor with a
do pass recommendation. Senator Werk seconded the motion.
Discussion Senator Malepeai said he will support the bill, but wants to reserve the
right to suggest amending the bill when it is discussed on the floor.
Vote A voice vote indicated the motion passed unanimously.
H 602 Representative Andersen presented this bill. He said it would allow
education employees to utilize a portion of accrued sick leave to
supplement workers compensation to maintain his or her regular salary
while recovering from a disability incurred on the job covered by workers
compensation. This provision would allow education employees to be
treated the same as state employees.
Motion and vote Senator Werk made the motion to send H 602 to the floor with a do pass
recommendation. Senator Goedde seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated that the motion passed unanimously.
H 1354 Representative Ringo presented this bill to the committee. The purpose
of the legislation is to change Idaho Code dealing with appointments to
the State Board of Education. The intent is to better assure that the
interests of the people, and of education, are served and to provide
additional qualifications of the members of the State Board.



She feels the current practice deviates from what the code specifies. The
political party is not to be a consideration; however, Representative Ringo
said it could be argued that that practice is not being observed. She
submits that the system could be improved by having a geographical
balance and at least three, but not more than four of the members, be
from the same major political party.

Some questions were asked of Representative Ringo that she was unable
to answer. She asked for time to research those issues, then report back
to the committee. The Chairman indicated that would be acceptable.
S 1349 Senator Malepeai said this is a simple bill addressing a complex situation.
What the bill does is to clarify and define the roles of the State Board of
Education and the State Department of Education. The Board would be
the agency with authority over certain matters pertaining to higher
education and the Department is the agency with authority over certain
matters pertaining to early public education through grade twelve. This
bill would designate that “the State Superintendent of Public Instruction
would be the agent designated to negotiate, contract with, and accept
financial and other assistance from the federal government for all such
matters as pertain to early public education through grade twelve”.



Senator Malepeai feels that “serving two masters”, so to speak, is
inefficient and a duplication of service.






Senator Andreason asked about the cost to operate the office of the State
Board. Ms. Allison McClintick, Educator Policy Program Manager for the
Idaho State Board of Education, was asked to provide that information.

Adjournment The Chairman announced that discussion would continue Tuesday on

S 1349. He then adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m.






DATE: March 9, 2004
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
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
S 1349 The Chairman welcomed Mr. Gary Stivers, Executive Director of the State
Board of Education. Mr. Stivers provided a handout to committee
members to show the “Flow of Federal Education Dollars”. He felt it
would be helpful to talk about the funds and where they go. This
document is an attachment to the minutes and is also on file in the
Education Office.
Mr. Stivers said $136,548,362 federal dollars come into Idaho for
educational purposes. This money is from the areas of NCLB and special
education. He said the Board decides where those dollars go, under the
current law. $131,438,004 is given to the State Department of Education
and a large portion of that money is passed on to individual school
districts. Last June, the State Board decided that $5,110,358 would go to
the Office of the State Board. They wanted some of these dollars to
develop initiatives that they felt would provide improvements to the current
education system.
Senator Werk asked the question – “Should policymakers be
administering $5 Million in federal funds?” Mr. Stivers replied that “policy-makers do administer large amounts of money and do decide where large
amounts of money flow. The primary end of it is, they are also the entity
that decides how the funds are utilized and what the needs are of the
education system and what kinds of initiatives the Board wants to set up
in order to bring about the change they have identified as needing
support.”
Chairman Schroeder announced that Senator Cameron had arrived to
present his RS. Discussion on S 1349 will continue after hearing this RS.
RS 14015 Senator Cameron said the superintendent from his district asked him to
present this RS. The purpose is to clarify 33-514 and 33-514A to provide
that consecutive Category One contracts do not constitute “continuous”
employment for the purposes of 33-514, thus allowing districts to place a
teacher on a Category One contract for three consecutive years. After
completion of three consecutive Category One contracts, a teacher who is
hired for a fourth consecutive year would be eligible for a renewable
contract. Without this clarification, litigation is very likely due to different
interpretations of 33-514.



Chairman Schroeder asked for unanimous consent to send this RS to a
privileged committee for printing.



Senator Malepeai said with all due respect, he objected on the grounds
that the committee has a very heavy schedule and agenda. He
suggested that the RS be brought back next year, early in the session.

Unanimous
consent not
obtained
Chairman Schroeder said unanimous consent was needed to have the
RS printed and invited Senator Cameron to bring it back next year.
Continuation of
S 1349
Mr. Stivers stated that the Board retained the following: Title II-A
Improving Teacher Quality ($826,951); Title III-A Language Acquisition
($175,000); Title VI-A State Assessments ($4,108,407). He also said
the State Superintendent asked that the State Department’s share of Title
III-A funds be given to the Board. That amount for Language Acquisition
was $1,183,397. Senator Werk requested that Dr. Howard be allowed to
respond to that.



Mr. Stivers then referred to the handout regarding the funds. He also said
the Board is trying to manage the money the best way they can and to set
some priorities, or policies, on how these funds can be used.



The Chairman asked Mr. Stivers if he viewed the Board as a decision
making body or an administrative body. Mr. Stivers replied that “he sees
the Board of Education as having general oversight supervision – they are
a policy making board to determine the big picture of high level of where
the needs are and where they want to devote resources and authority.
The day-to-day administration happens at the State Department of
Education, local school districts and local boards.”

There were some questions asked of Mr. Stivers regarding some actions
of the Board. He indicated there was an erroneous agenda and clerical
errors had been made.
Chairman Schroeder said testimony on this bill will continue tomorrow.
S 1392 He then announced that because several people had traveled from out-of-town to testify on S 1392, it would be heard next. The Chairman outlined
what the bill does. It would impose limits upon adoption of an alternative
teacher qualification program and to require research and a report. The
State Board shall not authorize any alternative means of denoting an
individual qualified to teach in this state prior to July 1, 2006. Prior to
adopting any alternative program, the board shall, in cooperation with the
State Department, conduct research on the available programs,
comparing the programs in their particulars, with specific emphasis upon
which programs provide the best assessment of a potential teacher’s
classroom ability. The results of the comparison and the report on the
findings of the board shall be presented to the legislature and made
available to the public prior to any action to adopt a program in Idaho.
Testimony Ms. Tina Roehr, 2004 Idaho Teacher of the Year, Meridian, was the first
to testify. She said she teaches in an alternative high school for students
who are at risk of dropping out. She is National Board certified, endorsed
to teach ESL K-12, secondary English, Humanities, and Psychology. She
has written curriculum for English, Humanities, and Physical Education.
Ms. Roehr received certification for teaching 17 years ago in Dallas,
Texas by an alternate route.



She said she supports S 1392 for several reasons. One cannot equate
competency in a subject area with competency in a classroom. Ms.
Roehr also said, as far as the ABCTE website, she would feel
uncomfortable going with a program that professes to teach and certify
highly qualified individuals, when on their own website she found at least
five grammatical errors. She is also concerned about reducing the art of
teaching to one or two multiple choice tests. Teaching is a specialized art
that requires practice and a good mentor. If the human component is
eliminated in education, serious damage can be done to children.

Testimony Rick Davis, certified secondary teacher from Pocatello, testified next. He
is certified in English and Journalism and also holds a professional
technical certification in Idaho. In 1990, he worked full-time for a
newspaper as a copy editor and reporter. Mr. Davis said he was
interested in becoming a teacher, so he applied for and was given the job
as a journalism teacher at Pocatello High and was put into the alternate
certification program. Assigned to him were two mentors, one at ISU and
the other at Pocatello High. With no classroom skills, he feels his mentor
(the one across the hall) saved him. After two years, he took the National
Teacher’s exam and passed it. He feels it is so important the any teacher
needs to be in the classroom, under supervision, before they get a
teaching job. He emphasized it is critical.
Testimony Inserted in the minutes is the testimony of Ms. Jennifer Williams.



Good morning Senator Schroeder and members of the Education Committee.



My name is Jennifer Williams. As a certified art teacher in K-12, and having been
recognized for my art program as Idaho’s US West Teacher of the Year, Art
Teacher of the Year, Idaho Teacher of the Year 2002, and for having won two
National Awards for an exceptional art program, one would assume that I am a
“qualified, and experienced professional who has a solid understanding of my
respective discipline”. One might also assume that each day is a breeze for me
and that my students are college-bound, with multiple offerings for art
scholarships. Ah, if teaching were so simple! This is the reality of my teaching
duties. I am expected to fill every waking moment with love for learning.

Sometimes, I wake students because they’ve worked late, stayed up watching
videos, talked on the computer, or got drunk and phoned to have me post bail.
I’m supposed to modify disruptive behavior, observe for signs of abuse, and even
censor t-shirt messages, bad habits, foul language or body odor. I am to clean

vomit, mucous, or blood with the rubber gloves I’ve been issued. I am expected
to wage a war on drugs, sexually transmitted diseases, cell phones, head sets,
censor books, videos, music, observe backpacks for weapons, alcohol, drug
paraphernalia, and raise self esteem. I have broken up knife fights, fist fights,

‘cat fights’. I am to teach patriotism, good citizenship, sportsmanship, and fair
play. I am to advise kids how to register to vote, balance a checkbook, write
legibly, spell correctly, and how to apply for a job. I am to check heads for lice,
wrists for knife or razor cuts, maintain a safe environment, recognize signs of
anti-social behavior, and be a psychologist when a student takes his life, 9/11
happens as the school day begins or the Space Shuttle explodes and students
need explanations NOW! I offer advice, write letters of recommendation,
encourage respect for cultural diversity, teach tolerance and acceptance. I
monitor graphic bathroom requests and intimate details of pregnant students. My
assignment requires that I work on my own time after school, evenings, week-ends, and holidays, grading papers, importing computer grades, answering

surveys, mentoring, working at Saturday School, writing letters of
recommendation, attending school extra-curricular activities, participating in PTA
meetings, parent conferences, coaching sports or school clubs, staff
development, department or collaboration meetings, and create lessons for the
third of my student load who are on IEP’s (Individual Educational Programs)
504’s, live in a boys home or are on home arrest. I must spend my summers, at

my own expense, working toward advance certification and a Master’s Degree. I
am to be the paragon of virtue, larger than life, such that my very presence will
awe my students into being obedient and respectful of authority. I must be able to
give instruction about evacuation and lockdown procedures and advice about
career pathways, college choices and scholarships. I can be sworn at, have my
classroom environment disrupted by inappropriate behavior, receive very little
parent support, and yet, I am to maintain a calm demeanor. I am to incorporate
technology into the learning experience as well as reading, writing, numeracy

and cross curriculum activities, monitor web sites, and relate personally with
each student. When a student slit his wrists in the bathroom, I was the first to
encounter him as I walked down the hall. Another student was so depressed that
I put my lesson on hold to talk with him for an hour. I am to make sure all
students,

including ESL (English as a second language ), Special Ed and Special Needs
Kids pass the mandatory state exams and receive an equal education, even
those who don’t come to school regularly or complete any of their assignments. I
am to embrace all kids and help them, even if it means stopping in the middle of
my lesson to take Cassandra, who is wheel-chair bound, to the bathroom
because I am the only adult in the room. I am to communicate regularly with the
parents of the over 200 kids I have, by letter, telephone, newsletter, email, report
card, or conference. All of this I can do with just a piece of chalk, a computer, a
few books, a bulletin board, a big smile and on a starting salary that qualifies a

family for food stamps, or a salary after my 32 years, with a Master’s Degree and
37 credits, that is probably comparable to that of a plumber or an electrician. We
are told that being educators is one of the most important professions there is
and I believe that with all of my heart. And yet, at every turn our programs are

trimmed and cut. We take anyone that walks or is wheeled into our classrooms
and live with the threat that our jobs are in jeopardy if we cannot work miracles.
And now we’re told, that anyone with a degree, who passes a background check
and a standardized test can do what we do. My art degree did not prepare me for
the reality of the classroom. It is only through a lengthy process of education

classes, student teaching and internship, and a strong mentoring program that
anyone has a chance of being a successful teacher, and many kids only role
model. Being a “quality teacher, with mastery in a subject” is not enough! It is
secondary to what faces us as we welcome all kids everyday. My tenure has
been a personal journey of educating and nurturing. The ABCTE certification has
become just another statement of how education and educators are viewed in
what could be the best State in the nation. I’d love to see just how long a
“professional” with extensive art knowledge would maintain “passion and a desire
to teach” without the training so desperately needed to work with the complicated
lives of the students of today. To imply that anyone can teach is a travesty!

Testimony Carol Thorburn, Vallivue Middle School teacher, said teaching is a second
career for her. Prior to teaching, she was in business. She said that she
cannot stress enough the importance of professional education
preparation. One of her major concerns with placing people in
classrooms who are not adequately prepared is the effect they have on
the students, especially with ELL students. She said there is a real art to
teaching, as previous testimony indicated. Also, a problem with ABCTE is
the lack of mentorship. Mentoring is someone who understands the
problem – at that time and place.
Testimony Sheila Ward Saunders, a fourth generation Idahoan and a fourth
generation teacher asked the legislators to look at the importance of
balance in the preparation of a teacher. A teacher needs to have strong
knowledge of the subject matter – needs to have a strong educational
background, a strong pedagogy. A teacher also needs to be in the
classroom, being mentored, practicing, and learning how to deal with the
classroom.
Announcements Chairman Schroeder announced that tomorrow, the meeting would begin
at 8 a.m.



Senator Andreason announced that he would be gone for the next three
days and his wife, Darlene, would be representing him.

Adjournment The Chairman thanked everyone for attending today’s meeting. He then
adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m.






DATE: March 10, 2004
TIME: 8:00 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason
(Andreason), Goedde, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator McWilliams
MINUTES:



Announcements

Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.



He announced that several charter school bills had been removed from
the agenda because they conflicted with the “Governor’s” charter school
bill.



The Chairman introduced Senator Darlene Andreason, who is sitting in for
her husband, Senator John Andreason, for the next three days.

S 1392 The Chairman said some testimony was taken yesterday on this bill
because some people were from out-of-town and couldn’t be here today.
(The bill has to do with alternative teacher qualifications, to impose limits,
and require research and a report.)



Chairman Schroeder read an e-mail from Ms. Darlene Johnson, Bureau of
Teacher Certification & Preparation, Pennsylvania. It states: “Our State
Board of Education approved the American Board as a mechanism to
achieve Pennsylvania certification. Because this program varies greatly
from our normal certification route through colleges and universities and
does not fully satisfy the requirements of our certification regulations, the
procedure to implement the resolution is still under discussion and
development. At the present time, an individual may not obtain
Pennsylvania certification through the American Board, but, assuming the
procedures can be developed, the expectation is that at some future date
we may be able to use the American Board process as an additional
source for teachers.”



The Chairman said this goes in line with what has been heard previously
about Pennsylvania having some reservations about evaluating the
classroom experience – the classroom capabilities of the teachers of
ABCTE. You can evaluate content knowledge on a computer test, but
that does not tell you if a person can actually teach in a classroom.
Chairman Schroeder said that is why he has this bill. It will put the
process on hold until 2006 and will allow OSBE and SDE to collaborate
and research all available programs with special emphasis that best
provide an assessment of the potential teacher’s classroom ability.

Testimony Mr. John Eikum, Idaho Rural Schools Executive Director, and also
representing Idaho Association of School Administrators said these
organizations are in support of this bill. They feel teachers should have
some experience with children before they are put in the classroom on
their own. Mr. Eikum feels a moratorium on ABCTE would be good, as
there are other methods that could be used.
Testimony Dr. Bob West, Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, testified
next. He stated that the state presently has alternate routes for teacher
certification. One is a letter of authorization and another is with local
school boards with a plan in place. In 2006, the consultant specialist
program will end (permit to teach). When asked how many teachers are
presently using an alternative method, Dr. West replied there are about
200.
Testimony Dr. Phil Kelly, Professor of Education Policy at BSU, said that a
knowledge test doesn’t measure skills and it could possibly be construed
to be in direct contradiction with No Child Left Behind that calls upon
states and local education agencies to rely upon scientifically based
research. To rely on research, one needs data. Dr. Kelly said the mere
fact that ABCTE has not certified a single person forecloses the whole
approach making the decision based on data. He supports S 1392 for its
emphasis on research based decision making and for calling upon the
State Board and the State Department to work collaboratively (lines 13
and 14).
Testimony Ms. Kathy Phelan, IEA President, said their concern is not so much about
the test itself, but the need for classroom training, mentoring and peer
assistance. At the March 3rd Joint Meeting in the Gold Room, Ms.
Madigan (who was promoting ABCTE) said there were 12 states
interested in ABCTE. Ms. Phelan said she contacted all her colleagues to
find out which 12 states were working on ABCTE. Alaska, South
Carolina, and Missouri said there were conversations going on, but no
attempt to adopt it at this point. Texas has some program, but a different
name other than ABCTE. Pennsylvania was the first to yes to ABCTE,
but has since realized the piece missing was the practical experience with
the students. They are now working on adding the practical experience
portion. Some states had not heard of ABCTE and asked what it was and
other states said it was not a good fit for them. Ms. Phelan said a hearing
was not held with regards to ABCTE and she is in favor of the
moratorium.
Motion Senator Gannon made the motion that S 1392 be sent to the floor with a
do pass recommendation. Senator Noh seconded the motion.
Discussion Senator Werk said with other alternative routes already in place, he
wondered why the State Board had “led us in the path of ABCTE”. The
Chairman said the state statutes grant very wide latitude to the State
Board and suggested to Senator Werk that he look over the statutes and
perhaps make some recommendations.
Vote A voice vote indicated that the motion passed unanimously.
H 632 Representative Garrett presented H 632. She said when you can’t
breathe, nothing else matters. When you can’t breathe, it’s really hard to
learn. She said nearly 40,000 Idaho children have asthma and asthma is
the leading cause of school absenteeism This bill provides that the board
of trustees of each school district shall adopt a policy governing medical
inhalers and self-administration of medication. This includes charter
districts. The policy is to be adopted by September 1, 2004.



Representative Garrett provided the committee with several handouts that
supplied information regarding asthma, costs, and support. Submitting a
memorandum in support of this bill was the Idaho School Boards
Association, as well as a letter from the Idaho State Board of Pharmacy. A
sheet of information was also provided by the American Lung Association.

Motion and vote Senator Werk made the motion to send H 632 to the floor with a do pass
recommendation. Senator Gannon seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated that the motion passed unanimously. Senator Werk will be the
sponsor.
S 1349 Dr. West led the discussion on this bill.



Inserted in the minutes is a copy of his testimony.



The Administration of Federal Programs in Elementary and Secondary Schools



Tom Farley, our Federal Programs Bureau Chief, and I will provide
information about federal funding of Idaho public schools. I will cover
first the role of the State Department of Education (SDE) to receive federal
funds, and information about the Technical Advisory Committee. Tom
will follow with other federal funding details.



The Idaho SDE supports SB1349, because it would create a more
integrated approach to the administration of federal funds for elementary
and secondary education than the current arrangement in place since the
spring of 2003. The Superintendent of Public Instruction is charged with
the duty to execute Idaho law for elementary and secondary education
(Idaho Code § 33-125) and all administrative rules pertaining to
Administration, Uniformity and Thoroughness of the public schools, and
the State Board of Education is charge with general supervision of public
education, rather than the duty to execute the laws, unless prescribed by
the state legislature to do so (Idaho Constitution, Article IX § 2).



Idaho Code § 33-110 vests in the State Board of Education the authority to
negotiate and contract with the federal government, as Idaho’s State
Education Agency, and to accept federal financial assistance to further the
cause of education in Idaho. As you know, the department of education
had been delegated the responsibility to negotiate and contract with the
federal government from 1963 until 2003, for programs related to
elementary and secondary education. Senate Bill 1349 would restore that
responsibility, which we welcome. As far as I know, no other agency or
educational institution in Idaho receives federal funds as a result of
negotiations between the State Board of Education and the federal
government to further the cause of education in our state. I do not believe
that the federal funds received by our three state universities, our four-year
college and our two community colleges come to them from negotiations
between the State Board of Education and the federal government. I am
not aware of any procedure that these educational institutions must go
through to apply to the State Board of Education to be able to access the
federal funds they receive as the State Board of Education has required of
the State Superintendent. Among all the recipients of federal funds to
further the cause of education in our state, the SDE is singled out and
recognized for that distinction, even though it is asserted that the SBOE is
only doing so because the legislature wants it to.



Before Mr. Farley’s remarks, I want to address the recent dissolution of
the Technical Advisory Committee formed by Superintendent Howard,
mentioned yesterday morning.



The State Superintendent entered into an agreement with the U.S.
Department of Education to come into compliance with the requirements
of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, now called the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, in March of 2002. Part of that
agreement called for Dr. Howard to establish an external Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) to review the technical quality of the Idaho
assessment system we were planning to use to meet the testing standards
for the federal law from which we were annually granted many millions of
dollars (Compliance Agreement, Goal 5, Objective 1).



The TAC was appointed by the Superintendent in October of 2002 to:

ensure testing validity, reliability and fairness,

show the state’s tests have cognitive complexity,

identify gaps and weaknesses of the testing system, if any,

provide evidence on how multiple measures that have been incorporated
in the testing program affect the validity, reliability, equity, lack of bias
and fairness of the tests,

send a timely review of technical quality to the U.S. Department of
Education, and

to develop manuals that contain explanations of the technical
characteristics of the tests.



The TAC began meeting in December of 2002 and continued to do so for
about 1 year and 4 months before the SBOE appears to have dissolved the
committee in favor of another committee to do the same thing. The TAC
was to have continued to study the state’s tests, particularly the Idaho
Standards Achievement Tests (ISAT), until its objectives were met, which
was estimate d to be about December of 2005, a 3-year period. The
committee was/is about half finished with its work, and has been making
progress with the Northwest Evaluation Association, the vendor for the
ISAT. Examining student performance on the ISAT, examining the ISAT
items themselves over against standards for statewide tests, accountability
and benchmarking Idaho’s high stakes test against research-based criteria
of sound testing procedures is unfinished. The Chair of the committee
testified to the gaps and weaknesses of the ISAT in January 2004 before
the Joint Education Committee of the Senate and House when there was
discussion about the high stakes purpose of the grade 10 test. Some of her
remarks were not very flattering about the current claims for reliability and
validity the ISAT as it is now. She indicates that it may not have been a
good idea to have criticized the ISAT.



Less than a month later, the SBOE took action to “reconstitute” the
committee. The rationale given to change the committee was: a science
test will be added to the math, reading and language arts components of
the ISAT, and the SBOE wants to refine the existing test and maximize its
application. As it happened, the list of names to be appointed that Dr.
Howard received two days before the meeting consisted of the same 7
members she appointed. The information supplied to Dr. Howard on the
action indicated that an additional 3 to 4 members would be added in the
next quarter to change the overall make up of the committee. Please see a
copy of the agenda item provided, page 2, Proposed Names.



So, I think that is why she described the replacement of the 7 members
named in the agenda materials with two different members when the
action was taken, as something that took place, “out of the blue.”
According to the Chair of the TAC appointed by Dr. Howard, a new
committee will have to start all over again, and about one and one-half
year’s worth of work will be lost.



Tom Farley will continue the department’s testimony.

Testimony Inserted in the minutes is Mr. Farley’s testimony.



State Board of Education oversight of federal funds:



I would like to share with you:

A short history of how we got to where we are today in federal
programs.

The SDE’s federal programs bureau perspective.

Examples of issues created by the transitioning of federal programs
to the SBOE.






Idaho, as well as other states, have been under the federal ESEA mandate
of standards, assessments, and accountability since the 1994 IASA
reauthorization.



After the reauthorization of ESEA of 1965 now known as NCLB came
into effect, a different mentality has swept the country, and has certainly
impacted Idaho.



The 2003 Idaho legislature passed SCR 106 which reinforces I. C. 33-110,
“the SBOE is designated as the state educational agency which is
authorized to negotiate, and contract with, the federal government, and
accept financial or other assistance from the federal government or any
agency thereof,..”



In March the SBOE took action to support that Resolution.



At that time it was understood by the SDE that the SBOE had no intention
of taking over the administrative or implementation responsibilities, or any
employees in the SDE. This is referenced in the March 6, 2003 SBOE
minutes copied in a letter to the OSBE September 19, 2003. (Please see
attachment A)



In June the State Superintendent inquired of the OSBE as to how to apply
for the necessary federal funds that the SDE had managed successfully for
some 35 years.



In August the SDE was counseled by the OSBE to hire a Title IIIA
coordinator. In September we hired a Title IIIA coordinator and soon after
it was made clear by the OSBE that position would work for the SBOE
and be housed in the OSBE. Therefore the SDE was forced to dismantle
the infrastructure to support that position and moved the new person to
another position in the SDE. We had no spending authority for Title IIIA
funds therefore no means to support the position. By the January SBOE
meeting there was no way for the State Superintendent to maintain a Title
IIIA position, and the state was already six months behind in
implementing the program. On more than one occasion, the State
Superintendent was informed by the President of the SBOE that the SBOE
would retain the Title IIIA funds and manage the program. Thus the SDE
would have no means to suddenly take the Title back and manage it. This
involves a planned and coordinated effort that the SDE had already gone
through and dismantled. The SDE hopes by the next FY there will be a
renewed interest by the SBOE in the SDE managing the Title IIIA
program. We believe we have made great strides in the past five years,
which include:

Better identification of LEP students

Disaggregating of test results

Commissioned an exhaustive statewide LEP study by NWREL

Developing LEP standards

Developing a language acquisition exam



Dr. Howard was not given the option to have the LEP funds returned in a
timely manner for the department to effectively manage the program for
the school year.



It was frustrating to hear Mr. Stivers make that assertion yesterday,
because for most the past year the board and its staff including Mr. Stivers
has told the department it would not run the LEP program this year.



In fact three times ­ in June, November, and December ­ the board said it
was keeping the Title IIIA funds and running all of the program.
Communication from board staff including Mr. Stivers to department was
that board office would be keeping these funds and hiring staff. Mr.
Stivers’ last letter to Dr. Howard reiterating this fact was Dec. 15, 2003,
just prior to this legislative session. I have a copy, here. (Please see
attachment B)



At the board’s January meeting, the issue came up again although as you
can see in the materials provided it was not on the agenda. (Please see
attachment C)



No motions were made to transfer the Title IIIA funds although
management of the program was discussed.



Dr. Howard told the board that it would not be possible for the department
to step in more than seven months into the school year and run the
program. Originally, the department had planned trainings, monitoring,
and other activities that never occurred this year because the program was
being managed by Mr. Stivers’s office. In fact, Dr. Howard was forced to
assign our LEP specialist to other duties.



You could think of it this way, imagine you are a carpenter and have been
hired to build a house. At the start of the project, you are told not to do
your job and in fact you are told to turn over your tools to another
carpenter, and he will do the job. So you tackle other necessary jobs
painting sheetrocking Then, when the project is nearly finished you
are told that you can now do your job, and that all the work of the past
seven months has not been done by that “other carpenter” after all. That is
simply setting up someone to fail.

Dr. Howard did ask President Hall and the board to reconsider who should
run the LEP program later this year, when the board could review the
results of its office’s management of the LEP program.



All of this effort has been put on hold.



We are now beginning to get questions from districts as to where are their
Title IIIA dollars.



This of course has created anxiety in the Hispanic community and in the
SDE, and has left the SDE without the coordination of the state and federal
LEP program we had crafted and hoped for



In September the SBOE took over the compliance agreement that had been
signed by the State Superintendent with the USOE.



In October the SBOE advertised for a federal programs manager.



In October the State Superintendent requested an itemized budget to help
understand the federal funding flow and expenditure of the federal funds
through the SBOE.



That request was made again in November.



In December the State Superintendent request a reconsideration of the
SBOE retaining the federal funds.



That request was not considered.



Also in December the SBOE notified the SDE of their control of statewide
testing and the compliance agreement.



In December the State Superintendent notified the Governor of the SDE’s
inability to sponsor the Mathematics initiative due to no federal funding.



Subsequently at the January State Board meeting, after a presentation to
the SBOE, Title IIA funding, teacher quality funds, were restored to the
SDE. However, we are getting calls from IHEs as to where the RFPs for
the Title IIA grants are. The SDE has had a long-standing relationship
with the IHE and a successful higher education grant program under Title
IIA.



In January the SBOE hired a federal programs manager.



There continues, among others issues, to be discussions with the OSBE
around Title IIIA, the compliance agreement, and assessments.



SO:



In response to questions regarding the State Board of Education’s (SBOE)
role in “taking over and managing federal funding for education,” I offer
the following perspective. From a practical sense, when setting policy
(program oversight) intrudes into implementation (SDE responsibilities) of
said policy, conflict is often created. There is no doubt the SBOE has the
authority to set education policy in Idaho. The issues and conflicts created
by the SBOE setting policy and taking on the role of oversight of funding,
implementation of programs, as well as program management tend to
create problems that ultimately take from our districts, schools, and
students. It occurs to me that many of the problems could be avoided and
certainly don’t align with the many successes of the past.



As it stands now, there has been another level of bureaucracy created in
the state’s education system
. School districts now have two masters in
federal programs, and only one has the infrastructure in place and the
current expertise to work with and within the myriad of federal law. The
success of the latter two has been in place for some 35 plus years.



We now have a duplication of efforts. This comes at a time when much
has been said about streamlining, efficiency, collaboration, and helping
districts and schools decrease their workload. As an example the SBOE
has hired a federal programs manager. The SDE has had such a position
for some time, and also requires that individual to manage other federal
programs from Veterans Affairs to Child Nutrition to HIV/Aids to Adult
Basic Education to Indian Education, and several other programs
including implementation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Other federal
funded and oversight positions in the SBOE also duplicate positions
already well established and successful in the SDE.



Both of these issues are already creating a disconnect between programs.
As an example, the state’s consolidated plan helped districts streamline
planning, budgeting, implementing, and evaluating programs. The
consolidated planning helped districts apply and receive their federal funds
in an efficient manner. This process is now being disrupted because
districts will have to submit a separate plan for programs no longer
included in the CSP and answer to separate managing entities due to the
SBOE ‘s take over of specific federal programs. Much of the past
planning and efforts such as merging the state and federal LEP program
has been dismantled. We may well find this to be a problem in the
assessment program as well. The SDE has developed and nurtured a
strong assessment program and subsequent relationship with school
districts, but that is no longer a part of what the SDE is responsible for.
However, the people who have been responsible for the assessment
process and program is still in place at the SDE, and endeavors to help
districts and schools succeed at their assessment responsibilities.



All of this dilutes an already short supply of funds. Two masters cost
more than one. If two masters continue, funds for students are diminished.



As you consider perspective, I believe the following should apply. The
SDE has/had the infrastructure in place to implement programs, administer
dollars and programs, and provide technical assistance. The SDE has the
connections and relationships with schools and program directors. The
SDE staff are experts in their areas of responsibility. Continuing the
SBOE direction will create more work and pressure on the SBOE, the
SDE, and most importantly districts and schools. Also, as the SBOE
delves deeper into implementation and overseeing of federal programs,
timeliness in responding to schools, sending out money, and providing
T/A to schools is severely handicapped
.



It is imperative that Idaho not only expend it’s federal funds judiciously
but appropriately and within the legal requirements of federal law. Many
federal funds are tied to the supplement-not-supplant provisions
. There
are concerns that Idaho may find itself in an untenable situation if funds
are expended for purposes they are not intended for. As an example, Title
VI-A funds have a specific purpose, and Idaho received them by making
application and describing how we will use them. To use them in another
way may well compromise the state’s compliance with federal law, and
force the state into an audit exception with the federal government.



Managing and implementing federal programs, especially now with the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
NCLB, is a complicated process. There is considerable inter-connectedness between the different programs. The better we focus and
target, and the better we assure each program compliments and
supplements each other, the better service to children.



The SDE staff is very aware that the staff of the OSBE are only doing
what they see as necessary under the directives they’ve been given. They
have worked very hard to carry out the wishes of the SBOE.



The SDE staff continues to work with and will work with the OSBE to
ensure as an efficient and effective education system as possible. Allison,
Carissa Miller, Lucy, and Karen have been very good to work with.



With that Senator Schroeder, I will stand for any questions.



ATTACHMENT A



September 19, 2003



Gary Stivers, Executive Director

Office of the State Board of Education

Statehouse Mail



Dear Gary:



During a budget meeting here this week, it became apparent that different staff

members believe they have had conflicting messages from your office regarding
the responsibility for, and use of, various federal funds. It is now nearly three
months into the state fiscal year, and it is important to have a mutual
understanding of how these funds are to be used to ensure a consistent level of
services to school districts.



We have been relying on the intent of the State Board of Education as set forth in

two motions passed by the Board:



M/S (McGee/Stone): All federal funds pass through to the SDE, with the

exception of the following: VI A- State Assessments in the amount of

$4,108,407; II A-Improving Teacher Quality State Grants in the amount of

$363,031 ($17,391 Administration and $345,640 Grants); III A -Language

Acquisition State Grants in the amount of $175,000, for a total of $5,110,358.

(June 26-27, 2003, minutes)



M/S (Hammond/Terrell): To support the passage of SCR106…. It is not the

board’s intent to take over the administrative or implementation

responsibilities, or any employees designated for such a purpose, currently

residing in the State Department of Education. (March 6, 2003, minutes)



Based on Randy Thompson’s assurances that we should do so, we filled the

SDE’s vacant LEP specialist position, which requires financial support for salary,

benefits, and operating expenses. This would be consistent with the Board’s
intent as expressed in March. The $175,000 retained by the Board under Title IlI-A was the total money allocated for administrative and implementation
responsibilities for this grant. The expenses for the person hired for this position
are calculated to be $54,000 for salary and benefits and $45,000 for operating
expenses, which include rent, equipment, supplies, telephone, and travel, for a
total of$99,000. The state’s costs of setting up inservice or other language group
meetings to guide and advance the field efforts to improve learning for English
Language Learners would be in addition to the $99,000.



As I noted above, my staff sought Dr. Thompson’s go-ahead before filling the

vacant position. However, Dr. Thompson has lately intimated that there may now
be a question over where this position is to be located.



We have not yet heard a final decision on which Title VI-A responsibilities will

be retained by the SDE.



We do not yet have an understanding of the role to be played by the SDE in

implementing the Title II-A higher education partnerships. The Board’s motion

separated out the money earmarked for higher education partnerships. I am
proceeding with the assumption that K -12 activities will remain with this
department, consistent with the Board’s intent, since the SDE has for some time
had staff and administrative and statewide activities tied to these funds.



Given that we can all hear things differently, I believe the best way to proceed

right now is as follows:



All communication regarding federal funds use should come to me as the State

Department of Education’s executive officer, and I will forward the information

to the appropriate staff member. Tom Farley should be copied in on every

communication.



Please direct that an itemized budget be prepared (in writing) for each of the
areas mentioned above (Title II-A, IlI-A, and VI-A), consistent with the State
Board of Education’s March 6 and June 26 motions, and showing clearly which

administrative and implementation activities are to be the responsibility of the

SDE, consistent with the Board’s intent.



As you know, the level of accountability for these federal funds is very high.

Once we have in front of us documentation o who is doing what, and using which
funds, we will be able to refer federal auditors, requests for compliance reports
and other information, inquiries from school district personnel, and public
questions to your office, if appropriate, or to someone here if that is appropriate.



Sincerely,

Marilyn Howard

Superintendent of Public Instruction



ATTACHMENT B



December 15, 2003



Dr. Marilyn Howard

Superintendent of Public Instruction

State Department of Education

650 W. State St., 2nd Floor

Boise, ID 83720



Dear Dr. Howard:



The requests you made in your November 6, 2003, letter were presented to the
State Board of Education at its December 5, 2003, meeting. Included with the
materials presented to the Board at that meeting were a chart showing the flow of
federal dollars, a budget showing how Title IIA, IIIA, and VIA funds would be
utilized if retained in the Office of the State Board of Education, and a document
prepared by Tom Farley showing how the funds would be utilized if they were
passed through to the State Department of Education.



During the discussion Board members pointed out that the need to retain
$5,110,358 of Title IIA, IIIA, and VIA funds had been discussed during two
previous meetings. The request died for lack of a motion. At this same meeting,
Blake Hall identified Randy Thompson as the primary contact in the Office of the
State Board of Education regarding federal programs. Carissa Miller will provide
staff support for Title VIA programs, Allison McClintick will support Title IIA
programs, and an appointment will be made at a later date to support Title IIIA
programs.



We appreciate the document prepared by Mr. Farley. It has been helpful as it
clearly identifies the significant responsibilities associated with the federal
programs. We look forward to working with your staff in coordinating the
oversight and implementation requirements of these programs.



Sincerely,

Gary W. Stivers

Executive Director



ATTACHMENT C



STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING

Gold Room– January 26, 2004, 1 p.m.

Boise State University, Hatch A & B –January 27, 2004, 8 a.m.

Boise, Idaho



Monday, January 26, 2004

1 p.m., Gold Room, 4th Floor of the Capitol



BOARDWORK

1. Agenda Review / Approval

2. Minutes Review / Approval



OPEN FORUM FOR LEGISLATORS



INSTRUCTION, RESEARCH & STUDENT AFFAIRS -Rod Lewis

1. ISIMS Update

2. Letters of Authorization

3. New LEP Committee

4. Other Academic Indicator Options

5. New Graduate Program -Notice of Intent, Master of Science Program in

Geographic Information Science

6. New Graduate Program -Full Proposal, Ph.D. Program in Food Science and

Toxicology

7. Office of Performance Evaluation -Residency Requirements & Pupil

Transportation



BUSINESS AFFAIRS & HUMAN RESOURCES -Jim Hammond



Section I -Human Resources



1. Boise State University:

2. Idaho State University:

3. Lewis-Clark State College:

4. University of Idaho:



Section II -Finance



1. Discussion of Governor’s Budget Recommendations

2. Optional Retirement Plan Investment Opportunities

3. Template for Capital Projects

4. Criteria for CAAP Facilities Prioritization



Tuesday, January 27, 2004

11 :30 a.m., Hatch A & B, Boise State University



EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-2345(1)

(a) to consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent.

This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective office;

(b) to consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints
or

charges brought against a public officer, employee, staff member or individual
agent,

or public school student

(d) to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection

(f) to consider and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation or where

there is a general public awareness of probable litigation.



OPEN FORUM



PLANNING, POLICY & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS -Milford Terrell



1. Presidents’ Council Report



INSTRUCTION, RESEARCH & STUDENT AFFAIRS -Rod Lewis



1. ISU’s Program Offerings in Boise

2. Title IIA -State Directed Funds



DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION -Marilyn Howard



1. Elementary and Secondary School Accreditation Reports

2. Superintendent’s Report



BUSINESS AFFAIRS & HUMAN RESOURCES -Jim Hammond



Section 1- Finance

1. Student Services Center and Financing

2. Student Fees Setting



OTHER / NEW BUSINESS (End of Attachments)

Chairman Schroeder said discussion would continue tomorrow on this bill.
Senator Goedde asked if it would be possible to request the chairman of
the State Board to come before this committee. The Chairman asked Ms.
Allison McClintick from the State Board Office to see if she can arrange it.
H 596 Representative Elaine Smith said the purpose of this legislation is to
require a recall petition for a trustee of a school district to be canvassed
between the first day received and not more than ten days from the date
of its filing.
Testimony Ms. Terry Anderson, a school board trustee from Pocatello, said she is in
favor of this bill.
Motion and vote Senator Malepeai made the motion to send H 596 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Goedde seconded the motion. A voice
vote indicated that it passed unanimously. Senator Malepeai will be the
sponsor.
H 603 Representative Bolz presented this bill. The purpose is to allow school
districts who contract school bus transportation services the opportunity,
on a one-time basis, to renew the transportation contract with the current
contractor. If the school district finds, after renegotiation, that the terms
are satisfactory the school district would be allowed to renew the contract
for up to five years.



It was asked if the contract extensions would have to be reviewed by the
State Department of Education. Representative Bolz said it was his
understanding that any contract would need to be reviewed by the
Department of Education.

Testimony Mr. Ken Pidjean, a retired Boise School District employee, said it is well-intentioned, but he has concerns about this bill. Much can change in five
years. What assurances do the patrons have that the cost savings will be
passed through to the district? Audits are after the fact and the damage
has already been done. Mr. Pidjean suggested that the State Department
of Education work with the contracting districts to help ensure proper
competitive purchasing practices, and once those practices are in place,
then perhaps it would be time to reconsider this bill.



Senator Gannon said the way he reads the bill is that renegotiation means
a new contract could be written. He ask Mr. Pidjean if that was the way
he viewed it and Mr. Pidjean affirmed that it was. Senator Gannon also
asked if when present contracts expire, could they be negotiated. Mr.
Pidjean felt they could not. He feels the bill needs to be reworded.

The Chairman said discussion on this bill will continue tomorrow.
Adjournment Chairman Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m.






DATE: March 11, 2004
TIME: 8:00 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason
(Andreason), Goedde, McWilliams, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






Senator Noble
MINUTES: Vice Chairman Gannon called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. He
announced that Chairman Schroeder is in another meeting but will be
joining the committee later.
H 603 Chairman Gannon said discussion would continue on H 603, even though
the sponsor has not arrived as yet.



He said yesterday there were concerns about the way the bill was written
and feels there should be some “sideboards” put on the bill. The
Chairman said he is inclined to have words to the effect that the extension
capability would not apply to any existing contracts – would only apply to
contracts that are written after the passage of this legislation.

Testimony Mr. Rod McKnight, Transportation Supervisor, said he sees merit in the
bill, but is not prepared to take a formal position.
Testimony Mr. Chuck Randolph, Associate Superintendent of the Caldwell School
District, said student transportation has either been totally or partially
within his area of responsibility. His district has 6,000 students and they
are involved in transportation contracting. He said he would focus on
three areas – time, money and a summary. The time issue is a full year
process and is not a simple thing to do, with many areas to be addressed.
The bid process is time consuming also. A committee analyzes the bids,
then puts all the information into contract language. Mr. Randolph said
the district spent around $35,000 in attorney fees just to put all the steps
together. He said they would rather spend the money up-front than to be
challenged later in court. One of the things they want to do is to keep a
reasonable age of fleet. One of the things that makes it difficult to build
into a contract is that five year window. A contractor needs a longer
period of time to make that kind of capitol investment. Mr. Randolph said
that people need to trust their local districts and trustees and to recognize
the safeguards that are in place. He closed his testimony by asking the
committee to look at this as a way the district can be allowed to realize
the maximum return on their investment.
Testimony Mr. Brent Carpenter, co-owner of Brown Bus Company, testified next. He
is also a board member of the Idaho School Bus Contractors Association.
He gave a brief history of his background and the Brown Bus Company.
Mr. Carpenter said he felt there was some confusion about this bill. It
does not do away with the bidding process. The intention is to enhance
the contracts.
Motion After some discussion, Senator Noh made the motion to hold the bill in
committee. Senator Malepeai seconded the motion.
Substitute
motion
Senator Goedde said he wished to make a substitute motion and to send
H 603 to the 14th Order, put the sideboards on that says it would not apply
to current contracts. The motion was seconded by Senator McWilliams.
Vote Voting aye on the substitute motion was the majority of the committee.
Voting nay was Senator Noh. The motion carried. Senator McWilliams is
the sponsor.



Chairman Schroeder joined the committee and thanked the Vice
Chairman for his good work.

S 1349 There was no one to testify for or against this bill.
Motion and vote Senator Gannon made the motion to hold S 1349 in committee with the
stipulation that a letter be sent from the committee to the State Board of
Education expressing the committee’s concern and asking them to
reconsider the way the federal money is handled. He said his intent is for
all committee members to be involved. Senator Goedde seconded the
motion. A voice vote indicated it was unanimous.
S 1322 Senator Stennett presented this bill. It would increase the Robert R. Lee
Promise B Scholarship from $500 to $600 per year. The fiscal impact is
estimated at a two percent growth to 7,800 students and would require an
increase in $780,000 from general funds. He provided a handout
regarding colleges seeking a hike in student fees.
Motion Senator Noh made the motion to send S 1322 to the floor with a do pass
recommendation. Senator Werk seconded the motion.
Discussion Senator Goedde said he cannot support this bill because he does not
know where the $780,000 can come from.
Vote A roll call vote was taken. Voting aye were Senators Malepeai, Werk,
McWilliams, Andreason, Noh, Gannon and Schroeder. Voting nay was
Senator Goedde. Senator Noble was absent. The motion carried.
Senator Stennett is the sponsor. Co-sponsors are Senators Malepeai and
Werk.
S 1354 Chairman Schroeder welcomed Representative Ringo who will continue
the discussion on this bill.



Representative Ringo provided a handout that related to Idaho Statutes,
34-2501, definitions; the amendment; and a list of State Board of
Education members taken from the Idaho Blue Book, starting with 1977.



Representative Ringo said she did not bring this bill as a partisan concept
so much as her concern for a balance that is much needed.



She said the question was asked about the representation on State
Board’s in the past, so that was why she did the research from the Idaho
Blue Book.



Senator Goedde questioned the language in the amendment. Senator
Werk questioned the time frame of the appointments of the Board.



Chairman Schroeder suggested to Representative Ringo that she work
out these details and return tomorrow.

Announcements Bills to be heard tomorrow are S 1354, S 1406, and H 631a.

Monday, there will be a hearing on the Charter School bill.

Adjournment The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:25 a.m.






DATE: March 12, 2004
TIME: 8:30 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason
(Andreason), Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






None
MINUTES:



Motion and vote

Vice Chairman Gannon called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. due to the
Chairman having another commitment.



Senator Malepeai made the motion for the approval of the minutes for
March 2, 3, 4, 5. Senator Goedde seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated they were approved unanimously.

H 787 Representative Jaquet presented H 787 that she and Representative
Bedke are sponsoring. The purpose of this legislation is to require the
State Board of Education and the State Department of Education to
develop statewide, research-based goals for students in Idaho who are
English language learners using Limited-English Proficient (LEP) monies
which are allocated on a per capita basis. School district boards of
trustees will develop a detailed plan with measurable objectives. An
annual report with recommendations to the legislature will be made by the
State Board of Education. There is no increase in funding. A plan and
accountability measures are created for an existing allocation of
resources.



Representative Jaquet provided some facts for the committee. She said
the Hispanic population in Idaho has risen twenty five percent in the last
five years; forty one schools use some type of bilingual program; one
hundred eighty nine schools use English as a second language approach;
two hundred sixty two schools provide ESL support, with some native
language support and programs vary from one half hour to a full day of
instruction. Academic performance rates are significantly lower among
Idaho Latinos, Native American, and ELL students. Eighty three percent
of ELL students and seventy six percent of Hispanic kindergarten are
ready below grade level.

Testimony Dr. Bob West, State Department of Education, testified that the
Department is in support of this bill. Inserted in the minutes is a copy of
his testimony.



TO: Senate Education Committee

FR: Bob West, Idaho State Department of Education

RE: House Bill 787 ­ English Language Learners



This bill should be approved, because:



1. The bill creates a new section in Chapter 16 of Title 33. Chapter 16
consists of legislative mandates and state policy about public school
instruction. This bill is good public policy needed to better define the
instruction and related services needed by English language learners to
close the gap that now exists relative to their English speaking peers.



2. The bill causes the creation of a set of state-wide common goals
that address the combined requirements of applicable state and federal
laws and court decisions. That is a good thing. It sets in state statute for
students with limited English proficiency a similar expectation that was
created for students with disabilities and for students with gifts and talents
in Chapter 20.



3. It also causes the State Board of Education to work with the State
Department of Education to create the common research-based goals and
to establish the procedures, not spelled out, about how this will unfold, and
about who is going to be in charge of and responsible for what. That poses
an opportunity regarding the control issues that seem to continue to plague
us. And, it is a good thing to see our ultimate source of state public policy
recognize and mandate the promise of working together.



4. Having school districts develop objectives based on common state-wide goals to implement and measure their efforts for programs for
English language learners remains an important component of a focused
state-wide effort. It is similar to current federal Title III program
requirements intended to address the needs of limited English proficient
students. The difference is that, under Title III regulations, each school
district is to set its own goals and objectives. It will be a good challenge to
see how we can blend federally mandated goal creation criteria, based on
local needs, with common state-wide goals which are the same for
everyone.

Testimony Mr. Tom Farley, Federal Programs Bureau Chief for the State Department
of Education, said that what this bill does is that it reinforces the value of
former efforts. He feels that it is important to put into Idaho Code the
necessity of the State Board of Education and the State Department of
Education working together. Mr. Farley said H 787 is a good bill and he is
offering the Bureau’s support to the Hispanic community and the State
Board to see that this becomes a successful bill and in the not to far
distant future to realize the benefits.
Testimony Mr. Sam Byrd of the Hispanic Commission said there is a tremendous gap
between the achievement of students whose language is something other
than English when they first come to school. Mr. Byrd said there are
26,000 Latino students in Idaho public schools. Of that figure, 17,500 are
placed in Limited English Proficient classes. He feels that about 70
percent are not limited in English, but are not proficient academically.
Best practice calls for taking those children and working with them on
transition services. The funds can be used more appropriately this way.
Testimony Ms. Kathy Phelan, IEA president, said her organization is in favor of this
bill.
Testimony Ms. Allison McClintick, Educator Policy Program Manager for the State
Board of Education, said she wants to be on record as being in
agreement with the testimony of Dr. West and Mr. Byrd and is in support
of the bill.
Motion and vote Senator Werk made the motion to send H 787 to the floor with a do pass
recommendation. Senator Noble seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated the motion passed unanimously. Senators Werk and Noble are
the sponsors of this bill.



Vice Chairman Gannon turned the meeting to Chairman Schroeder.

H 631a Representative Meyer said this bill relates to community colleges. It
would revise descriptive language, make a grammatical change and to
provide that the Boards of Trustees of community colleges shall
cooperate with county commissioners, mayors, city councils and school
district boards of trustees. Representative Meyer said it is time for an
update regarding this issue. When asked how the community colleges
felt about this bill, Representative Meyer said NIC and CSI were not in
opposition to it.
Motion and vote Senator Goedde made the motion to send H 631a to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Gannon seconded the motion. A voice
vote indicated the majority voted in the affirmative. Senator Noh voted no.
Senator Goedde will be the sponsor.
S 1354 Representative Ringo presented S 1354. Consideration shall be given to
balanced geographical representation and at least three but not more
than four of the members shall be from the same two largest parties
determined by the vote cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election.
She provided a new amendment that includes a procedure on the
implementation and transition of appointments to the State Board of
Education (section 2) and also deletes and adds words in section 1. She
again reinforced her statement that she is not bringing this bill as
partisanship, but as a bill that is in the best interests of children.



When asked about the board members, she said there would be three
from each party, making six members, and the 7th member could be from
any party.



After some discussion, Senator Werk made the motion to send S 1354 to
the 14th Order. Senator Malepeai seconded the motion. A voice vote
indicated the majority voted in the affirmative. Voting no were Senators
Noble, Goedde, and Gannon. Senator Werk will be the sponsor.

S 1406 Mr. Bob Henry said the purpose of this bill is to not allow a new charter
school to be placed within two miles of an existing charter school. In
Nampa, a new charter school, which mirrors the existing charter school,
would be about 100 yards away. The new charter school has been
approved by the State Board of Education. The existing school did not
ask the Nampa School Board for approval of expansion. It is felt the
schools are taking advantage of the funding formula for charter schools.
The new school first indicated its location would be over two miles away,
then after getting approval, it changed its location next to the existing
school. Chairman Schroeder asked Ms. Allison McClintick, from the State
Board Office, to look into that matter and report back.



Mr. Henry said he would be receptive to the bill being sent to the
amending order if that is what the committee chooses to do.

Testimony Ms. Laurie Boechel said that she is a Nampa parent, concerned about the
children of Nampa. She said after reading the papers, listening to the
rumors, and going to board meetings, she has formed an opinion about
what is going on in Nampa regarding charter schools. She said she has
been lied to by various individuals when she tried to get information. Ms.
Boechel said this issue does have to do with funding and it is taking away
from the majority of students in the state. She also said it is not about a
school district trustee(s) against kids. It is about a group of individuals
that are trying to railroad and take the majority of the funding for a few at
the expense of the majority and she is very offended by this. This bill will
help to not have a campus of elitists and to give the opportunity to all the
children in Nampa.
Welcome Chairman Schroeder welcomed the two instructors and their group of
students from Sandpoint Charter School. He encouraged the students to
apply to the Senate to become Pages next year.
Senator Gannon said he would like to make an observation regarding the
bill before any motions are made. He said this bill is aimed at solving a
problem and is much more complex than what this language would
address.



Senator Goedde requested that Tim Hill, Financial Bureau Chief for the
SDE, explain ADA (average daily attendance) and charter funding.



Mr. Hill reminded the committee about the three legged stool of funding
(which he refers to in making presentations). First, the size of the
program
. The larger the program, the less per ADA you receive. Second,
who you hire. The more experience and education of the teachers, the
more money you get. Third, who you teach. Kindergarten averages are
about $2,150 per student; elementary – $4,000; secondary – $5,000;
alternative secondary – $7,000. Mr. Hill said there is a wide range of per
ADA amounts. The average ADA for all 13 charter schools last year was
$8,500. Nine of the 13 received above average – four received less. The
same pattern exists with public schools.



Senator Goedde asked how charter schools are “super funded”. Mr. Hill
said the majority of charter schools are smaller in programs, so the first
advantage they get is smaller divisors, meaning they require less ADA to
get a support unit. Second, charter schools lean towards less experience
in education (teachers) than the state average. They are exempt from the
“use it or loose it” for instructional staff and all categories. The third
component is who they teach.



Senator Noh asked the total enrollment of charter schools. Mr. Hill said
the enrollment for last year was 3,000 and the estimate for this year is
3,500.

Motion and vote Senator Gannon made the motion to hold S 1406 in committee. Senator
Noble seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated the motion passed
unanimously.



The Chairman asked Senator Werk if he would assist Mr. Henry in writing
a new bill regarding this issue. Senator Werk agreed to do that.

Announcements Chairman Schroeder announced that the committee would meet at 8 a.m.
on Monday, March 15.



He also thanked Senator Darlene Andreason for the good job she has
done in substituting for her husband, Senator John Andreason.

Adjournment The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:25 a.m.






DATE: March 15, 2004
TIME: 8:00 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






None
MINUTES: Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.



He asked Representative Eskridge to present his bill.

H 728a Representative Eskridge said that while the technology waiver is in code,
there was not a process to allow for it and this bill will do that. He said
several teachers in his district had requested this. The bill will allow for an
educator to be granted a waiver, but may never be granted more than one
waiver and it may not extend beyond five years. This act will be void after
July 1, 2009.



Senator Keough, co-sponsor of the bill, provided three handouts: (1) a
copy of Rule 08-0202-0201, 03. b ; (2) a memorandum from Dr. Mike
Stefanic “Regarding Technology Requirement for Certificate Renewal”; (3)
1daho Statutes, Title 33-1207A, SDE Waiver List, and other waiver
information.



Senator Keough said that while it is important for educators to be
technology proficient, it is also important to recognize that sometimes
there needs to be a waiver process. There are times when the
technology competency requirement is not relevant.

Motion and vote After some discussion, Senator Malepeai made the motion to send H
728a to the floor with a do pass recommendation. Senator McWilliams
seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated it passed unanimously.
Senator Keough will be the sponsor of this bill.
Recognition Chairman Schroeder asked the Page, Michelle Knox, to come forward.
He then presented her with a letter of recommendation, signed by all the
committee members. The Chairman also presented Michelle with a
Senate watch.
S 1444 Chairman Schroeder said that he, Senator Gannon and Senator
McWilliams are the sponsors of S 1444, relating to charter schools.



The Chairman led the discussion regarding this bill. He said they are
suggesting the following changes to the bill:



Page 1: Changes word “all” to “any”.



Page 2: Definition section. Defines: Authorized Chartering entity; charter,
founder, petition, public charter school, public virtual school, traditional
public school.



Page 3: Limits newly chartered public schools to not more than six per
year.

(1) Adds language (lines 20 and 23), which provides that if a public
charter school is proposed which incorporates two or more school
districts, the charter petition shall be submitted to the board of trustees of
the school district in which the primary attendance area of the proposed
charter school lies.

(2) Lines 28-30, allows charter schools to contract with for-profit entities
for provision of products or services.

(3) Provides that trustees cannot grant charters if the school’s physical
location is outside the boundaries of the authorizing school district.

(4) Provides that a charter for a virtual school may be granted by the
public charter school commission.

(5) Provides that OSBE shall adopt rules, subject to law, to establish a
consistent application and review process for the approval and
maintenance of all public charter schools.

(6) Allows a public charter school chartered by the public charter school
commission to designated as a local education agency as that term is
defined in federal code.



Provides that public charter schools are subject to Idaho’s bribery and
corrupt influence Act, Prohibitions against contract with officers code,
ethics in government code, open public meetings laws, and disclosure of
public records laws.



On lines 26-30, provides that districts have no liability for acts, omissions,
debts, etc.



Bottom page 4, top of page 5; provides that charter schools shall be
subject to same pecuniary interest laws, etc. as are non-charter public
schools.



Page 5: 33-5204a…. Section on applicability of professional codes and

standards.



Page 6: Cleanup language except that it provides that a charter petition
shall include the process by which the citizens in the area of attendance
shall be made aware of the enrollment opportunities of the public charter
school.



Top of page 7: Provides that founders shall be guaranteed 10 percent of
capacity of charter school.



Provides that in when more children apply than for which there are slots, a
lottery will be held. Each family shall be allowed to enter one name. As
the names are drawn, the siblings of that child shall also be given
preference.



There will be no carry-over of lists from year-to-year and a new lottery
shall be conducted each year to fill vacancies.



Two or more persons not associated with the school, in any way, shall
conduct the lottery.



Page 8: Cleanup language. Strikes language that talks about appeal to
OSBE, since appeals will now be to the Charter School Commission.



Page 9: Cleanup language. Strikes language which provides for the
superintendent to select a hearing officer, since appeal will be going to
Commission. Provides that the commission shall hold a public hearing
within a reasonable time after receiving notice of such appeal. Provides
that charter schools for which the Commission has granted charters, shall
qualify fully a public charter school for funding, etc.



Page 10/11: Chartering agency charged with ensuring that school for
which it grants charters operate in accordance with charter. Charter
school or authorized chartering entity may enter into negotiations to revise
charter at any time. Authorized chartering entity’s review of revised
petition limited to proposed revisions.



Lines 28-30 provide that chartering entity…shall provide charter school
written notices of defects and provide reasonable opportunity to cure
defect.



Provides that charter may be revoked if charter school has failed to cure
defect(s) after receiving reasonable notice and having reasonable
opportunity to cure the defect. Revocation may not occur until a hearing
is held…unless there exists an imminent public safety issue, then school
can be closed immediately. Public hearings shall be conducted by
chartering entity…in accordance with 67-5242 (Procedure at
hearing)…..Appeal can be made to OSBE….Reversals of local decisions
shall cause schools to be placed under the authority of Commission.



Page 11: Provides for financial reporting



Page 12: Creates public charter school commission. Seven members,
three current or former school board trustees, three current or former
members of board of directors of charter schools. All appointed by
Governor, subject to senate confirmation. These six select the seventh
member….Appointed by Governor, Senate approval. Provides staggered
offices.



Page 13: Severability clause. Provides for schools in existence,
emergency clause.
















Testimony
Following Chairman Schroeder’s explanation, testimony was taken. First
to testify was Ms. Jan Sylvester. Inserted in the minutes is a copy of her
testimony.



I oppose S 1444 for the following reasons:

The intent of the law on page 1 line 40 has been changed from “all” to “any.” I
believe the following three items should remain in the law.

.item (1) Improve student learning

.item (6) Provide parents and students with expanded choices in the types of

educational opportunities that are available within the public school system

.item (7) Hold the schools established under this chapter accountable for meeting

measurable student educational standards.



The time limits for a charter have been eliminated, page 10 lines 19-25. All of the
states that currently have charter school laws have a time limit for a charter. The
reason for the elimination of the time limit is unclear and I do not see how it is to
the advantage of any of the parties involved.



The admission defined on page 8 lines 19-24 is contradictory. It says admission
to a public charter school shall not based on where a student resides within the
district except a charter school can create an attendance area and base
admission to the school on where a student resides within the district. This area
of the law requires clarification as it caused several problems for the North Star
Charter school authorized by the Meridian School District.



Also, page 7 lines 40-42, asks for a public school attendance alternative for
students residing within the school district who choose not to attend the public
charter school. This only applies to conversion charter schools. If the charter
school were a new school the students who choose not to attend the public
charter school would continue to attend the school that they were already
attending.



There are several terms in the bill that are not included in the definition section.

.page 2 line 16 multi district virtual public schools

.page 3 line 23 primary attendance area

.page 5 line 51 service area designated in the petition

.page 6 line 48-49 area of attendance

.page 8 line 2 non charter school

.page 2 line 36 ‘public virtual school’ is already in use for a public virtual school



Page 3, lines 20-23, creates a partial district-partial district charter school. It is not
clear whether this has to include the entire district of one of the districts.



Page 4, lines 31-37 allows a charter school to borrow money to lease a building
and use the furnishings of the building as collateral. This is misleading
information for potential petitioners.



Page 5, line 51, says a petition has to have signatures of qualified electors of a
service area. This creates a situation where the trustees of one school district will
grant a charter based on the input of patrons from another school district. This is
not good policy.



The dual enrollment has changed. On page 8, lines 1-4, it says eligible students
shall participate in dual enrollment in non charter schools within the same district
as the public charter school, as provided for in section 33-203(7), Idaho Code. If
there is a service area of district A and part of district B does this mean students
coming from district B can only dual enroll in non charter schools in district A ?
Why do charter school students qualify for dual enrollment?

Minor corrections:

Page 12, line 4, petition to charter

Page 12, line 6, petition to charter



One concern frequently raised about the charter school law, by the authorizers
and the petitioners, is the lack of clarity in several parts of the law. S 1444 fails to
clarify several of the previous concerns and adds several more. Idaho charter
authorizers and petitioners need clarification of the current law in order to create
high quality charter schools for the students of Idaho.

Testimony Testifying next was Cliff Green, Executive Director, Idaho School Boards
Association. Inserted in the minutes is a copy of his testimony.

Good Morning Chairman Schroeder, committee members. For the record,
I am Cliff Green and I represent the Idaho School Boards Association.

As you know well through our work with this committee and the house
education committee, ISBA has been involved with charter schools and
charter school issues since the original law was passed. Interestingly ISBA
has, on occasion been criticized for being “anti-charter school.”

Before providing this committee with our testimony on the merits of this
bill I would like to take a few minutes to dispel this misnomer and clarify
our support by reiterating the position that the ISBA membership has
taken on charter schools.

ISBA supports charter schools public school choice available to parents.
Moreover, we fully support and celebrate the success of Idaho’s public
charter schools.

We do, however, have concerns about the lack of clarity and direction of
current charter school law. We are not anti-charter school, we are
interested in laws that are clear, concise and thorough.

As many of you may remember last session, ISBA in partnership with the
Idaho Charter School Network, brought a piece of legislation which
addressed many items of concern expressed by all parties involved.

It should be notable because the RS was presented and debated four times
(C4) before being sent to print and eventually becoming S1169. I must
admit it was an education in process and protocol for me.

Unfortunately, even though S1169 passed the senate, the bill did not get a
hearing in the House Education Committee.

In an effort to continue to address these concerns, over the summer ISBA
met with representatives of the Idaho Charter Network. Unfortunately, the
meetings with the network did not result in agreement. So here we are, a
year later, and hopefully, a bit wiser for the experience.

ISBA would like to commend all the participants in the current process for
working towards a solution which takes into account traditional as well as
charter school needs and will be acceptable to all parties involved.

Our hope is that once charter school legislation is passed and the law is
clarified, the rancor that exists between a few of Idaho’s charter schools
and their granting authorities will cease and we can all get about the
business of educating our children.

In that spirit, the ISBA board believes the bill before you today has some
excellent proposed changes. I will highlight a few for you:

First, the bill provides a definition by federal citation of LEA and a
requirement that the charter commission shall designate the charter school
granted on appeal as their own LEA.

Currently, regardless of whether the charter is granted by the local board
of trustees or the State Board of Education the LEA is by definition, albeit
ambiguous, the school district in which the charter physically resides. The
granting of a charter by the State Board of Education places a burden on
the resident district of the charter for which it currently has no remedy or
control
.

The net result of the change in law is that liability and federal funding
follow the granting authority. If a charter is granted by a district, the
district has liability conversely if a charter is granted on appeal by the
commission the charter school accepts the liability.

The bottom line, ISBA believes that the liability should follow the
governance responsibility; this bill accomplishes that.

Next, the charter school commission. The ISBA Executive Board met and
voted to support the concept of a charter commission with the provisions
for a limitation of six charters per year and one per district and an
acceptable commission makeup. This bill creates a well balanced
commission and addresses those concerns.

ISBA supports the concept preserving local control which would be
accomplished by districts being the sole point of entry for charter petitions
prior to a hearing by the commission. The commission will serve and
important function as an appellate board and granting authority working in
concert with local school boards. We believe the preservation of local
control through a publicly elected board is good public policy.

Other items in this bill ISBA supports include accountability measures,
clarification in the lottery process, advertising vacancies, prohibition of
directors having a pecuniary interest, and most importantly allowing both
the charter school and granting authority the ability to open the charter and
negotiate at any time. I would encourage you to look over our positions.

I would be remiss in my responsibility if I did not mention that even with
the good things in this bill there are other areas of concern voiced by the
board which are not included in this particular bill and still need to be
addressed.

As the good Senator Marley from Pocatello mentioned in JFAC, the “train
was on the track, get on or get run over.” ISBA recognized that the IDVA
funding bill had the inertia to pass handily, and it did 15-3-1. Even so,
ISBA still has philosophical concerns about IDVA funding. As one board
member said “Do you think the next time that our district is running in the
red, we can come to the legislature and ask for help?”

There fore, ISBA would like to make a public request to have OPE study
the affect of the finding formula on traditional, charter and virtual schools
over the next year to determine if the formula is working for all of public
education.

Other areas not included are transportation, attendance zones, and
inclusion of the articles of incorporation and by-laws in the charter
petition.

Clearly, the good in this bill outweighs the omissions and again, I would
like to thank the people who have worked together to draft this bill and
additionally would like to reiterate ISBA supports charter schools another
public school choice available to Idaho parents.

In closing, I would like to take a few more minutes of this committees
time to announce that at our regularly scheduled meeting in September, the
Executive Board of the ISBA voted to approve an Affiliate Membership in
our association for charter schools and their directors.

Upon affirmation of the membership, the new Affiliate program will
provide access to many of our services which heretofore have not been
available to charter schools – services such as including:

membership in the ISBA property, liability, and school leaders’ and
educators’ errors and omissions insurance pool,

as well as board training workshops and curriculum,

national and state publications,

policy services, as well as

a myriad of additional services.

We applaud your work and look forward to a positive working relationship
with Idaho’s public charter schools.

Thank you and I will now stand for questions.



Testifying next was Ms. Cindy Schiller, a concerned citizen.

Testimony Ms. Schiller said she had three concerns. (1) The definition of founders.
(2) The appointed commission. (3) Charter schools promoting private
enterprise. Ms. Schiller said she is in support of most of the bill, but there
are some issues that need addressed. She doesn’t want the concept of
charter schools ruined by a few that are doing things inappropriately. Ms.
Schiller said that we can write all the laws in the world, but it is still getting
the schools to follow them and hopefully this bill will take care of that.
She appreciates being allowed to provide input to the committee and said
it has been an interesting process.
There was further discussion by the committee on this bill. The Chairman
said he would ask Ms. Susan Bennion, Legislative Services, to attend the
noon meeting to answer any technical questions.
Recess Chairman Schroeder announced that the committee would recess until
approximately noon (or when the Senate adjourns).
Call to order Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 12:10 p.m. to continue
hearing S 1444.
Ms. Bennion was asked to give an analysis of the bill. She said
improvements could be made on the bill, but feels there is nothing fatal.
She also spoke about the lottery with ten percent of the seats going to the
founders and the second priority going to siblings.
Dr. Bob West, SDE, talked about LEAs (Local Education Agency). As it is
now, charter schools are schools within a district. A charter school
chartered by the charter school commission would be designated as a
LEA. Presently, federal funds go through the school district to charter
schools. Under the proposed bill, federal funds would go directly to the
LEA. Dr. West also addressed Title I allocations.
Senator Goedde had questions regarding students with disabilities
attending charter schools and the responsibilities of the chartering entity.
It was noted that the language in the bill was recommended by the State
Board.
There was discussion regarding low income children being able to attend
charter schools. The Chairman said he had a bill to provide up-front
transportation costs to charter schools, as transportation was a concern
voiced by many parents that have contacted him. Also, a lunch program
is needed in many of the charter schools. Chairman Schroeder felt if
these two items were made available, it would increase the involvement of
children heretofore excluded because of logistical and economic reasons.
Motion Senator Gannon made the motion to send S 1444 to the floor with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Werk seconded the motion.
Substitute
Motion
Senator Goedde made a substitute motion to send S 1444 to the 14th
Order. He then explained what he felt needed to be considered.



His first concern was changing the word “all” to “any”. He suggested the
wording “a majority”. His other concerns were the designations of LEAs
and the lottery.

Discussion on
the motion
The committee discussed ways the lottery could be conducted, such as to
whether to maintain a list from year-to-year or start each school year with
a new list. Advertizing by the charter schools to notify parents was also
discussed. Senator McWilliams said the notification procedure set forth in
the bill is written very broadly. It allows the charter school quite a bit of
discretion as to how they are going to provide that notice to the public. If
a list is established, that process should be spelled out. There are some
parents who will not receive the notice.

Further discussion of LEAs continued.

Senator Andreason seconded the substitute motion.

Roll call vote on
substitute
motion
Chairman Schroeder said a roll call vote would be taken on the substitute
motion to send S 1444 to the 14th Order. Voting aye were Senators
Malepeai, Goedde, and Andreason. Voting nay were Senators Werk,
Noble, McWilliams, Noh, Gannon, and Schroeder. The motion failed 3-6.
Roll call vote on
motion
Chairman Schroeder said a roll call vote would be taken on the motion to
send S 1444 to the floor with a do pass recommendation. Voting aye
were Senators Malepeai, Werk, Noble, McWilliams, Goedde, Noh,
Gannon, and Schroeder. Voting nay was Senator Andreason. The
motion carried 8-1. Chairman Schroeder said he would be the sole
sponsor on the floor, but would direct specific questions to the co-sponsors in their area of expertise.

Senator Goedde said he wished to reserve the right to debate the bill on
the floor.

Senator Malepeai said he would like to give a word of caution. He is
worried about the direction education is going and is also worried about
two levels of public schools being established. He feels the changes are
dramatic and need much review.

The Chairman said he fully expects this bill to come back amended with
the Commission having the authority to put charters in local districts on
the state level without any input from local folks.

Announcements Chairman Schroeder said any further meetings would be at the call of the
chairman. He expressed disappointment that some issues did not get
resolved.

Senator Andreason asked if the finance part of this bill, S 1444 would be
heard. The Chairman suggested that anyone wanting that information
should talk to Jason Hancock, a budget analysis.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m.






DATE: March 20, 2004
TIME: 8:00 am
PLACE: Room 433
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman Schroeder, Vice Chairman Gannon, Senators Noh, Andreason,
Goedde, McWilliams, Noble, Werk, Malepeai
MEMBERS
ABSENT/

EXCUSED:






None
S 1444aa Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. He said the
purpose of the meeting was for the committee to discuss the amendments
to S 1444, as amended, as amended in the House. There will be no
public testimony taken unless to answer a specific question from a
committee member.



The Chairman said the first significant change to the bill was the definition
of charter (page 2, line 18). S 1444 defines charter as “the grant of
authority approved by the authorized chartering entity to the board of
directors of the public charter school”. Language removed from the
original bill was “constituting a written contract”. The Chairman said
removing this phrase does not take them into the contract laws and
therefore removes a tool the districts presently have to get people to
comply with laws.



Senator Gannon requested that someone from the Governor’s Office
reply as to why this part was removed.



Mr. Brian Whitlock, from the Governor’s Office, said that there are other
areas of this law that speak to signatures provided on documents, so the
intent is there, an agreement is in place. He said he was not sure what
the word “contract” actually does in terms of a 501C3 status in the IRS
relationship with contracts.



The Chairman said he has heard, in the last few days, to not be
concerned about the word “contract” being taken out of the bill, because
that provision is in other parts of the bill. His observation is – “If it is in
other parts of the bill, why not leave it where it was?” This is one issue
that he said he didn’t understand. Mr. Whitlock replied that he focused
more on substantive issues that were on the table and did not push the
issue of written agreement contract or the definition section. He stated
that he had a certain degree of comfort that it was addressed in other
parts of the bill.



Senator McWilliams’ comments concerning 501C3 was that the status is
rather confusing because non profits contract all the time; however, the
significance is by taking the language out, you remove the potential of a
legal written contract.

Senator Noh questioned Mr. Whitlock on his earlier statement saying that
a written agreement contract was not a significant part of the new bill and
focused more on other issues, yet a portion of the earlier bill clearly
reflected that a great deal of thought and legal work went into that bill.
Senator Noh said it was difficult to accept the concept that it is not an
important provision. Chairman Schroeder said he envisioned a charter as
a written contract and that was why it was put in the bill and he also feels
that was the intent of the people who wrote the original charter school bill.
Chairman Schroeder said the next issue was on page 3, lines 42-45,
regarding LEA and children with disabilities. If a charter school is placed
in a district, over the objections of the school board, the local taxpayers
will not have to come up with additional money to pay for part of the
charter school. The Chairman feels this language is appropriate. Senator
Goedde said this language makes the State Board responsible for
designation of an LEA in those instances. Senator Andreason said it
would be a decision by JFAC by default, because no one else has the
responsibility.
Senator Gannon asked if an individual family could request funding to
comply with the American Disabilities Act in accommodating their child as
student in IDVA with a disability. It was noted the IDVA was designated as
an LEA, so it is their responsibility.
Senator Werk had a concern regarding the language on page 3, lines 31-37, where it refers to the public charter school’s physical location outside
the boundaries of the authorizing school district. This question was
referred to Ms. Susan Bennion, Legislative Services. She stated that she
believed that in the future, there would not be the authority for the local
board to grant such a charter, but she was unsure of the status of the
existing charter schools.
The Chairman said the next issue was on page 4.
Senator Noh provided a handout for the committee which was the Articles
of Incorporation for the Idaho Virtual Academy. He said the reason for
calling this to the committee’s attention has to do with his general
concerns about ethics. Senator Noh said he has two Memorandums of
Understanding that were signed by Ms. Aikele and Peter Stewart. On April
17, one was between Butte County School District and the Academy.
Then on the same day, one was signed by Mr. Stewart as an employee of
K12 and Butte County School District. Senator Noh noted the filing date
was June 20. Information provided to him indicated that Ms. Aikele
became an employee of K12 on April 29. This indicates that the three
incorporators of the Virtual Academy were two employees of K12 and Mr.
Bill Roden. Senator Noh feels that Peter Stewart from McLean, Virginia
was probably a marketing employee for K12, who then signed the MOU
as a founder of the Virtual Academy. The Senator said it is an interesting
situation – two employees of K12 incorporating the Virtual Academy, when
they are employees of the contractor. Senator Noh said that should raise
a new level of awareness. Senator Andreason asked if that would make
them a subsidiary (IDVA, a subsidiary of K12).



Senator Noh said the language on top of page 4 lists the sections of
Idaho Code to which the public charter schools would be subject to. Not
included are those provisions of the contracting law which speak to the
influencing of the outcome of a contract. The Senate passed S 1309,
which Senator Noh was the sponsor of this ethics bill, and was referred to
the House State Affairs committee on March 4 and hasn’t moved. He
feels, without an ethics law or a provision for ethics in this bill, it will let
charter schools off the hook. His concern is that without this provision, it
is a fatal flaw.



Chairman Schroeder stated it was felt that Senator Noh’s bill, S 1309,
would pass, but in his opinion, there were concerted efforts to make sure
some of the ethics bills were not passed this year.

The Chairman said the next issue for consideration is that of local control,
(Page 6, lines 1-6). He said there was the potential for a group to bypass
the local school board by presenting a charter they knew would not be
acceptable, then going to the Commission with a different charter.



Also discussed was the 30 day time frame. Senator Goedde said that in
his district, with everyone cooperating, it took approximately five months
to get an agreeable document with both sides. After some discussion, it
was determined that it would be impossible to reach an agreement within
30 days. Ms. Bennion said that in the original bill, there was a hearing
within 30 days, and the board of trustees had 60 days to make their
decision and this bill just says 30 days. She said it should have indicated
there was an extension of time.

Senator Gannon questioned the terminology of “meeting open to the
public” vs. a “hearing”. Also, the location of where the meeting is to be
held was not stipulated (in the local town where the charter is applicable
or where the Commission meets [Boise]).
The lottery process was discussed next (page 7). Mr. Kent Kunz, from
the Governor’s Office, was asked to comment regarding this issue. He
said, “We educate children in the state of Idaho one kid at a time. Each
kid is individual and have their own individual lives and the intent of this
bill is to provide the opportunity for parents to get the type of education
delivery system they decide, at that most local level – the parent/child
relationship that they want. We educate children, individually, not by
families, and so if there are seven children in a room, it would be fair if all
seven had the same equal chance, even though six came from one set of
biological parents and one from another set.”



Chairman Schroeder said the way the bill is written allows the people to
spell out in their petition how they want a lottery process. Bills dealing
with open elections and outside people conducting lotteries were killed in
the House Ed committee. He stated that it tells him people want public
money to run public schools, but want a very closed system to do what
they want.

The appeal process and hearing officer was the next point of discussion.
When asked why it was included, Mr. Whitlock replied that it was one
more avenue to pursue and the hearing officer is a fact-finder. In some
instances, it may be helpful to have an independent third party to sort
through some contentious issues.
Chairman Schroeder then asked the committee to look at page 10, lines
42-44. This was worked out by Dr. Cliff Green, ISBA, and the Governor’s
Office.



The Chairman then talked about the ethics code and requirements. He
said all of Section 14 was removed and the effect is that all charter
schools must comply with provisions of S1444 as amended, as amended.
Ms. Bennion agreed with the Chairman’s analysis.

Chairman Schroeder said he wanted to talk about the change made to the
Charter School Commission. The change allows the Governor to appoint
all seven. It had been recommended that the six member Commission
elect the seventh member. The Commission will be made up of three
Public School board members (or former members), three board
members from Charter Schools, and a seventh member. The Senate
Education Committee will make recommendations on the nominations,
then the full Senate votes on those recommendations.



In summary, the Chairman said he feels this bill changes the Idaho
charter school law substantially, but does not say anything about the
present charter schools. He said he has visited several charter schools
and these schools were started by people who had a vision and an idea.
They put their money, hours, and lives into these schools to educate kids
and do the right thing. We have now moved into another area. This area
is companies using children to make money. It is called EMOs —
Education Management Organizations. This will allow companies from
out-of-state running schools in your community, granted by a state board
in Boise, at a cost about 25 percent higher than if those children were in
the public schools.



The Chairman said the question before the committee is – “Are we going
to have enough money as this expands so that we can still adequately
fund public schools or are we going to have to take it out of the public
school budget to fund it?”

Motion and vote Senator Gannon made the motion to send S 1444aa to the floor with a
recommendation to reject the amendments made by the House. Senator
Noh seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated the majority approved
the motion. Voting nay were Senators Goedde and Noble. Senator
Cameron is the sponsor of this bill.
Acknowledge-ments and

Adjournment

Chairman Schroeder said he wished to commend the committee
members and the secretary for all their hard work this session. He also
expressed his thanks to Senator Noh who is retiring after 24 years in the
Senate. Senators Gannon and Andreason also expressed their gratitude
to Senator Noh. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 a.m.