|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
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
After the reauthorization of ESEA of 1965 now known as NCLB came
into effect, a different mentality has swept the country, and has certainly
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
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.
September 19, 2003
Gary Stivers, Executive Director
Office of the State Board of Education
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
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.
Superintendent of Public Instruction
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
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.
Gary W. Stivers
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.
Monday, January 26, 2004
1 p.m., Gold Room, 4th Floor of the Capitol
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
7. Office of Performance Evaluation -Residency Requirements & Pupil
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
charges brought against a public officer, employee, staff member or individual
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.
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)