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 – |
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 |
|
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 |
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 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 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 Senator Schroeder asked Mr. McKnight to provide him with a copy of the |
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 The Chairman noted that there are several handouts in folders for all Chairman Schroeder said that each day this week, someone from the |
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 |
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 Congressional Record -House, Appendix, Oct.20, 1951 (pgs.A6964-A6965) World Education Forum. Dakar. Senegal Apri12000 (Unesco} -The Dakar (78 pgs.) Can be downloaded from www.edwatch.org (International Source) The 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 Another Polvtechnical Book- ” School-To-Work Opportunities In The Middle 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 2) Restructuring Assessment No more tradional tests, now assessments that build electronic resumes on each 3) Reorganizing the Workplace TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT –Everyone is a team player and make SCHOOL- TO- WORK OPPORTUNITIES STATE IMPLEMENTATION GRANT Contract between the State of Idaho and the U.S.Department of Labor- June 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 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 Federal Curriculum -NCLB, Sec, 2344 “We the People Program, The Citizen and Human Right Education in Idaho -K -12 Social Studies correlated to the Idaho Achievements Standards. The Children are being indoctrinated with the UN 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 Statistics, data collection on students, teachers and families STUDENT/PUPIL ACCOUNTING –Data collected on children and adults since |
|
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 Another question was what would happen if Idaho chose to opt out of |
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 |
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 Business has these expectations for several reasons. Our public schools are 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 education system; and providing assistance in school bond elections. The business community should continue to partner with all education POLICY: IACI will participate in the public education discussion by bringing the development of public policies that enhance the systemic restructuring and |
|
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 My name is Jan Lang. I am a fourth grade teacher at Edgemont Elementary failing. When I returned to teaching in the fall of 2003, I was surprised to learn that And then the Albertson’s Foundation printed a report, a neat little insert in our Then the day Christmas break started, another article in the newspaper We have spent hours in faculty meetings this year scrutinizing RIT scores and There are a lot of problems with No Child Left Behind and I don’t know whose job *I worry because there is a budget crisis in Idaho. There’s not enough money *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 *I worry that there are no guidelines for overcrowding in schools that receive *1 worry that rural schools can offer no choice for failing versus succeeding *I worry that supplemental services for failing schools don’t need to be highly *I worry that research based reading programs are not going to include all 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 The AYP mantra seems to be PRODUCE OR BE REPLACED. One school in I am worried and frustrated, kind of like Mattie. I have had the opportunity to be 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 In Idaho this so-called No Child Left Behind act makes high stakes decisions And while the federal government requires adequate yearly progress for schools, The federal government also says, “95% of every group of students must take In Idaho there are 36 ways for schools to demonstrate AYP. There are 36 ways The federal law requires every group of students to meet AYP. Schools with a The so-called NCLB act has promised equal education for all but it’s a one-size The President has asked for a $1 billion increase in Title I, but the research The so-called NCLB accountability system assumes that improved standardized This law needs to be fixed. We offer these 4 suggestions to begin to fix NCLB and increase chances of 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 3. Add a clause to the law that specifies that multiple measures of student 4. Make the law’s sanctions regimen more less punitive, more flexible and If enacted we believe these changes will help improve chances of success for Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this issue so critical to public |
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, Commission to bring forward recommendations in this area. Northwest Evaluation Association was selected as the vendor to administer to the Process used to build the ISAT (Validity) The spring version of the ISAT entails numerous steps to ensure that the test is I. The process begins with the valid Northwest Evaluation Association test and 2. Next, Idaho teachers and content specialists from the State Department of 3. The teachers and SDE content specialists review each test question and 4. Next, the questions are checked by several teams at NWEA for potential 5. Each new item is then field tested with Idaho students and compared 6. Items that show a cultural bias toward a particular group or show high 7. Questions that pass this validity and reliability process are then compiled into a 8. More teachers and the SDE content specialists are brought together to select 9. The teachers continue to select items to build the entire on-grade level portion 10. As a last step, a group of Idaho citizens, representing ethnic, racial and 11. Additional items are chosen and the SDE content specialists review and ISAT related to state standards Alignment Study Summary The alignment of ISAT to Idaho Standards represents the degree to which the First level of alignment -Do the questions on the ISAT link to Idaho 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
8th Reading
lOth Reading
4th Math
8th Math
lOth Math
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 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. Reliability -The ability to provide consistent results when measuring the student~ Reliability Question: Would a student who took a test several times get the Coefficient Alpha -This statistical test that provides a measurement of reliability. 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 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. Why have an exit exam? Supporting Research The Center on Education Policy report on exit exams in August 2003, reviewed The body of research regarding exit exams in largely inconclusive on whether While many states have had exit exams for two decades, the type of exam has Minimum Competency Exams -generally focus on basic skills below the high Standards-Based Exams -are aligned with state standards and are generally End-of-Course Exams -are tied to the content of specific courses at the high 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 .Some studies conclude that exit exams are associated with higher dropout rates, .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 .”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 Teaching and Curriculum .Exit exams encourage schools to cover more of the content in state standards, .The Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) concluded in a .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 .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 states where Amrein and Berliner found decreases). .Camoy and Loeb (Stanford researchers) assert that exit exams have 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 Legal issues OSBE staff reviewed a study of legal issues related to exit exams. The list below .Issue One: “instructional validity” -this represents a close correspondence o Protective action: as outlined in construction steps outline above .Issue Two: “access to learning” -giving enough time and exposure to newly 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 o Protective action: The legislature has appropriated $4.5 million for the last .Issue Four: “errors in scoring” o Protective action: Staff from OSBE and SDE conducts regular training for 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, 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 I am here today to talk about the ISAT as a requirement for high school 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 We are: Dr. David Francis, areas of expertise, assessment and reading, 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 representatives of the testing company, the Northwest Evaluation Association. These are the things we are concerned about in making sure that the test given 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 will lose. I am not an attorney but there are some court cases that clearly show states have experienced challenges to withholding diplomas on the basis of a 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 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 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 5. That students of whom passage is required for graduation had the opportunity 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 You might ask, how did we get to where we are today- in some disagreement The Standards and Assessment Commission had originally planned for a test The members of the assessment commission and the company itself believed Now a problem emerged. NWEA had no experience as a company with NWEA agreed to develop on-level on-grade tests as part of a compliance 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 I have expressed on a number of times my frustration and that of my staff of not The company assures us that they are putting into place processes that won’t The SDE has filled in many gaps. We have written technical manuals for them. All of these actions are done with the goal of strengthening the credibility of the There are a number of concerns about whether the tests are appropriate for 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 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 Is the test valid? Dr. Thompson said that it sorts students just as well as other http ://www.idahoboardofed.orgsaa/isat/reliability.asp. Answering the question of (Insert: When the SDE compared the scores of 4th and 8th graders to those of I am here today to say that we are working to make the ISAT a strong test. It is The SDE is not saying this should never be an exiting test. We are saying not 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 The SDE believes that what we measure gets taught. We further believe that it is |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 There are those who will argue that allowing multiple opportunities to take a test Our assessment system should include the ISAT as one of multiple ways a Independent validity and reliability studies have yet to be completed. The one independent evaluation of ISAT, the NW Regional Education Laboratories Leffler The recent decision of the SBE to require successful completion of the ISAT for Research shows that high stakes/exit tests lead to increased dropout rates. At In addition, that same study shared at the SBE meeting stated that such high As the report states, “the research to date makes plain that exit exams are Even more alarming, a recent study conducted by the Education Policy Studies Laboratory found that after high-stakes graduation exams were implemented in We realize that a number of decisions that went into development of the rules We’re concerned that hinging graduation on successful completion of the ISAT Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this issue so critical to Idaho’s public |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 We welcome the commitment to systematically test student achievement in our However, we would consider it the gravest of injustices if our students were system is meeting its own standards can the ISAT be appropriately used to hold In particular, the school system must do its part to close the gap between the half. At least since the time of a consent decree in the wake of a federal court ruling We note that an unintended consequence of the ISAT could be to increase the context of high stakes testing. We declare our united and deep resolve to hold the state education system As leaders, educators and parents we also recognize the fundamental We also commit ourselves to working with the legislature and others who hold 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 Unfortunately, the passengers are Idaho’s children. The passengers need to Last week, I participated as a teacher-member of the ISAT test building session. I Specifically, I helped to create and edit 8th grade tests measuring language based on capitalization, spelling, and punctuation. Admittedly, these are valuable Furthermore, the test bank, a list of questions from which we, the test-builders, The CRASH: when analyzed, ALL academic levels, from elementary to high 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 Another solution is to land the plane right now. Reevaluate the ISAT and what 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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 that they have done something wrong? Last week, this comment was made by an eight year old, “Learning is so much 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 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, 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 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 assessments should help improve teaching and learning by creating high We have been discussing the No Child Left Behind Act and it’s requirements appropriate accommodations and modifications. Every child’s Individual students may need to participate in an alternate assessment. An alternate Until recent comprehensive school reform and it’s supporting federal legislation, it In response to federal mandates of school reform and as per the requirements of The Performance Goals and Indicators for children with disabilities established 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 Some concerns that were mentioned yesterday in testimony are very important to IEP teams will be making some very difficult decisions, and all team members, opportunities. District representatives need to be able to explain the district’s The State Bureau of Special Education has been working with stakeholders to The Joint Task Force on Achievement Standards and Assessments for Students The group also helped to development guidelines for making accommodations Another group of educators, administrators, professionals and parents have been As a person who has participated in both of these workgroups, I am hopeful that |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 |
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 say we don’t want to offer those subjects, electives or extra curricular activities. least a small school district will provide a complete set of services. By funding governing school boards. Saying we don’t have to listen to your requests and Liberty’s leadership continues to be involved in other legal issues and seems to people a bad taste for charter schools and we know there are successful charter |
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, .teachers who are employed must be certified .charter schools should serve as laboratories for field-testing curricular and .charter school programs must be qualitatively different from what is available in .local school boards should be the only entity authorized to grant or renew .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 .charters should not be granted for the purpose of home schooling, including We support the current law and recommend these important improvements: .adding clarification regarding the fair and open election of charter school board .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 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 privileged to remain residents of the State of Idaho. WE are blessed to have Until July of 2002, the right choice for our family was traditional home-schooling. accountability. Within the structure of Idaho Virtual Academy we became And they have done this from all over the world! In June, I asked the boys what language arts curriculum and challenging math. For the first time in 6 years, they Virtual Academy and my husband and I have switched roles as primary teaching have ever had as a public school teacher-meeting the needs of this special But, it has also been the most rewarding experience I have ever had. I am improving their child’s learning experiences. I am very thankful for the 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 I teach at Liberty Charter School in Nampa, Idaho. Our school has the most You have helped create this environment for Idaho’s children. They truly are the |
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 First, I would like to convey ISBA’s support for charter schools as a public presented and debated four times before being sent to print and eventually 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 Allowance for all documents (by-laws and charter document) to be considered Enhanced communication with a district liaison is on charter boards Each proposed amendments to 33-5204, 33-5205, and 33-5209 outlined in the 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, You may not be aware that there have been several instances of civil rights definition, albeit an ambiguous definition, the school district in which the charter physically resides. Under current law, liability for these types of violations by board rule further defining the charter law should be within the boundaries of the curriculum, national and state publications, policy services, and a myriad of |
Testimony | Inserted in the minutes is the testimony of David Gencarella.
Chairman Schroeder, Chairman Barraclough, and members of the senate and .My name is David Gencarella. My family and I have lived in Post Falls Idaho for -My wife is the product of the traditional public educational system. I am a .Through the years our kids have benefitted from the traditional classroom, and .I am the chairman of the Board of IDVA, an IDVA parent, and I am a .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 .I am aware that the majority of newly enrolled students in IDVA were not .I am aware that many of our kids live in rural communities -Dr. Marilyn Howard I .I am aware that IDVA provides these much needed challenging courses .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 .I am aware that it costs taxpayers significantly less money when parents choose .As chairman of the board for IDVA, I am painfully aware that although the .I am aware that around 2000 families representing probably 5000 to 7000 Idaho .As I see it, here is the challenge: The Legislature specifically provided for virtual .Based on my personal experience, public, virtual, charter schools make sense .-One more point. There seems to be a lot of finger pointing as to who is the In closing, I am aware of many things, but I can not imagine, the very difficult |
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
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 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 Ms. Phelan closed by asking that they “please strengthen the public charter |
|
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 The charter school appeal process as defined in Rule 33-5207(5)(b) states: Dr. Thompson reported that OSBE identified 17 current issues with input 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 3. Establishes a time-line for the approval process 4. Defines founders and creates a standard for assigning seats for 5. Clarifies oversight responsibilities, including renewal and revocation 6. Allows the Board to delegate oversight of Board approved schools 7. Eliminate the liability to local districts resulting from a public 8. Clarifies and supports non-discrimination in public charter school 9. Removes the sections related to geographical limitations on The Board has issued a guidance memorandum addressing average daily |
|
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 |
|
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 Dr. West addressed Idaho charter schools and the current issues |
|
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 All governing board business of charter schools be open and follow the education The description of 7 components of Legislative intent given in Idaho Code 33-5202 Elections of charter school governing boards needs to be addressed and perhaps The selection for enrollment of the number of students, where the number of The process of how school boards or the state board may better deal with a School districts are liable for acts or omissions of charter schools where federal The funding of most charter schools seems to be working fine within the existing There is concern that charter schools do not reflect the degree of diversity of racial Dr. West concluded that by in large most charter schools, particularly where |
|
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 He also talked about the Title VI funds targeted for state assessments and |
|
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 A good part of the issue surrounding these concerns deals with who has the Regarding the division of responsibility for the implementation of federally |
|
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 |
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 Dr. Burke said he is extremely proud of their Adult Basic Education Questions were asked of Dr. Burke as he delivered his report. Following |
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 Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Thomas for her report and for also |
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 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 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 |
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 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 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 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 At the close of the meeting, Senator McWilliams said “… it was extremely Chairman Schroeder said with respect to the “public agent issue”, he Chairman Schroeder said that as they move forward with charter schools, |
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 |
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 Chairman Schroeder thanked President Michael for “stabilizing the ship” |
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 President Robertson said the nursing program is their largest program, Chairman Schroeder thanked President Robertson for speaking to the |
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 |
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 Chairman Schroeder relayed the information to Dr. Bowen regarding the Time was allowed for some questions. Following the questions, |
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 Senator Goedde suggested that the word “overall” be inserted prior to the |
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 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 85.7 cents was spent on salaries and benefits for instructional, 7.8 cents was spent on purchased services (utilities, data 4.9 cents was spent on supplies [textbooks, library materials, 1.6 cents was spent on capital outlay, insurance and all other. Out of every dollar, (from the General M&O Fund, expenditures by 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 Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. Hill for his presentation and the time he |
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 After Dr. Kustra’s talk, he answered questions from the committee. Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Kustra for talking to the committee and |
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 Dr. Rohrbach’s educational report pertains to the juveniles in state Dr. Rohrbach and Mr. Reinke answered questions from the committee. Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Rohrbach and Mr. Reinke for speaking |
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 Assisting Dr. Howard was Tim Hill, Bureau Chief for Finance and
Mr. Hill, referring to the yellow sheet, said there are statutory |
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 |
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 She read the Mission Statement and the Objects of the Idaho Congress of The mission of the PTA is threefold:
|
The Objects are:
|
|
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 |
|
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 |
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 He stated that the Governor signed H 367 last year that defines ISIMS as The Albertson Foundation has committed to invest $35 M in this project Mr. Olson said the ISIMS statewide mission is to equip the Idaho He then talked about parental involvement, such as knowing the Mr. Olson explained that the system will be operated out of one location; He said they are very close to validating the system. The pilot 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 Make staff available for training Mr. Olson then talked about the risks involved with this project. They are At the conclusion of Mr. Olson’s presentation, time was allowed for |
|
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 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 .The concern by Congress was addressed over several years with a desire to .It was determined by Congress that a more universal method of reporting Higher Education Act. .In Idaho, State Department and State Board staff, deans of the college of .The conclusion was to recommend to the State Board of Education that the .The Idaho State Board of Education unanimously approved the following action .”It was moved by Mr. Rod Lewis and carried to approve the use of the PRAXIS II .The first Idaho Title II report was submitted in September 2001 and each April .In the meantime, about 2002, the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) federal mandate 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 A. The ETS standard setting process has the state choose a team of 15 to 20 B. An alternative process was suggested to ETS and was accepted because it .These educators reviewed the test questions, compared the questions to Idaho’s Idaho’s standards. .Idaho reviewed every certificate and endorsement area that had a related Praxis As examples: 1. Music endorsement -The reviewers felt the content area multiple-choice Ultimately the reviewers suggested a performance test be added. Music majors 2. Standard Exceptional Child Certificate -The reviewers determined that two while the other assesses specific special education areas (i.e, mild to moderate, 3. Standard Elementary Certificate -Because NCLB requires elementary teachers 4. ETS offers a specific content area assessment only for Spanish, French and 5. Several endorsements do not have a Praxis II assessment (e.g., Philosophy, MIKE STEFANIC (presented the following) .The Professional Standards Commission, with the help of Bureau of .A recommendation was made by the Professional Standards Commission to the .The State Board of Education approved the qualifying scores for Praxis II .the qualifying scores for required Praxis II content, pedagogy and performance .A copy of the assessments and the approved qualifying scores are included in KEITH POTTER (presented the following) How Qualifying Scores Are Chosen The ETS’s testing year begins in September and goes through June of the A. ETS requires a minimum of 10 assessment scores in a given area to be B. David Breithaupt, State Dept. of Ed statistician, indicated that a high stakes C. When Idaho received the scores from ETS, there were a number of areas that assessment areas had less than 10 candidates who took the assessment. The D. After a discussion within our bureau, and with David Breithaupt and Randy E. The Professional Standards Commission will monitor and review the yearly 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 |
|
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. 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 .The staff in the Bureau of Certification/Professional Standards developed an .The bureau worked with ABCTE personnel and Dr. Randy Thompson from the 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 Option 1: To receive an Idaho interim certificate, American Board Certified Option 2: To receive a standard Idaho certificate, American Board Certified |
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 .Teacher certification/licensure is guaranteed by the constitution as being a right . 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 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 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 |
|
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 Mr. Rush said their mission is to provide technical skills, knowledge and He covered three subject areas. Accomplishments – what they did with The budget is divided into four areas. (1) State leadership and technical The professional-technical schools have grown from 5 schools and 20
There are six technical colleges. Three are part of four-year institutions, Some of the programs and services provided are: Single Parents and Displaced Homemakers (served over 1,800 Department of Correction (via distance learning, 54 have taken Idaho’s Career Information System Academic Skills Development Short-Term Work Force Training (Since 1999, over 200,000 adults Mr. Rush thanked the committee for their continued support and the |
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. |
|
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 Senator Gannon questioned Ms. Gustafsen regarding the 200 written It was asked if locally established mechanisms for graduation not need Another question asked Dr. Thompson was would there be a different |
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, |
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 A summary of Mr. Headlee’s remarks: Pupil transportation costs for |
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 |
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 Ms. Quinn said test scores are not the whole story, but they frame the |
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 Sue Smith became principal of our school in September of 2000. Within the first At this time Mrs. Smith introduced a 2nd through 6th grade extended reading By spring 2000, scores indicated we now had 29% of our students reading below lRI reading scores for South Lemhi show that 92% of our students are reading at 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 6. Teacher training Ms. Foster yielded her remaining time to Ms. Sue Smith, Principal of |
|
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 i. We have to know where we are going before we can plan how we are going to ii. Standards tell us where we are going iii. The ISAT test is a helpful measure to assure students are mastering goals, we iv. I believe in the No Child Left Behind Act. Every child has the right to quality scores from a low 1 to a middle or high 1, with excellent remediation. If the child v. Schools should be held accountable that every child makes progress but they 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 c. We all know that reading is primary in the education process, if children have d. We are dealing with a different society today i. We have always had about 10% of our population that struggles in academic ii. There are more socially/emotionally burdened children in school, these iii. We have challenges in the education setting, but with a few changes these IIl. Teacher Training a. Only 1/10 teachers I have worked with throughout the years received quality b. In my undergraduate studies in education I was required to take two 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 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 iv. I need to listen to children who have not had the opportunity to learn about 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 a. An administrator can work with a poor teacher and make then fair but you will b. An administrator can put the pressure on poor teachers to produce and if you c. An administrator can move teachers around placing excellent teachers in the d. Of course we have a process to follow to eliminate teachers that have obvious e. Perhaps the biggest noose around an administrators neck in tenure, or 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 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 b. Schools do not necessarily need more staff but the Instructional leader needs c. Again I will state we need Excellent teachers that are well versed in the 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, |
|
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 I have been asked today to address some of the ways our district has At a district level: .the number one response I heard as to why we have experienced success on .It created a real focus on reading proficiency as soon as the child entered .As its name implies, it created an indicator or a data resource that is very .Established uniform objectives that give direction to both teachers and parents on how to help, it’s very useful. At a school building level, I started to get responses from principals and 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, 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 As policymakers, sometimes it’s hard to know how our great ideas or initiatives
Lessons learned from implementation of the IRI which could be used in the Teacher Accountability -There are many aspects of accountability and teacher accountability is one level. It’s important for teachers to understand that although Student Accountability I wish there was some initiative that could create a permitted to retake the test. Here are the results: 1st RIT Score/Grade Level 2nd RIT Score/Grade 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, Data can be used to differentiate instruction. In ordinary English, that means Students aren’t the only group. .. Where do we go from here? Continue to identify and use research based |
|
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
Lessons Learned from the Idaho Reading Initiative (IRI) and Recommendations for Implementation of the Idaho Student Achievement (ISAT) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) I. lRI: The Legislature allowed public comment and made appropriate Recommendation: Continue to involve board members and other 2. lRI: The Legislature funded the reading intervention program for Recommendation: In order for the ISA T to be as successful as the lRI, a 3. lRI: The Legislature funded the Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Course Recommendation: Support instructional leadership and high-quality 4. lRI: The Legislature funded the Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI) Recommendation: Fund technology and support staff to provide for the 5. lRI: The Legislature maximized the use of scarce resources (dollars, Recommendation: Continue to communicate with Congress and the U.S. 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 The Senate Education committee members are to return to Room 433 for |
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 4. Ensure that $10,002,100 in Executive Budget marked for 5. Do we really want to have a distribution factor which is less than 6. Support outside review of ISAT by testing experts, working |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
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 President Meyerhoeffer said the campus consists of 160 acres and has a
The student growth at CSI has increased 71.2% over the last ten years. During the 2003 fiscal year, CSI served 2,138 students with nearly President Meyerhoeffer stated that they are good stewards of their money He then talked about economic development and the partnerships with They have now established training partnerships with Freightliner and |
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 |
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 In the bill on lines 12 and 13, probate court will be deleted and replaced Senator Stegner said he needed to talk about the Juvenile Corrections The first complaint that Senator Stegner has received in many e-mails is The second most complaint is the term “competently instructed”. Again, The third complaint pertains to the last three lines of the bill, emergency The real difference between this bill and what the current law is that the |
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. |
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 |
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 Sen. Gannon: You just classified home education along with public and Dr. Peters: Senator Gannon, the phrase you will see that starts in Sen. Gannon: So then, you would say that home education is a Dr. Peters: ……it is comparable and oftentimes superior, but it is not by Sen. Gannon: In that case, then what law would we use, or what code Dr. Peters: Senator Gannon, please understand, all of you, ….claims |
|
|
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. Ms. Ronalee Linsenmann, a Nampa parent, stated that bills should say Next to testify was Ms. Sandra Stange. A copy of Ms. Stange’s testimony |
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 they just can’t get them up on time, or any number of other excuses. Sometimes chronic non-attenders. These are children who miss 30 or 40% of the school only the victims of parents who are unable or unwilling to carry out their duties. It ramifications for their lack of getting their children to school. It would be a limited further options, when we come up against a family where nothing else motivates 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 Senator Stegner said he has just been handed the proposed revisions to Mr. Peters said he is adamantly opposed to S 1233 as it is now written. Senator Gannon said to Mr. Peters: “When there is an alleged home When Mr. Peters was asked if students enrolled in public schools would With regards to testing of home schoolers, Mr. Peters said the testing that |
|
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. 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 Youth Rehabilitation Law. As you heard yesterday, the Youth Rehabilitation Law 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 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 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 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 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 Under current law, in order for the court to address these parents the child must be petitioned under Even though this code section is within the JCA, the parent would be charged in magistrate court and The problem with the current law, as you have heard, is that the child must first be petitioned or The Juvenile Corrections Act is criminal not civil. The JCA sets out procedures to address a juvenile Habitual truancy is defined in I.C. 33-206 and states in part: any public school pupil who has I.C. 33-202 does set out framework re: comparably instructed. It states in part: a parent shall cause Under I.C. 33-206, what I will term the attendance prong of the habitual truancy code, (repeated SB 1233 does not require a prosecutor to file a misdemeanor in all cases. Prosecutors’ screen It has been my experience, mirroring the education professionals testimony, that the school board |
|
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 |
|
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 Some concerns of the committee included testing for graduation (to make When asked if he could conduct research on a specific request relating to |
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 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 |
Pupil Transportation |
Paul Headlee provided the following information:
Fourteen districts were visited. It was found that pupil transportation The Department provides limited oversight. There is five years between Recommendations were: (1) the SBOE clarify the department’s More efforts are needed to improve fiscal accountability. OPE found that Recommendations were: (1) The department should [a] provide trend Some districts have taken cost-saving measures. It includes consolidated Regarding contracting for busing: contractors were paid $21 Million in Recommendation were: (1) SBOE should direct the department to [a] Regarding bus purchasing, the OPE found that districts combined do not Recommendation was the department should develop a model bus Transportation funding cap controls costs are as follows: limits |
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 They found the staffing data insufficient for accountability purposes. The Recommendation – The State Department of Education should improve The following five areas were found to be deficient: Accountability, |
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 Recommendations – (1) The Legislature should consider [a] price quote Regarding health insurance benefits, it was found that costs are high and |
|
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 The 1992 amendment of the Residency Statute Before 1992: “…student has continuously resided in the state of Idaho for Added in 1992: “and who has in fact established a bona fide domicile in Mr. Parrish said the Attorney General’s legal analysis is that a student Recommendation 1. Legislature should consider amending Idaho Code Recommendation 2. Board of Education should address the lack of Recommendation 3. Institutions should improve residency determination |
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 |
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 |
|
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 Idaho Code 33-601. Real and personal property-Acquisition, use or 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 1. Improve student learning; 2. Increase learning opportunities for all students, with special emphasis 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 6. Provide parents and students with expanded choices in the types of 7. Hold the schools established under this chapter accountable for The next handout is 33-5210. He called attention to subsection 2 which Mr. Coffin said the question arises if the purchasing statutes that govern Mr. Coffin then called attention to handout #4, 33-5204, which is nonprofit In subsection 2, a charter school may sue or be sued, purchase, receive, The question was asked what happens when a charter school can’t pay 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 1. Allow determinations of “adequate yearly progress” to be made on the 2. Target options for choice and supplemental services to specific 3. Provide flexibility and more reasonable rules for English Language 4. Permit states to identify, for school improvement only, those schools It is also requested that the United States Department of Education and |
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 |
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 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 For example, I have with me the audited financial statements of Hidden Springs Unfortunately, many Idahoans don’t understand how public charter schools “The local board of trustees and the state department of education are I appreciate Senator Gannon’s effort with this bill to put people’s mind at ease 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 |
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 Chairman Schroeder asked Senator McWilliams to describe 33-507. |
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 Senator Gannon said he feels that Idaho is on the leading edge of that Chairman Schroeder said there are three types of education in Idaho – |
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, |
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 He then asked Chairman Barraclough to make some introductory Chairman Barraclough said he feels they can make better decisions if Chairman Schroeder said the nine page handout was made available by The Chairman then welcomed and introduced David Gencarella, Board Mr. Gencarella said they wanted to demonstrate how their program works, |
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 Ms. Roush demonstrated a lesson on hearing as to what students would As new curriculum is developed by K-12, it can be downloaded and |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 The question was asked would it make a difference if the new school was |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 The Chairman asked that the committee be informed by letter, later today, |
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 |
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 In the correspondence yesterday from Dr. West and Jim Shackelford, IEA It is understood in the modified SB 1350 that the Professional Standards It is also understood in the modified SB 1351 that a conviction, finding of Dr. West said that if these amendments are approved, it is likely that more |
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. |
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 |
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 Mr. Hill said the projected fiscal year’s appropriation, the cap has been |
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 |
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. |
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 Mr. Hill said it is more likely to fund a $26,400 minimum because the Senator Goedde inquired as to putting the matrix back in place with no In summary, Senator Werk said because the cap affects every district, the |
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 |
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 Dr. Barr said it could be administered in a very short time, teachers |
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 Page 8 – In the year 2003, Hispanic and Native American students were 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 Dr. Barr said what all this means is that we are slowly closing the gap 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 In Dr. Barr’s closing remarks, he said that if we want to continue to have Dr. Barr said the most noble educational goal of all is to teach children to |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 He then introduced Dr. Kathleen Madigan, President of ABCTE. She has |
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 |
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 |
|
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 Dr. Madigan was asked what her organization’s relationship is to the When asked about applicants, it was stated that they will be observed There was concern voiced by one committee member that OSBE and Dr. Thompson responded by saying that we are on the forefront of |
|
Chairman Barraclough asked Chairman Schroeder to make some closing remarks. Chairman Schroeder said, “We’ve had a good session today and I just |
|
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 When asked if funds have been withheld from public schools, Dr. West |
|
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 Last year, there was an application for a charter in which areas were |
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 2. The amendment allows 30 days for the State Superintendent to identify a trained 3. If the Trustees of the school district continue to deny the petition, after the 4. The amendment allows the State Board some flexibility in considering the 5. The amendment allows Board of Trustees to hold a hearing within 30 days after 6. If the Trustees again deny the petition, the petitioners may make an appeal to the Example: *A petition was submitted to a school district *The district did not consider it, because it was not within the window to receive *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 |
|
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 |
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 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) The auditors went on to estimate that this decision cost the taxpayers The attached audit report of the Boise School District’s current transportation The OPE report is welcomed by the District and has allowed us the opportunity to OPE’s report has given us a deeper understanding and appreciation of our own The District’s intent in conducting an independent audit of our school bus For further information please contact Dan Hollar, public information and
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 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 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 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 We have made changes to the sites used for summer school programs in order We have started billing Medicaid for the cost of transportation for eligible 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 We have an ongoing dialogue with Valley Ride to explore opportunities to provide transportation for some secondary students on the city bus system 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 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
|
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 There were some questions for Senator Marley by the committee |
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 practical experience, hands on involvement, and personal observation, often communities, whether it is rural Troy or Buhl or the affluency of a Sun Valley or Many of us have operated our Driving Businesses under the regulations of the State Department of Education through the changes of each Administration. About 3 yrs ago, regulations begin to tighten and change and then 2 yrs ago As we reviewed the current State Code for private Driving Businesses, we begin If l could direct your attention to 49-2101, Line (6) of senate Bill 1353: Our first As we had membership meetings around the State, we begin to put together 1. We want safe facilities in which to hold our classes and that can be 2. We want safe vehicles that are inspected and insured. This is client protection 3. Certified Instructors are our guarantee of maintaining integrity and a 4. We have listed the same “Course Standards” that are currently used in the You’ll also note on Line 28,29, and 30 of49-2102 the addition of the current 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, has the one most appropriate poster . 2. Sources of Instruction: As business owners we receive our daily quota of market out there for such material. 3. Previous Records of the School and the Instructors: Remember now, I am a solicitation of certain records. They’ve satisfied the hiring needs, thru interviews, 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 will bear. ” Should private business be required to list those fees with the for the summer. My choice. We have Instructors who give driving instruction to 5. Financial Statements: In the latest meetings to resolve rule issues, the Department of Education would like to have private business owners submit a records together. That information should be between the business and their 6. Character & Reputation of the Operator: In who’s opinion and what are the driving businesses have all agreed that we are in favor of having a criminal 7. Previous personal & Employment Records: (49-2103, line 40) Again, I remind 8. Certification: (49-2103, line 48) This has presented a problem for Public I’d like to take just a minute to address the professionalism of the Private Drivers with School Districts. One Superintendent reminded me that many Districts allow professionals with 20 plus years in Banking and business. We are not a rag tag When we were asked to provide background information in regards to what had Changes to these Codes can be accomplished without Fiscal Impact. That’s If you are looking for a bad apple, you will find it and the rest of the apples will be Rest assured, we are not advocating a deregulation of private commercial driving businesses. We are looking for a business friendly agency, not a policing With the current Code, we are trying to participate in a rule making process with 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 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 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 Page 2. line 32-42. (33-1702) During Driver Education Steering Committee meetings, this law was reviewed we use this law by requiring parents to provide an affidavit and a log that Page 2. line 6 (49-2101) This section removes the state’s ability to inspect a school’s facilities. Inspection minimum requirements for a classroom and that there is inspection of the Page 2. line 20-21 This section removes the requirement for a financial statement and schedule of The public needs to be protected from schools that close without warning and We are aware that some, but not all, driving schools object to giving information only been used to identify an “average” cost of instruction by commercial driving study. Individual school fees have not been made available to any person or Page 3, line 23 We have concerns for the removal of the term “and other matters as the state Page 3. line 26 “. course of instruction for teen drivers aged fourteen and one-half (14 1/2) to The effort to draft new rules continues to meet the same challenges that existed 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 |
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 |
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
Senator Andreason asked about the cost to operate the office of the State |
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 Senator Malepeai said with all due respect, he objected on the grounds |
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 Chairman asked Mr. Stivers if he viewed the Board as a decision |
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 |
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 Sometimes, I wake students because they’ve worked late, stayed up watching vomit, mucous, or blood with the rubber gloves I’ve been issued. I am expected ‘cat fights’. I am to teach patriotism, good citizenship, sportsmanship, and fair surveys, mentoring, working at Saturday School, writing letters of my own expense, working toward advance certification and a Master’s Degree. I and cross curriculum activities, monitor web sites, and relate personally with including ESL (English as a second language ), Special Ed and Special Needs family for food stamps, or a salary after my 32 years, with a Master’s Degree and trimmed and cut. We take anyone that walks or is wheeled into our classrooms classes, student teaching and internship, and a strong mentoring program that |
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 |
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 Chairman introduced Senator Darlene Andreason, who is sitting in for |
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 The Chairman said this goes in line with what has been heard previously |
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 |
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 The Idaho SDE supports SB1349, because it would create a more Idaho Code § 33-110 vests in the State Board of Education the authority to Before Mr. Farley’s remarks, I want to address the recent dissolution of The State Superintendent entered into an agreement with the U.S. 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 send a timely review of technical quality to the U.S. Department of to develop manuals that contain explanations of the technical The TAC began meeting in December of 2002 and continued to do so for Less than a month later, the SBOE took action to “reconstitute” the So, I think that is why she described the replacement of the 7 members 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 The SDE’s federal programs bureau perspective. Examples of issues created by the transitioning of federal programs
Idaho, as well as other states, have been under the federal ESEA mandate After the reauthorization of ESEA of 1965 now known as NCLB came The 2003 Idaho legislature passed SCR 106 which reinforces I. C. 33-110, 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 In June the State Superintendent inquired of the OSBE as to how to apply In August the SDE was counseled by the OSBE to hire a Title IIIA 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 It was frustrating to hear Mr. Stivers make that assertion yesterday, In fact three times in June, November, and December the board said it At the board’s January meeting, the issue came up again although as you No motions were made to transfer the Title IIIA funds although Dr. Howard told the board that it would not be possible for the department You could think of it this way, imagine you are a carpenter and have been Dr. Howard did ask President Hall and the board to reconsider who should All of this effort has been put on hold. We are now beginning to get questions from districts as to where are their This of course has created anxiety in the Hispanic community and in the In September the SBOE took over the compliance agreement that had been In October the SBOE advertised for a federal programs manager. In October the State Superintendent requested an itemized budget to help That request was made again in November. In December the State Superintendent request a reconsideration of the That request was not considered. Also in December the SBOE notified the SDE of their control of statewide In December the State Superintendent notified the Governor of the SDE’s Subsequently at the January State Board meeting, after a presentation to In January the SBOE hired a federal programs manager. There continues, among others issues, to be discussions with the OSBE SO: In response to questions regarding the State Board of Education’s (SBOE) As it stands now, there has been another level of bureaucracy created in We now have a duplication of efforts. This comes at a time when much Both of these issues are already creating a disconnect between programs. All of this dilutes an already short supply of funds. Two masters cost As you consider perspective, I believe the following should apply. The It is imperative that Idaho not only expend it’s federal funds judiciously Managing and implementing federal programs, especially now with the The SDE staff is very aware that the staff of the OSBE are only doing The SDE staff continues to work with and will work with the OSBE to 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 During the discussion Board members pointed out that the need to retain We appreciate the document prepared by Mr. Farley. It has been helpful as it 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 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. 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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, Representative Ringo said she did not bring this bill as a partisan concept She said the question was asked about the representation on State Senator Goedde questioned the language in the amendment. Senator Chairman Schroeder suggested to Representative Ringo that she work |
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 |
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 |
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 2. The bill causes the creation of a set of state-wide common goals 3. It also causes the State Board of Education to work with the State 4. Having school districts develop objectives based on common state-wide goals to implement and measure their efforts for programs for |
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 After some discussion, Senator Werk made the motion to send S 1354 to |
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 |
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 Mr. Hill reminded the committee about the three legged stool of funding Senator Goedde asked how charter schools are “super funded”. Mr. Hill Senator Noh asked the total enrollment of charter schools. Mr. Hill said |
|
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 |
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 |
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 Senator Keough said that while it is important for educators to be |
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 Page 1: Changes word “all” to “any”. Page 2: Definition section. Defines: Authorized Chartering entity; charter, Page 3: Limits newly chartered public schools to not more than six per (1) Adds language (lines 20 and 23), which provides that if a public (2) Lines 28-30, allows charter schools to contract with for-profit entities (3) Provides that trustees cannot grant charters if the school’s physical (4) Provides that a charter for a virtual school may be granted by the (5) Provides that OSBE shall adopt rules, subject to law, to establish a (6) Allows a public charter school chartered by the public charter school Provides that public charter schools are subject to Idaho’s bribery and On lines 26-30, provides that districts have no liability for acts, omissions, Bottom page 4, top of page 5; provides that charter schools shall be Page 5: 33-5204a…. Section on applicability of professional codes and standards. Page 6: Cleanup language except that it provides that a charter petition Top of page 7: Provides that founders shall be guaranteed 10 percent of Provides that in when more children apply than for which there are slots, a There will be no carry-over of lists from year-to-year and a new lottery Two or more persons not associated with the school, in any way, shall Page 8: Cleanup language. Strikes language that talks about appeal to Page 9: Cleanup language. Strikes language which provides for the Page 10/11: Chartering agency charged with ensuring that school for Lines 28-30 provide that chartering entity…shall provide charter school Provides that charter may be revoked if charter school has failed to cure Page 11: Provides for financial reporting Page 12: Creates public charter school commission. Seven members, Page 13: Severability clause. Provides for schools in existence, |
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 .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 The admission defined on page 8 lines 19-24 is contradictory. It says admission Also, page 7 lines 40-42, asks for a public school attendance alternative for 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 Page 4, lines 31-37 allows a charter school to borrow money to lease a building Page 5, line 51, says a petition has to have signatures of qualified electors of a The dual enrollment has changed. On page 8, lines 1-4, it says eligible students 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 |
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, As you know well through our work with this committee and the house Before providing this committee with our testimony on the merits of this ISBA supports charter schools public school choice available to parents. We do, however, have concerns about the lack of clarity and direction of As many of you may remember last session, ISBA in partnership with the It should be notable because the RS was presented and debated four times Unfortunately, even though S1169 passed the senate, the bill did not get a In an effort to continue to address these concerns, over the summer ISBA ISBA would like to commend all the participants in the current process for Our hope is that once charter school legislation is passed and the law is In that spirit, the ISBA board believes the bill before you today has some First, the bill provides a definition by federal citation of LEA and a Currently, regardless of whether the charter is granted by the local board The net result of the change in law is that liability and federal funding The bottom line, ISBA believes that the liability should follow the Next, the charter school commission. The ISBA Executive Board met and ISBA supports the concept preserving local control which would be Other items in this bill ISBA supports include accountability measures, I would be remiss in my responsibility if I did not mention that even with As the good Senator Marley from Pocatello mentioned in JFAC, the “train There fore, ISBA would like to make a public request to have OPE study Other areas not included are transportation, attendance zones, and Clearly, the good in this bill outweighs the omissions and again, I would In closing, I would like to take a few more minutes of this committees Upon affirmation of the membership, the new Affiliate program will membership in the ISBA property, liability, and school leaders’ and 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 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 |
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 Senator Malepeai said he would like to give a word of caution. He is The Chairman said he fully expects this bill to come back amended with |
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 |
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 Senator Gannon requested that someone from the Governor’s Office Mr. Brian Whitlock, from the Governor’s Office, said that there are other The Chairman said he has heard, in the last few days, to not be Senator McWilliams’ comments concerning 501C3 was that the status is |
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 Chairman Schroeder stated it was felt that Senator Noh’s bill, S 1309, |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 The Chairman said the question before the committee is – “Are we going |
|
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. |