EXCUSED:

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

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

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

EXCUSED:

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

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

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

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

EXCUSED:

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

Cliff Green – Idaho School Boards Association, Executive Director

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

Karen Gustafson – Educator Policy Program Manager, OSBE

Blas Telleria – Boise Education Association, President

Rod McKnight – Transportation Director, SDE

Ray Merrical – Transportation, SDE

Charles Bolles – Idaho State Library

Sue Payne – Vocation Rehabilitation

Keith Potter – Bureau of Certification and Professional Standards, SDE

MENTS:

08-0202-0301

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

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

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

EXCUSED:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Department of Labor, April,1992

1) Reinventing Education

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

2) Restructuring Assessment

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

3) Reorganizing the Workplace

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

SCHOOL- TO- WORK OPPORTUNITIES STATE IMPLEMENTATION GRANT

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

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

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

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

WAY and a career portfolio.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DAN PRINZING —SOCIAL STUDIES IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

AND ALSO STATE COORDINATOR FOR THE CENTER FOR CIVIC

EDUCATION FEDERAL CURRICULUM

SPEEDE/EXPRESS ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT-National Center For
Education

Statistics, data collection on students, teachers and families

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

education system; and providing assistance in school bond elections.

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

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

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

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

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

failing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This law needs to be fixed.

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

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

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

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

progressed to English proficiency.

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

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

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

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

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

EXCUSED:

Review of ISAT

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

Commission to bring forward recommendations in this area.

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

Process used to build the ISAT (Validity)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISAT related to state standards

Alignment Study Summary

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

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

NWREL study indicates:

For the Spring 2003 Reading test:

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

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

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

For the Spring 2003 Math test:

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

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

.In lOth grade -3 items not linked 95%

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

NWREL study indicates:

For the Spring reading test

4th Reading

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
is right where it needs to be at this time.”

Future Actions

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

Conduct new alignment study based on the Spring 2004 test.

Reliability of the Test

a. Average reliability and validity

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

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

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

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

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

Average Coefficient Alpha = .847

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

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

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

Average classification accuracy =.906

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

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

Relationship to NCLB

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

Why have an exit exam? Supporting Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dropout and Graduation Rates

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

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

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

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

retention from grade to grade, etc.)

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

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

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

requirements and this effect has not been studied in depth.

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

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

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

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

negative impacts.” (CEP, 26)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teaching and Curriculum

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

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

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

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

content standards.

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

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

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

their schools to make these changes.

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

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

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

graduation.

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

.Removal of unneeded content, renewed emphasis on important content

and addition of important topics not previously taught.

Student Motivation/Improving Scores

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

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

states where Amrein and Berliner found decreases).

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

academic achievement. They concluded that state accountability programs that

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

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

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

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

improvements (on the NAEP) than white students.

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

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

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

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

Legal issues

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

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

o Protective action: as outlined in construction steps outline above

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

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

implementation year students will have had five years to prepare.

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

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

.Issue Four: “errors in scoring”

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

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

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

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

accurate and consistent with state coding requirements.

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.

Chairman Schroeder and Chairman Barraclough and members of the House and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This committee is charged with:

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

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

external review committee to do two things:

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

government for an external review of the State Assessment system and

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

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

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

of high school achievement.

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

evaluate the documentation provided by the test contractor, the Northwest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

representatives of the testing company, the Northwest Evaluation Association.

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

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

based curriculum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

established validity.

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

this a part of a graduation requirement.

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

items and test administrations. Of concern is:

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

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

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

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

over time, has been established.

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

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

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

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

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

measurement. Statistical comparisons of difference are needed for the

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

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

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

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

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

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

Functioning procedure. The evidence provided by NWEA shows

that a number of items function differently for the majority group

vs. the minority group. Of concern:

.NWEA eliminated the highly discriminating items from the analysis

before running the data. We need to ask why.

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

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

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

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

NWEA acknowledges is biased toward the reference group, in this

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

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

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

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

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

be examined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

subgroups

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

stage of test development and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

development, BUT WE ARE NOT FORCED TO IMPLEMENT AN UNTESTED

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

students who do everything right except pass a single test?

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

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

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

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

unbiased.

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

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

already in place, such as:

1. passing the 42 credits required for graduation plus

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

3. some level of achievement as indicated by GPA or

4. attendance requirements as well as

5. the ISAT passage.

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

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

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

Standards for testing and test development.

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

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

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

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

being used as a requirement for graduation.

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

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

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

obligations and to accepted test validation processes.

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

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

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

criteria from two recent court cases in Texas and Florida:

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

They recommended that:

I. The test has established,

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

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

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

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

stakeholders of the curriculum on which the test is based through

dissemination to parents, teachers and other stakeholders well in advance

of the graduation requirement.

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

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

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

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

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

school ISAT in place as a requirement for graduation.

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

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

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

Greetings to Chairs and Committee Members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

half.

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

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

context of high stakes testing.

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

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

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

FACT SHEET

TRIBAL. LATINO & ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN IDAHO

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

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

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

students were English language learners (ELL).

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

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

decree that sought equitable an appropriate education for limited English

proficient students.

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

publishing data on ELL students.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chinese, and Vietnamese ELL students.

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

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

benefits.

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

in Idaho public schools:

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

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

classroom;

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

with limited instruction in the students native language provided by

educational assistants at least twice a week;

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

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

whole day of instruction.

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

Native American, and ELL students.

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

grade level (Winter, 2002).

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

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

Caucasian students who failed.

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

three times that of Caucasian students.

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

Latino, and ELL students.

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

years while student percentages have changed significantly.

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

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

period, school districts reported 237 of these teachers working directly

with ELL students.

–Regular classroom teachers in Idaho are not provided adequate

professional development opportunities to learn how to work with the

growing number of cultural and language diverse students.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the chance that a child will learn.

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

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

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

three years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

doing is helping children.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guide.

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

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

.an increase in the dropout rate

.Minimal teaching and learning requirements.

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

ability

.the incorrect use of the scores

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

as science, social studies or the arts.

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

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

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

that they have done something wrong?

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

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

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

him because of his scores on the ISAT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

consider that can hinder success:

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

computer screens and completing math problems on a computer .

.Unfamiliar language or situations on the test

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

was the cause.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

enthusiasm for learning.

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

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

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

learn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increase the graduation rate.

Decrease the drop-out rate.

Improve post-school outcomes.

Improve academic performance.

Decrease suspensions and expulsions.

Include all students in statewide assessments.

Increase the number of certified/trained personnel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXCUSED:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Idaho Education Association has always supported public charter schools

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

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

principles:

.charter schools must be public schools

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

.teachers who are employed must be certified

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

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

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

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

.charter schools should be nonsectarian in nature

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

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

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

We support the current law and recommend these important improvements:

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

.adding language to clarify that all students must have equal

opportunity to apply and be selected for charter school attendance

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

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

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

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

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

public money.

Vouchers in charter school clothing.

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

answerable only to themselves rather than the community at large.

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

children of select parents.

Real public schools do not reap profits from public money.

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

businessmen.

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

stay home to teach them.

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

are incubators of democracy.

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

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

struggle together. ..create the future together .

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

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

America’s children.

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

into what are essentially private and home schools.

Please strengthen Idaho’s commitment to public education.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

students. Thank you for your time.

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

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

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

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;

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.

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

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

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

Charter Director, election process.

Student and Taxpayer Access to Charter Boards

Consistent lottery process for admission to a Charter school

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

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

Enhanced communication with a district liaison is on charter boards

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

Additional concerns not addressed by SB1169

Equitable funding, impact on traditional schools

Multi-district charter schools

Definition of LEA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXCUSED:

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

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

Mr. von Tagen responded to questions from committee members.

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

Mr. Farley responded to questions from committee members.

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

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

Improve student learning

Increase learning opportunities/expand learning experience

Include different and innovative teaching methods

Utilize virtual distance and on-line learning

Create new professional opportunities for teachers

Provide parents/students with expanded choice

Hold schools accountable

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

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

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

The Board responded by drafting temporary rule 08.02.04 that:

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

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

3. Establishes a time-line for the approval process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXCUSED:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chairman Schroeder, members of the Senate Education Committee,

guests and visitors.

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

investment.”

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

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

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

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

be on the conservative side.

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

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

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

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

numbers for those individuals who participated in Center activities in this

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

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

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

fiscal year .

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

Idaho Displaced Homemaker Program

CENTERS FOR NEW DIRECTIONS

Return on Investment

Total Number Served in FY03 1,831

Total Number with Successful Outcomes 1,299

Employment Outcomes: 470 (26% )

EducationalOutcomes: 829 (45%)

1,299

Total Number Receiving Public Assistance 740

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

If all 740 were employed the state could save

up to $4 million

Applying the 26% successful employment outcomes

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

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

jobs would also be paying state income tax. Assuming

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

would be $600.70 per person per year:

470 x $600.70 = $ 282,329

State Funding to the Centers $ 404,600

General Fund = $234,600

Dedicated Fund (Divorce Fee) = $170,000

Return on Investment

Saved in Public Assistance $1,040,310

Paid in state taxes 282,329

$1,322,639

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

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

The report you received provides:

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

-employment and educational outcomes (on page 6),

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

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

page 13).

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

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

individuals gain parenting skills and the important ability to balance work

and family.

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

sufficient. Let’s look at some examples:

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

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

expected after her training period ends.

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

the Center. She received training in computer applications and found

a job where she is making $10.25/hour.

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

gained computer skills through the Technical College and obtained

employment which started at $8.25/hour .

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

hospital, making $13.50/hour.

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

now employed at Scientech making $13/hour.

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

* * *

Center coordinators supplement state funding with other grants and

Technical College support to expand services to more individuals. They

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

combine resources and avoid duplication of effort.

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

center .

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

develop a career plan to support your children. ..

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

fearful about how to begin the process. ..

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

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

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

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

needs… ! .

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

Centers for New Directions.

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

your support!

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

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

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

IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS/COMMENTS by the committee

Charter Schools

Preserve what is good

Avoid potential abuses

Guidance for spending with State funds

Selection process – open and fair

More clarity on charters

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

Revocation process

Idaho Virtual Academy

Review address, audit, management, parent company

Business plan – did they have one?

Enrollment and residency

Ethics and accountability

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

Freeze the program until problems solved

Chain of command is needed here also

Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT)

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

Make exceptions for Special Needs students and English
challenged students

Liability factor

Gap between ethnic students

No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Rural districts’ difficulties

Special Needs students

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

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

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

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

EXCUSED:

Announcements

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALTERNATIVE TO HIGH STAKES TESTING

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

a number of nationally known educational researchers speak about

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

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

nationally know researcher, Harvard professor and is with the

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

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

heard him at that time.

After his presentation a couple of weeks ago and during a

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

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

that he was. He was then asked if he had an opinion to share

about high stakes testing.

He commented that Idaho was headed down the path to

disaster just like other states already had and that Idaho should

learn from the mistakes of others. Other states have implemented

high stakes testing and ended up in the courtroom defending what

they had done. Some have won and some have lost, but either

way valuable resources were spent on attorneys.

That does not mean that you have to give up on high stakes

testing. It is important to continue to raise the bar and continue to

improve student learoing. There is middle ground that other states

have found and we can do the same in Idaho before we end up in

the courtroom.

For example, research shows that many students who fail the

high stakes test also have poor attendance, so an additional

requirement could be 90% attendance throughout high school.

Also, students who fail the test often have not taken high school

seriously and have gotten by with “D’s”, so another requirement

could be a grade of “C” in all courses required by the State Board.

Another requirement could be to demonstrate proficiency in

writhing such as the direct writing assessment already used in other

grades in Idaho. And another might be to demonstrate proficiency

in core subjects through a high school portfolio.

Now we have five requirements:

I. The lOth grade ISAT

2. 90% attendance

3. “C” grades in courses required by the State

4. Proficiency in writing

5. High School portfolio

So, from these five requirements let them have a diploma if

the complete four out of the five. If they fail the high stakes test

they still can get a diploma if they pass the other four

requirements. If you allow options, it is not likely you will end up

in the courtroom and if you do it is much easier to defend options.

If you don’t like these four requirements in addition to the

ISAT then Idaho could choose others, such as a “Direct Math

Assessment” or a “Senior Project” and I am sure there are others

that could be considered.

It also solves another problem as well. We have already

heard from students that if they pass the ISA T in the lOth grade

then they should be done. If required to attend they will take it

easy. With these additional requirements we will have them

working up to the end.

As we later thought about this approach we saw this as a

compromise to the problem in Idaho. So, we emailed Dr. Reeves

and asked him to clarify some of his comments that he had made

earlier and we have provided you with a copy of his reply.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Haley for taking the time to talk to the
committee.

Dr. Bowen has provided a fact sheet and a booklet, Idaho State University
Portrait 1994-2003, for the committee members. He said he wanted to
talk about two issues, the first being money. The faculty turnover rate at
ISU is 6.5% and he hopes that there will be funds for salary increases this
year, as there has not been any for the past two years. He said it is
important to not loose good faculty members. The other issue is that of
health science. ISU has a mission in that field to fulfill. He said that ISU
teaches nursing in Coeur d’Alene, Lewiston (mainly by distance learning),
Idaho Falls with 2,600 students, Twin Falls with 225 students at CSI and
Boise. ISU was part of the plans in University Place, but it appears now
that they will not have the space as planned. Dr. Bowen said they are
working with the UI Foundation and the State Building Authority to try to
work out some kind of an arrangement. The present building ISU uses in
Boise for instruction is one of HP’s buildings, which they will soon
outgrow. In Idaho Falls, the universities have a cooperative arrangement.
ISU, UI, Brigham Young, Idaho have a joint facility for students. They
register once, apply for financial aid once, and can take classes at any of
the institutions, then choose who they want to graduate from, with all
credits transferable. Approximately 3,000 students attend this facility. Dr.
Bowen said he is working with CSI for a similar arrangement.
Construction is going on at the Pocatello campus, which Dr. Bowen is
excited about and invited the committee to visit the campus for a tour.

Chairman Schroeder relayed the information to Dr. Bowen regarding the
matter of the lack of transferring of credits from the EITC nursing program
to ISU. He asked Dr. Bowen to look into the matter and report his
findings. Dr. Bowen said he would.

Time was allowed for some questions. Following the questions,
Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Bowen for his report.

EXCUSED:

Beth Weaver, Driver Education Specialist with the State Department of
Education, testified that the money is from driver licensing fees with the
Department of Transportation and indicated that the Transportation
Department is in favor of this RS.

Senator Goedde suggested that the word “overall” be inserted prior to the
word increase to reflect the correct intention. Ms. Weaver said she would
make that addition.

Mr. Hill thanked the committee for inviting him to give the committee a
“refresher” course. With the changing of laws and the complexity of the
formula, he feels it is time well spent for the committee. Mr. Hill said it is
also his job to provide information so that lawmakers can make good
decisions. Handouts were provided to audience members, as well as
committee members, of the Powerpoint presentation. Mr. Hill encouraged
the committee to ask questions as he presented the material, rather than
wait until later. The presentation covered the following:

1. Where do Public School Funds come from?

2. How are the funds distributed?

3. What is a Support Unit and how is it calculated?

4. What is Salary-based Apportionment?

5. How much is a Support Unit worth?

6. What is Equalization and how is it applied?

7. How much is the Distribution Factor and how is it calculated?

8. What is the payment distribution schedule?

9. How is a district’s foundation payment calculated?

Information showing how the money is spent:

Out of every dollar, (from the General M&O Fund, expenditures by Object
for FY 2002)

85.7 cents was spent on salaries and benefits for instructional,
administrative, and classified staff.

7.8 cents was spent on purchased services (utilities, data
processing, telephone, postage, auditors, lawyers, travel, etc.)

4.9 cents was spent on supplies [textbooks, library materials,
general, transportation (gas, oil, tires, etc.)].

1.6 cents was spent on capital outlay, insurance and all other.

Out of every dollar, (from the General M&O Fund, expenditures by
Function for FY 2002)

62.7 cents was spent on instruction.

10.4 cents was spent on administration.

10.1 cents was spent on building maintenance.

9.7 cents was spent on support services.

5.2 cents was spent on transportation.

1.9 cents was spent on transfers (school bus depreciation) and all
other.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. Hill for his presentation and the time he
spends with the committee.

EXCUSED:

Dr. Kustra opened his remarks by stating that he served 10 years on an
education committee in his prior political career. Some subject areas that
he discussed was the collaboration with other schools, which is ongoing;
the student growth problem and lack of space; growing in mission and
scope; budget; and the Canyon County campus. He stressed the need
for a community college in the Boise area. Another concern was that he
feels students in high school need to take a math class in their senior year
so that they will be better prepared for college entrance. Dr. Kustra said
he would provide statistics regarding this matter.

After Dr. Kustra’s talk, he answered questions from the committee.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Kustra for talking to the committee and
complimented him on his enthusiasm.

Mr. Reinke provided a “Legislative Update 2004” for the committee. It
consists of facts, information and statistics regarding the Juvenile
Corrections. Mr. Reinke said 94% of Juvenile services are provided at the
local level (the 44 counties). The population of 10 to 17 year olds is
170,936 of which 86.2% are never arrested; 8.4% are arrested; 5.1%
have a petition filed; and 0.2% are in juvenile corrections. Of this 0.2%
group ( 440 juveniles), 90.9% are male and 9.1% are female and the
average age is 15.7 years. In the problem areas, the two areas of
greatest concern are sex offenders and mental health (suicide), followed
by drug and alcohol. Of the 440 juveniles, 51% are placed in state
facilities and 49% are placed in contract facilities.

Dr. Rohrbach’s educational report pertains to the juveniles in state
contracted beds. There are 225 juveniles in state contracted beds
(Nampa, St. Anthony, Lewiston). Of that group, only 75 took the Spring
and Fall ISAT test. This was because they were moved around. She said
the department has many challenges facing them, including a shortage of
teachers. The school is accredited and the teachers are certified.
Classes are conducted six hours a day, five days a week, all year long.
Almost half of the juveniles are eligible for Special Education. It was
noted that it costs $157.93 per day to care for juveniles at the IDJC state
institution.

Dr. Rohrbach and Mr. Reinke answered questions from the committee.
One question asked was what could be done to help juveniles from
getting into this situation. Dr. Rohrbach said that the earlier you can
reach children and work with them, the more beneficial it is.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Rohrbach and Mr. Reinke for speaking
to the committee.

EXCUSED:

Dr. Howard said this year’s public school budget is “somber” and
distinguishes between wants and needs. She said this is a “bare bones”
needs-based budget. In the budget is a 1% salary improvement for
employees. Two and one half million dollars has been transferred from
the teachers support programs to ISAT remediation and she has asked
for another $2.5 M to be joined to that. She also wanted to keep
technology at the same level. The Governor’s budget is $5 M less for
technology and Dr. Howard feels that is a serious omission. Also, no
money for remediation was allowed in the Governor’s budget.

Assisting Dr. Howard was Tim Hill, Bureau Chief for Finance and
Transportation. Mr. Hill provided handouts for the committee (attached).
The yellow sheet is the budget request for the State Department of
Education; the green sheet is the budget recommendations of the
Governor; and the blue sheet compares the two.

Mr. Hill, referring to the yellow sheet, said there are statutory
requirements to distribute a large part of the dollars. He explained each
of the 24 items in the Program Distribution.

EXCUSED:

He introduced House Chairman Representative Barraclough, Vice
Chairman Representative Lake and Vice Chairman Senator Gannon.

Ms. Block said Idaho has approximately 8,000 PTA members and there
are six million PTA members nationally. She pointed out the many
benefits parents may experience by joining PTA. The PTA is also a
“parent educator” that offers workshops on parenting skills, safety,
discipline, nutrition, drug abuse and parental involvement. PTA is a
“service” organization that provides and endorses volunteers in the
schools and classrooms.

She read the Mission Statement and the Objects of the Idaho Congress of
Parents and Teachers, Inc. which states:

The mission of the PTA is threefold:

• To support and speak on behalf of children and youth in the
  schools, in the community, and before governmental bodies and
  other organizations that make decisions affecting children; and
• To assist parents in developing the skills they need to raise and
  protect their children; and
• To encourage parent and public involvement in the public schools
  of this nation.

• To promote the welfare of children and youth in home, school,
  community and place of worship.
• To raise the standards of home life.
• To secure adequate laws for the care and protection of children
  and youth.
• To bring into close relation the home and the school, that parents
  and teachers may cooperate intelligently in the education of
  children and youth.
• To develop between educators and the general public such united
  efforts as will secure for all children and youth the highest
  advantages in physical, mental, social and spiritual education.

“For every child the right to grow in stature strong and free,

and grace to grow in fellowship in his own right to be,

A noble, useful citizen endowed with liberty.”

Ms. Block then introduced Ms. Barb Bode, PTA legislative chairman and
Ms. Julia Robinson, legislative representative.

The first one she addressed was ISAT. They oppose the use of a
standardized test as the sole criteria for measuring progress and are also
concerned about high stakes testing. The PTA believes multiple
measures of student performance to be a more valid assessment of a
student’s overall ability than a high stakes test or other one-size-fits-all
assessment.

Mr. Olson talked about the partnership that it takes to make ISIMS a
statewide reality. It includes the Governor, legislature, State Board of
Education, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, all educators, all
stakeholders, and the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation.

He stated that the Governor signed H 367 last year that defines ISIMS as
“a secure, centralized data system where public school information is
stored, accessed and analyzed.” It requires agencies and districts to use
ISIMS to the full extent of its availability; provides for ongoing funding by
the State for operation and maintenance of the system; and the State
Board of Education shall ensure that a state operated Idaho student
information management system which provides real time, appropriate
access to educational data, is available and used by all Idaho school
districts.

The Albertson Foundation has committed to invest $35 M in this project
and will turn it over to the State Department of Education when the
system is substantially complete. This amount includes on-going costs
and training. The Foundation reserves the right to not proceed or to
cease funding if partner commitments are not met or if the State and the
Foundation mutually agree to terminate the project.

Mr. Olson said the ISIMS statewide mission is to equip the Idaho
educational system stakeholders with the most efficient and effective
student information management and reporting system. They also have
three goals and they are: (1) indirectly improve student achievement; (2)
enhance data driven decisions; (3) provide information on impact of
programs. He elaborated on each of these goals.

He then talked about parental involvement, such as knowing the
homework assignments, attendance, discipline information and
graduation progress. It also has many benefits for teachers. That
includes curriculum and lesson plans, teaching resources, class
assessment and progress reports, grade book, and better communication
with parents. One of the benefits for schools and districts is being able to
track the student growth to standards and can make state and national
comparisons. The State educational agencies would also have this
information. Information that is required by the State, Federal, and NCLB
would be readily available through the use of this system. The Governor
and Legislature will be able to track the progress to meet State standards,
as well as data driven decisions, program accountability, and district and
school report cards. It should help in setting goals and state budgets.

Mr. Olson explained that the system will be operated out of one location;
uniform to all users; delivered via the internet; one set of servers with the
schools tied to that. He then explained the software, infrastructure,
integration, and user access. Negotiations are complete and a letter of
agreement is signed with AAL (eSIS Software) and Plato Learning (Orion
Software). Evaluation of available software is currently being made
regarding reporting and analytics and special population.

He said they are very close to validating the system. The pilot
districts/schools are: Firth, Kuna, Kellogg, and Meridian Charter High
School.

Mr. Olson then covered the responsibilities of various agencies.

State Board of Education

Approve policy for a common course code system

Approve policy for a unique student identifier

Approve policy for security of student data

State Department of Education

Assist in building and providing technical support

Employee FTEs – funded by Foundation grant

Work with all education agencies and associations

Provide ongoing training and support

Execute long-term contracts for state

Develop annual ISIMS budget

Districts

Adopt policy to guide the use of ISIMS

Provide adequate bandwidth from district/school

Access to a modern computer for every teacher (a computer with
Windows 2000 or better)

Make staff available for training

Mr. Olson then talked about the risks involved with this project. They are
as follows: slow process; ISIMS, state agency, and stakeholder committee
focus; cost over runs; stakeholder involvement/objections; system
response time – Internet Bandwidth; system design issues; non-ISIMS
vendors not supporting districts, not renewing contracts or increasing
pricing during statewide ISIMS build phase. He also said there are two
things needed in this partnership and they are (1) assistance in moving
Idaho forward in partnering to provide increased and less expensive
bandwidth/connectivity to schools and (2) maintain or increase current
level of funding for district technology.

At the conclusion of Mr. Olson’s presentation, time was allowed for
questions from the committee members.

EXCUSED:

Dr. Stefanic and Keith Potter gave a presentation on the Praxis II
Assessment Program and the American Board for Certification of Teacher
Excellence (ABCTE) Alternate Route to Idaho Certification.

Inserted in the minutes is a copy of their presentation.

ABCTE Alternate Route to Idaho Certification.

MIKE STEFANIC (presented the following)

PRAXIS II ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

and BACKGROUND

.The U.S. Congress is concerned about the effectiveness of teacher preparation
programs throughout the nation.

.The concern by Congress was addressed over several years with a desire to
have teacher preparation institutions report annually on the quality of teacher
candidates they graduate.

.It was determined by Congress that a more universal method of reporting
needed to be made. Objective, statistical evidence became a requirement of Title
II of the

Higher Education Act.

.In Idaho, State Department and State Board staff, deans of the college of
education and other constituency groups such as the IEA, the IASA and the ISBA
addressed the Title II challenge.

.The conclusion was to recommend to the State Board of Education that the
Praxis II assessment program from ETS (Educational Testing Service) be used
as the vehicle to meet Title II requirements.

.The Idaho State Board of Education unanimously approved the following action
item on Friday, November 17, 2000.

.”It was moved by Mr. Rod Lewis and carried to approve the use of the PRAXIS II
examination as an initial preservice requirement for teacher certification.”

.The first Idaho Title II report was submitted in September 2001 and each April
and October thereafter .

.In the meantime, about 2002, the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) federal mandate
added emphasis on testing, particularly content area assessment.

KEITH POTTER (presented the following)

IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS STATE BOARD DIRECTION TO

USE THE PRAXIS II ASSESSMENT PROCESS

PROCESS FOR CHOOSING PRAXIS II TESTS

ETS, (Educational Testing Services) recommends a specific method for
approving the Praxis II tests.

A. The ETS standard setting process has the state choose a team of 15 to 20
teachers with 7 -years or less of teaching experience. For each test item, the
team was to determine if a beginning Idaho teacher would know the correct
answer. This is a time-consuming process but was implemented for English,
Math and Elementary Ed.

B. An alternative process was suggested to ETS and was accepted because it
saved time and allowed us to review the assessments in a different way. The
process was established so that educators at the university level who prepared
students to teach in a content area were brought to Boise to review Praxis II
content, pedagogy and performance assessments.

.These educators reviewed the test questions, compared the questions to Idaho’s
standards, and determined if the Praxis II assessment was aligned with

Idaho’s standards.

.Idaho reviewed every certificate and endorsement area that had a related Praxis
II assessment. Several endorsement areas require more than one test.

As examples:

1. Music endorsement -The reviewers felt the content area multiple-choice
assessment did not adequately assess a performance-based endorsement.

Ultimately the reviewers suggested a performance test be added. Music majors
are required to take two assessments -content and performance.

2. Standard Exceptional Child Certificate -The reviewers determined that two
assessments were needed. One assessment assesses basic skills

while the other assesses specific special education areas (i.e, mild to moderate,
hearing impaired).

3. Standard Elementary Certificate -Because NCLB requires elementary teachers
to take a pedagogy assessment, candidates must take both the content and
pedagogy assessments.

4. ETS offers a specific content area assessment only for Spanish, French and
German. Other foreign languages are taught in Idaho. A pedagogy assessment,
therefore, is required for other foreign languages.

5. Several endorsements do not have a Praxis II assessment (e.g., Philosophy,
Journalism, and Drivers Ed). The Professional Standards Commission is
discussing how to deal with those endorsements.

MIKE STEFANIC (presented the following)

.The Professional Standards Commission, with the help of Bureau of
Certification/Professional Standards staff, Dr. David Breithaupt- the Research
and Evaluation staff member in the Department, and Dr. Randy Thompson from
the State Board of Education, collaborated to formulate a recommendation to the
State Board of Education regarding Praxis II qualifying scores.

.A recommendation was made by the Professional Standards Commission to the
State Board of Education to approve the Praxis II assessment qualifying scores.
Dr. Randy Thompson submitted the recommendation from the Commission to the
State Board .

.The State Board of Education approved the qualifying scores for Praxis II
assessments as submitted at its December 4-5, 2003, meeting. The approval
states that:

.the qualifying scores for required Praxis II content, pedagogy and performance
assessments are based on the mean of the national data from 2002-2003
minus one standard deviation. Candidates will be held accountable for meeting
or exceeding the Praxis II qualifying scores on assessments taken from
September 1, 2004, forward.

.A copy of the assessments and the approved qualifying scores are included in
your packet.

KEITH POTTER (presented the following)

How Qualifying Scores Are Chosen

The ETS’s testing year begins in September and goes through June of the
following year. Idaho decided to pilot the Praxis II assessments beginning in
September 2002, with the intent of using the pilot scores as the basis for setting
qualifying scores.

A. ETS requires a minimum of 10 assessment scores in a given area to be
deemed statistically significant.

B. David Breithaupt, State Dept. of Ed statistician, indicated that a high stakes
assessment of this type should have a minimum of 27 scores when setting a
qualifying score.

C. When Idaho received the scores from ETS, there were a number of areas that
didn’t have enough scores to consider setting qualifying scores. A number of

assessment areas had less than 10 candidates who took the assessment. The
concern was -how long would it take to get enough scores so the qualifying score
could be set?

D. After a discussion within our bureau, and with David Breithaupt and Randy
Thompson of the SBOE, it was suggested that the qualifying scores be set
statistically using the national mean minus one standard deviation.

E. The Professional Standards Commission will monitor and review the yearly
scores and, when appropriate, make appropriate recommendations to the State
Board concerning qualifying score adjustments.

Questions were asked by the committee throughout the presentation.

With regards to who has to take this test, it was pointed out that all

teachers are required to take this test and they pay the costs associated
with it.

The Chairman called the meeting to order and said Dr. Stefanic and Mr.
Potter would continue their presentation.

MIKE STEFANIC (presented the following)

ABCTE (AMERICAN BOARD for the CERTIFICATION of

TEACHER EXCELLENCE)

At its December 4-5, 2003, meeting, the State Board of Education approved the
use of the ABCTE certification process in Idaho.

.The staff in the Bureau of Certification/Professional Standards developed an
implementation process to ensure that the American Board certification was an
alternate route to Idaho certification and not an alternative Idaho certificate.

.The bureau worked with ABCTE personnel and Dr. Randy Thompson from the
State Board office on this implementation process. Dr. Thompson and the
ABCTE

officials agree with the process.

.You have in your packet the ABCTE process. I want to address this process.

An American Board applicant for Idaho certification must meet either the
requirements for an Idaho interim certificate or a standard Idaho certificate. The
requirements for each of these options are listed below.

Option 1: To receive an Idaho interim certificate, American Board Certified
Teachers must: (1) successfully complete the American Board certification
process; submit a notarized copy of the American Board certificate; and submit a
completed Idaho certification application (including a $75 fee) and (2) as required
by Idaho statute, undergo a criminal history check on an Idaho fingerprint card
(including a $40 fee). When the American Board applicant meets these
requirements, he/she can be issued a three-year non-renewable Idaho interim
certificate. This certificate provides the applicant a window of time to meet the
requirements for standard Idaho certification and any other State Board approved
requirements in place at the time of Idaho interim certificate issuance.

Option 2: To receive a standard Idaho certificate, American Board Certified
Teachers must: (1) Successfully complete the American Board certification
process; submit a notarized copy of the American Board certificate; and submit a
completed Idaho certification application (including a $75 fee); (2) Take and pass
one of the three State Board-approved Idaho Technology competency
Assessments; (3) Take and pass the Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Assessment
or pass the Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Course (for K-8 teachers); (4) As
required by Idaho state, undergo a criminal history check on an Idaho fingerprint
card (including a $40 fee). Upon meeting the four standard certificate
requirements, the applicant will be issued a standard Idaho teaching certificate in
the area in which he/she is qualified.

Idaho Teacher Licensure

Testimony submitted by

Dennis D. Cartwright, Ph.D.

Dean School of Education, Social Work & Counseling

Northwest Nazarene University

I urge the Senate Education Committee to recommend that the ABCTE not be
allowed to meet the requirements for Idaho teacher certification for the following
reasons:

.Teacher certification/licensure is guaranteed by the constitution as being a right
of the state. Does Idaho want to give up this right to a test that was developed at
the federal level?

. The ABCTE was approved by the State Board without a public hearing

announcing that it was to be considered. There was not attempt to determine that

the items on the ABCTE align with the state standards for teacher preparation or

with the Idaho K-12 Standards (content validity).

.What is reliability or validity data on the exam? What must be provided is

predictive validity. In other words, are individuals more effective in helping

students learn who score higher on the ABCTE than those who score lower?

.If they are able to establish predictive validity, what score would be high enough

to say a person is qualified to teach? You cannot do a qualifying score setting

exercise until you establish what the test is measuring, that it is measuring it

consistently and that it is measuring what you want measured

.The American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence is planning to do a

longitudinal study, presumably to document the efficacy of teachers certified to

teach by passing this exam. Are we willing to allow children, Idaho children, to

be the guinea pigs for this study? How many years of our children’ s education

are we willing to put at risk to see if this experiment is going to work.

.Research reported by Dr. Linda Darling Hammond demonstrated that students

who have the good fortune of being in classrooms with caring, qualified teachers

score 50 percentile points higher on standardized exams than students of equal

ability who are placed in classrooms without caring, qualified teachers for three

years. This research supports the assertion that the single most critical variable
in

whether or not a child learns is the teacher. (citation available upon request)

.The ABCTE web page states that Idaho joins Pennsylvania as the second state
to adopt the ABCTE as meeting the requirements for state certification. This is an

interesting distinction for a state that has spent so much time and so many

resources, both state and foundation resources, to increase the standards for the

preparation of teachers. Other states, including Texas, have turned down the

ABCTE as meeting the qualification for licensure.

.The NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education)

standards, required of all Idaho institutions that prepare teachers, require

programs to use multiple measures to document what teacher candidates know

and are able to do. I know of no one, knowledgeable of psychometrics, who

would support single measure testing as being capable of making high stakes

decisions about the ability of an individual to accomplish complex functions

involving groups of people and complex concepts.

.The NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education)

standards, required of all Idaho institutions that prepare teachers, require

programs to demonstrate that teacher candidates have a positive impact on the

learning of the students with whom they work. No paper pencil exam taken by

prospective teachers can demonstrate that these candidates can impact the

learning of K-12 students.

.Teacher preparation programs are required to assess the knowledge, skills and

dispositions of candidates before allowing them to be recommended for

certification. Dispositions relate to the candidate’s orientation and attitude toward

children and teaching. These cannot be measured by a paper pencil exam.

.Teacher preparation programs work closely with K-12 practitioners to develop

and assess the skills and dispositions necessary to teach. Both higher education

faculty and K-12 faculty are critical elements in the formula to assure that

candidates are ready to take full responsibility for the learning of students.

.Some individuals who know the content can be successful in helping natural

learners learn. Some students will learn in spite of the skills and knowledge of the

individual who is “teaching” them. Teaching to this relatively small percentage

of natural learners is not enough. We must help all students learn. That is a

complex and daunting task that requires all of the skills and knowledge of an

individual who is well prepared by a program that integrates theory, practice, and

content.

.The ABCTE test for prospective teachers is a high stakes test for the K-12

students who may be placed in the classroom of an individual who “qualified” to

teach by a test score.

.There is a unique moral imperative associated with education, Students in the

public school do not have a choice about the classroom in which they are placed

or the qualifications of the individual who stands before them. This is unique

among the professions. I can choose the doctor or lawyer I will use. If I do not

believe they are qualified I can take my business elsewhere. This is not the case

for students. Therefore, we must be especially vigilant about the persons we

allow to enter our classrooms and how they qualify to be there. We must do

everything reasonable to assure they are individuals with the cognitive ability and

affective orientation to help all students learn.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Cartwright for his comments. He also
thanked Dr. Stefanic and Keith Potter for their presentations. He then
reminded the committee that the State Board of Education approved the
rules for the Praxis II Assessment Program and the American Board for
Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE) Alternate Route to Idaho
Certification and it is the State Department’s job to implement these rules.
Dr. Stefanic and Mr. Potter were doing their job today as the designated
messengers.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Rush provided copies of his annual report, plus copies of his
PowerPoint presentation. These documents are on file in the Education
Office. Following are some of his remarks.

Mr. Rush said their mission is to provide technical skills, knowledge and
attitudes for youth and adults and to help them be successful in the
workplace.

He covered three subject areas. Accomplishments – what they did with
the taxpayers money; Accommodations – what they had to do to meet
increased demand with fewer dollars; Anticipation – what they are asking
for in the budget and what those dollars will allow them to do.

The budget is divided into four areas. (1) State leadership and technical
assistance. (2) General programs. (3) Postsecondary programs. (4)
Underprepared adults/displaced homemakers. With regards to the first
area, it includes a quality agenda and aligns curricula with the Idaho
Achievement Standards. The second area includes secondary program
support, guidance and curriculum, workforce training and teacher
education.

The professional-technical schools have grown from 5 schools and 20
programs to 11 schools and 117 programs. The secondary enrollment
growth has increased 17 percent in the last five years and 78% over the
past 10. The average employment growth for all occupations is 15%;
those requiring a bachelor’s degree is 22%; and those requiring a
vocational associate degree is 32%. The general programs in technical
colleges served over 42,000 adults in every region of the state.

There are six technical colleges. Three are part of four-year institutions,
two are part of community colleges, and one is a stand-alone technical
college.

Some of the programs and services provided are:

Single Parents and Displaced Homemakers (served over 1,800
individuals)

Department of Correction (via distance learning, 54 have taken
courses)

Idaho’s Career Information System

Academic Skills Development

Short-Term Work Force Training (Since 1999, over 200,000 adults
have been served)

Mr. Rush thanked the committee for their continued support and the
Chairman thanked him for his annual report.

Senator Andreason said he had invited Pam Ahrens to clarify the ruling.
Ms. Ahrens agreed that it would take both bodies to overturn rules. The
Chairman thanked her for speaking to the committee regarding the
matter.

Senator Goedde then gave the committee members a copy of what his
region is preparing regarding a secondary route to graduation. It is based
on a score of points (385) that include grade point average, assessments,
professional/institution evaluation of student skills and portfolio or
performance measures. Fifty of the 385 points must be earned by
passing the ISAT reading or literacy assessment.

Senator Gannon questioned Ms. Gustafsen regarding the 200 written
comments her agency received prior to the hearings as to for or against
the implementation. She deferred that inquiry to Dr. Randy Thompson.
He said that it was 5 to 1 in favor of the rule and that he would provide
Senator Gannon a written copy.

It was asked if locally established mechanisms for graduation not need
approval by OSBE, but only to provide information to them. Ms.
Gustafsen said that was correct. Dr. Thompson said the intent is to
provide consistency.

Another question asked Dr. Thompson was would there be a different
diploma for passing the ISAT as compared to a secondary route. He
replied that he didn’t have enough information to form an opinion.

Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director of Idaho School Boards Association,
said they support ISAT but also support alternative routes.

A PowerPoint presentation was given. Handouts were also provided
(Fiscal Accountability of Pupil Transportation and copies of the slide
presentation). Both documents are on file in the Education Office.

A summary of Mr. Headlee’s remarks: Pupil transportation costs for
Idaho’s 114 school districts have increased nearly twice the rate of
inflation during the past ten years. Ridership is up five percent, number of
miles traveled by school buses has increased 20 percent, but
transportation cost have increased 49 percent. The State reimburses
school districts for 85 percent of the allowable costs of pupil transportation
and this amount totaled $56 M in fiscal year 2002. To address the
evaluation findings about state oversight, district administration, funding
cap implementation, contract management, and bus purchasing options,
the OPE made nine recommendations to the State Board of Education,
the State Department of Education, and the Independent School District
of Boise City. Implementation of these recommendations will allow the
state to have better accountability of pupil transportation, reduce
transportation costs, and help ensure safe and cost-effective pupil
transportation.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Schroeder said it was good to have the School Board
Association in town, many of whom he recognized. He thanked them for
attending the Educational Forums this past Fall. He stated that he is
anxious to hear what they have to say, as board members are on the
“front lines” at the local level.

Speaking next was Ms. Wanda Quinn who said their reasons for focusing
on the Idaho Reading Initiative are three-fold. First, the ISBA wants to
compliment the Legislature for their focus on reading at grade level by the
3rd grade. They also appreciate the State Department’s efforts.
Secondly, with regards to ISAT, they want to maintain focus on the
Initiative and the goal to have 85% of 3rd graders reading at grade level
by 2006. Their third and main focus for today is that they believe there
are aspects of the Initiative process that provide guidance in the
implementation of NCLB and ISAT. Specifically, the IRI set realistic goals
and targets for general population and special needs population. There
was funding for staff development and student intervention, as well as
valid and reliable assessments in the Idaho Reading Indicator.

Ms. Quinn said test scores are not the whole story, but they frame the
discussion about what may impact those scores positively and negatively
and allows the school boards to diagnose how well students, schools and
districts are doing. They took the test scores of kindergarten, 2001 to 2nd
grade, 2003, then focused on the 10 largest districts, 10 medium size
districts, and the 10 smallest districts.

My name is Deb Foster and I am a School Board Member for South Lemhi
School District # 292, located in Leadore and Tendoy, Idaho. We are a small
rural k-12 school. Our average population is about 120 students, with about 64%
of those falling at or below the poverty level. Though our teacher/student ratio
may be low, every teacher teaches more than one grade level. However, over the
past four years, our school has consistent, outstanding Idaho Reading Indicator
scores.

Sue Smith became principal of our school in September of 2000. Within the first
weeks it became apparent to her that we had high school students with high GP
A’s and who were scoring very low on their ACT tests, direct writing and direct
math tests. This disparity made her believe that we may have students with low
reading levels. Reading assessments were given to 2nd through 6th grade
students. These district-developed tests indicated that 65% of the students were
reading significantly below grade level. Three separate sets of scores were
compared to validate student functioning.

At this time Mrs. Smith introduced a 2nd through 6th grade extended reading
program. Every student in these grades were placed on an individualized reading
plan. In addition to our progressive classroom program, all students read out loud
to a trained reading instructor 15 minutes each day. This program allowed our
elementary students to read a minimum of 40 hours, out loud, to a trained
reading instructor each year. The instructors were existing paraprofessionals
and Tendoy community volunteers.

By spring 2000, scores indicated we now had 29% of our students reading below
level. Having seen that we could meet and exceed our own goal, our new goal
became not to have more than 10% reading below grade level by May 2002. In
other words: a 90% achievement level.

lRI reading scores for South Lemhi show that 92% of our students are reading at
grade level at this time. In order to achieve this goal it was necessary to have:

1. The School Board put reading as a primary focus in elementary classrooms

2. Small class sizes in k-3rd grade classes, with uninterrupted teaching blocks.

3. Excellent classroom teachers

4. Classified staff trained as reading instructors

5. An instructional leader who understands the reading process, and is able to
articulate that process to others and

6. Teacher training

Ms. Foster yielded her remaining time to Ms. Sue Smith, Principal of
Leadore and Tendoy Schools. Her report is inserted in the minutes.

I. Chairman Schroeder, Chairman Barraclough and members of the committees, I

want to thank you for your involvement in the education process.

a. I value the support you have given in setting high academic expectations

for each child in our state

b. As an administrator I feel the State Standards, ISAT testing, IRI testing and
other indicators set up by the State, Department of Education and State Board of
Education are all valuable tools.

i. We have to know where we are going before we can plan how we are going to
get there

ii. Standards tell us where we are going

iii. The ISAT test is a helpful measure to assure students are mastering goals, we
have found the ISAT scores correlate with other testing instruments we use.

iv. I believe in the No Child Left Behind Act. Every child has the right to quality
education that allows them to work to their maximum potential. However, every
child can not be proficient. 5-10% of our population do not have the cognitive
ability to achieve this goal. We can raise their test scores, for example, their IRI

scores from a low 1 to a middle or high 1, with excellent remediation. If the child
is working at their maximum potential it is not fair to the child to make them feel
like failures because they do not have the ability to get a 2. Even excellent
teachers can not perform miracles.

v. Schools should be held accountable that every child makes progress but they
cannot make every child proficient.

II. Learning how to read is a difficult task

a. A few people have natural phonetic abilities

b. Majority of people, reading is one of the most difficult task they achieve, it
takes four years of hard work. Children learn to read K-3rd grade and then from
4th grade on they use their reading skills to learn.

c. We all know that reading is primary in the education process, if children have
not learned to read by the end of the 3rd grade they probably never will. Failure
in reading means failure in every other academic endeavor.

d. We are dealing with a different society today

i. We have always had about 10% of our population that struggles in academic
world, mostly for cognitive reasons.

ii. There are more socially/emotionally burdened children in school, these
children need immediate identification. In your handout is a list of behaviors of
students who are at risk for learning how to read. It is necessary to set these
children up for success in the first days of school. A teacher needs to be
sensitive to what the child already knows and set lessons in such a way, you
assure their success. If this does not happen the wheel of reading failure can
begin in the first few weeks of Kindergarten.

iii. We have challenges in the education setting, but with a few changes these
challenges can be met.

IIl. Teacher Training

a. Only 1/10 teachers I have worked with throughout the years received quality
education in how to teach reading. Most, with proper training have the ability to
gain these skills.

b. In my undergraduate studies in education I was required to take two reading
classes, neither taught the nuts and bolts of really teaching reading.

c. Learning how to teach reading is a hands on skill

i. You can not learn it unless you are working under quality supervision, with
children

ii. I can sit and listen about how to teach reading all day and gain nothing

iii. I need to listen to children read and be taught phonemic awareness in order to
identify potential problems

iv. I need to listen to children who have not had the opportunity to learn about
semantic or voice as I call it, and learn how is voice taught

v. Teaching decoding skills is an art, and again must be observed

IV. IRI scores in Idaho will not improve until we have Excellent Teachers in every
classroom K-3rd grade.

a. An administrator can work with a poor teacher and make then fair but you will
never make a poor teacher excellent

b. An administrator can put the pressure on poor teachers to produce and if you
are lucky in two or three years they will seek other employment, to the detriment
of how many children?

c. An administrator can move teachers around placing excellent teachers in the
K-3rd grade classrooms, but then again, how fair is that to your upper elementary
students.

d. Of course we have a process to follow to eliminate teachers that have obvious
flaws but it is extremely difficult to remove a fair teacher.

e. Perhaps the biggest noose around an administrators neck in tenure, or
renewable contract status, in what other business do you intentionally lower the
quality of your product.

V. Idaho is doing a good job in preparing Elementary Administrators.

a. They are well prepared to run the business of the school.

b. However, they do not receive adequate preparation to be the instructional

leaders. Administrators need more training in he areas of:

i. child psychology

ii. identifying special needs children

iii. counseling

iv. maturation process

v. and a firm grip on the sequence of learning K-8th grade

c. Also administrators need to be freed from mounds of paper work so they can
spend large amounts of time in the classroom.

VI. For Idaho to achieve 90% Reading scores on the IRI test

a. Principals need to be instructional leaders that can detail and coordinate

the reading program. In most schools I have been involved with the classroom
teacher has her program, Special Education have their own agenda, the Title
programs have even different goals and the paraprofessionals are working on
separate but not necessarily coordinated goals.

b. Schools do not necessarily need more staff but the Instructional leader needs
to train the personnel in the structured reading process so all are working in
coordination to achieve the same goal, teaching children to read.

c. Again I will state we need Excellent teachers that are well versed in the
reading process

i. have the ability to identify at risk children

ii. set these children up for immediate success

d. The bottom line is, in order for children to learn to read they must have the

opportunity to read out-loud to a trained reading instructor 15 minutes each day,
plus their classroom reading program. This can happen in every school, if the
fIrst two hours of each day, every adult in the building is teaching reading. The
handout you received details the successful reading program used at the
Leadore and Tendoy elementary schools.

Mr. Chairman and Committee members, good morning. My name is Wendy
Horman and I am from Idaho Falls and am a member of the Board of Trustees of
the Bonneville School District, #93, in and around Idaho Falls.

I have been asked today to address some of the ways our district has
experienced success with the IRI. I have broken down our responses by
category.

At a district level:

.the number one response I heard as to why we have experienced success on
the IRI is that our teachers bought into this test as an assessment and
accountability piece. It was recognized that it was an important test and the
results of it would be a reflection on them and their school.

.It created a real focus on reading proficiency as soon as the child entered
school-helped us transition from Kindergarten as an academic experience as well
as a social parent

.As its name implies, it created an indicator or a data resource that is very
helpful in identifying those in need of remediation

.Established uniform objectives that give direction to both teachers and parents
Not every parent is going to help but for those who only lack information

on how to help, it’s very useful.

At a school building level, I started to get responses from principals and
teachers that represented the fundamental tools being used to help students
succeed on the IRI:

Star Early Literacy Test.

AIMSweb Fluency Test

Waterford Early Literacy Program

Saxon Phonics Program, Scott Forsman Program aligned

Remediation/Intervention Programs

Albertson’s TOBI Grant

IRl lnstructional Support Guide

From a parent perspective, which is the one I’m really most qualified to address,
because factors identify what helps their children succeed at reading:

Focus

Effective teacher

Improvement of resources used in teaching (other testing tools-maybe mention

Waterford, computers/technology, curriculum)

Communication of testing results

Very appreciative of positive changes I have seen over the past 11 years when I
put my oldest child in Kindergarten to last year when I put my youngest in school

As policymakers, sometimes it’s hard to know how our great ideas or initiatives
will trickle down. This one has been one where the intent did not get lost in the
translation – a win-win right down to the student classroom level. There is no
question that more children are better readers, getting more effective reading
instruction, as a result of the Idaho Reading Initiative.

Lessons learned from implementation of the IRI which could be used in the
implementation of ISATs .

Teacher Accountability -There are many aspects of accountability and teacher

accountability is one level. It’s important for teachers to understand that although
test scores are not the only thing they are responsible for, they are one
increasingly important element.

Student Accountability I wish there was some initiative that could create a
desire for learning. Let me tell you a story from inside one of our middle schools
that occurred a few weeks ago as we were changing semester. Five 8th grade
students who scored below proficiency on their Reading ISAT were brought in by
the counselor to change their schedule so they could be placed Into an extra
reading class to help get them up to speed. As each one of them met
independently with the counselor, each confessed to not having tried very hard
on their ISAT. This extra reading class was going to deny then an elective so
they were quite motivated to change their circumstance. All asked for another
chance to take the Winter ISA T to prove they didn’t need to be in this extra
reading class. Because the winter ISAT test is not an accountability piece
required by the state, and the results are for internal use to help target
instruction, and, very luckily for them, because the winter testing window still
happened to be open, all five were

permitted to retake the test. Here are the results:

1st RIT Score/Grade Level 2nd RIT Score/Grade
Level

Student 1 200/4th 222/9th ( 22)

Student 2 209/5th 223/9th (+14)

Student 3 212/6th 219/8th (+7)

Student 4 212/6th 221/9th (+9)

Student 5 214/6th 226/10th (+12)

So a lesson to be learned is that accountability isn’t just for teachers,
administrators and school boards-it’s for students as well. There’s a fine line
between putting too much pressure on kids and not enough and it’s different for
every child, nonetheless, we must work to find that appropriate balance.

Data can be used to differentiate instruction. In ordinary English, that means
we can use both IRI and ISAT test data to see where children are and adjust our
teaching to meet their particular needs.

Students aren’t the only group. ..

Where do we go from here? Continue to identify and use research based
practices. As far as how do we get from where we are now to where we need to
be in 2006, keep doing what works. It was just a little over a year ago I was
sitting in my first school board meeting wondering what in the world I had gotten
myself into. But thanks to some really great fellow board members, a strong
superintendent and the training we’ve received from our school board
association, thru conferences, tele-training calls, and workshops, our board is
able to learn what we need to do and to work cooperatively.

Inserted are the five recommendations from ISBA to help achieve the
statewide goal for reading achievement.

Lessons Learned from the Idaho Reading Initiative (IRI) and

Recommendations for Implementation of the Idaho Student Achievement
Test

(ISAT) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

I. lRI: The Legislature allowed public comment and made appropriate
changes to the reading initiative.

Recommendation: Continue to involve board members and other
education stakeholders in the development of state policies on ISAT and
NCLB.

2. lRI: The Legislature funded the reading intervention program for
struggling students.

Recommendation: In order for the ISA T to be as successful as the lRI, a
process for academic intervention and support for students will need to be
funded.

3. lRI: The Legislature funded the Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Course
for kindergarten through eight grade teachers and made the literacy
course a certification requirement.

Recommendation: Support instructional leadership and high-quality
professional development.

4. lRI: The Legislature funded the Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI)
assessment which provided frequent, useful information and clear targets
for teachers.

Recommendation: Fund technology and support staff to provide for the
ISA T and the Idaho Student Information Management System (ISIMS)
project. Estimates are that of the 87,000 computers in Idaho schools,
57,000 are not technologically current enough to run the ISIMS suite of
programs.

5. lRI: The Legislature maximized the use of scarce resources (dollars,
time and personnel) for the lRI requirements and funding.

Recommendation: Continue to communicate with Congress and the U.S.
Department of Education concerning those portions of NCLB which make
poor use of tax dollars or do not work well in Idaho.

Statewide Goal for Reading Achievement

Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade

S 2004 55% 60%

S 2005 55% 65% 70%

S 2006 60% 70% 80% 85%

Chairman Barraclough allowed time for questions from the committee.

It was announced that the committee members were invited to a luncheon
at the Crystal Ballroom, hosted by ISBA.

The Senate Education committee members are to return to Room 433 for
further business, and the House Education committee members are to
remain in the Gold Room.

Room 433

1. Intent language process in JFAC.

2. Restoration of full $8.4 M for technology grants.

3. Restoration of $1 M for Less Restrictive Environment for teacher
training and aides.

4. Ensure that $10,002,100 in Executive Budget marked for
Discretionary Compensation is actually spent on salaries.

5. Do we really want to have a distribution factor which is less than
last year?

6. Support outside review of ISAT by testing experts, working
through Office of Performance Evaluations.

Senator Goedde requested that #4 be moved upward on the priority list
and suggested that the base salary be increased for one year, including
benefits. Senator Noh said this could be included in his motion.

Chairman Schroeder requested that Tim Hill and Mark Dunham be
present at JFAC when he makes his presentation Wednesday morning.
Senator Andreason suggested that Jeff Youtz be included to answer
questions regarding CEC.

Chairman Schroeder asked the committee to bring their RS’s to him
Friday or Monday, as Monday is the last day for this committee to have
them printed.

EXCUSED:

President Meyerhoeffer provided the committee with colored copies of a
PowerPoint presentation which he referred to in his remarks (attached).
He introduced Jeff Duggan who is with the college in an administrative
position. The President also noted that there was not a picture of CSI on
the Education wall of the room and that perhaps something could be done
about that.

President Meyerhoeffer said the campus consists of 160 acres and has a
total enrollment of 7,000 students. As a community college, their mission
is to:

• Serve diverse student population:
• Two-year degree programs
• Four-year transfer students
• Technical students
• Under-prepared and low-literacy students





• Provide Center for Region’s Educational Needs, Economy and
  Cultural Events
• Collaborate with K-12 Education
• Partner with Universities
• Promote Community Economic Development

The student growth at CSI has increased 71.2% over the last ten years.
President Meyerhoeffer said that CSI students who transfer after earning
a CSI degree maintain a higher average GPA than do students who
transfer prior to earning a degree.

During the 2003 fiscal year, CSI served 2,138 students with nearly
110,000 hours of adult basic education and/or English as a second
language instruction at 17 sites throughout the eight county service
region. The counties served are Camas, Blaine, Gooding, Lincoln,
Jerome, Minidoka, Cassia and Twin Falls. During calendar year 2003,
CSI offered 339 dual credit sections to over 2,000 students at 34 sites
throughout Idaho and also via the Internet. During the same period, tech
prep courses that can be articulated to 61 CSI courses were offered at 20
Idaho locations.

President Meyerhoeffer stated that they are good stewards of their money
because over the past two fiscal years, CSI has reduced expenditures per
full-time equivalent student over 15%.

He then talked about economic development and the partnerships with
industry. CSI helped Dell Computers meet its goal of more than 800
employees in the Twin Falls facility by fall 2002.

They have now established training partnerships with Freightliner and
Penske. During the past two years, CSI has provided 195 training
courses to 1,525 students at 77 different sites across the country.

EXCUSED:

Because this provision is in a different code section from most other
ethics in government provisions, it is easily overlooked and, in fact,
through oversight, is not included in the handbooks published by the
Office of the Attorney General to guide public officials and employees. It
is a crime, under Idaho Code 67-5718, for an officer or employee of state
government to influence or attempt to influence the award of a contract to
a particular vendor. No officer or employee shall conspire with a vendor
or its agent, and no vendor or its agent shall conspire with an officer of
employee to influence or attempt to influence the award of a contract.
The first is a misdemeanor; the second is a felony.

Senator Stegner said this bill started out as a very simple bill. He said
that it is a misdemeanor for a parent or guardian to knowingly fail to
provide an education for a child and a court may impose conditions as
needed to enforce this section. He then explained that two school
principals from the Lewiston school system contacted him concerning this
issue. This is about innocent small children left at home because of the
parents failure to get them to school. Senator Stegner then read from the
Constitution regarding children’s education. (He provided the committee
members with a folder containing documents that he will be referring to
[i.e. statutes, code, etc.]) He also said this bill has generated a lot of
interest from the home-schooling industry and he said it is not an attack
against home-schoolers and any relevance to home-schoolers is very
limited.

In the bill on lines 12 and 13, probate court will be deleted and replaced
by magistrate court. On line 21, Youth Rehabilitation Act will be replaced
by Juvenile Corrections Act. This is explained in Title 20, Chapter 5. S
1209 is a corrections bill – it doesn’t change the meaning of the law – and
was requested by the Supreme Court. The Senate has already passed
this bill this year. However, that bill is not in effect yet, so it is necessary
to replace the terminology on lines 12, 13, and 21.

Senator Stegner said he needed to talk about the Juvenile Corrections
Act. In the 2nd sentence, third line, ….in the purview of the Juveniles
Corrections Act….. Then it talks about the parents of the juvenile offender
held accountable. He said his main point is that the only way this code
section has any jurisdiction over parents is after the juvenile has created
an offense. What this legislation is trying to achieve is to protect the
innocent children who have broken no law. It would go after parents,
rather than the child. He said Title 33, Chapter 202, there is a
Constitutional responsibility and a statute responsibility. Another term
that you will hear is competently instructed.

The first complaint that Senator Stegner has received in many e-mails is
in reference to a misdemeanor on line 16. He said he is not creating a
misdemeanor, it is already a misdemeanor under the Juvenile Corrections
Act. In that Act, 20-526 …..shall be guilty. The child has to be accused
first.

The second most complaint is the term “competently instructed”. Again,
this term is already in the law. Senator Stegner feels it should be in the
education code.

The third complaint pertains to the last three lines of the bill, emergency
clause. This changes the implementation date. The practical purpose is
that it could be used this Spring, rather than waiting until the Fall
semester. On line 16 of the bill, Senator Stegner said the word
“knowingly” has been added and the words failing, neglecting or refusing
have been deleted. He feels this will strengthen the law.

The real difference between this bill and what the current law is that the
Juvenile Corrections Act was not made for adults, it was made for kids.
Senator Stegner said the question that needs answering regarding this bill
is, “Do we want to continue to file charges against children for the wrongs
of their parents?” Senator Stegner said this language needs to be in the
Education Title, Title 33. School districts right now can file an action
against a child, then come around through the back door of the Juvenile
Corrections Act, and charge the parents with a misdemeanor.

Dr. Rapp said that she supports this legislation for three specific reasons.
It replaces outdated references to the Youth Rehabilitation Act and
Probate Court. S 1233 further clarifies it would be a misdemeanor for a
parent or guardian of school age children to knowingly fail or neglect or
refuse to educate a child. This law would make it clear there are
consequences for not complying with the compulsory attendance law,
which is already in Idaho Code 33-202. Inclusion of a misdemeanor
would eliminate the need to reference other sections of code and would
provide clear guidance to school personnel, parents and the court system.
Idaho Code 33-202 stipulates that attendance is compulsory for all
children between the ages of 7 and 16 years and that parents and
guardians are responsible to ensure that children are in attendance. Dr.
Rapp said that clarification is needed in Idaho Code 33-207 and that S
1233 places responsibility on the adults responsible for the children.

Dr. Peters said if there are concerns within the public school arena, a bill
should be drafted that is specific to the public school arena. He feels S
1233 is a mistake and encouraged the committee to vote against the bill.

Dr. Peters: No, that is not correct. You can have truancy in any one of
the parallel education systems that we have in this state.
You can have it in the public school system, private school
system, parochial schools or in home education. If they
are not receiving the instruction they are required to
receive, they fall into the category of habitual truant.

Sen. Gannon: You just classified home education along with public and
private schools, so I interpret from that the State has
recognized home education as a legitimate form of
education?

Dr. Peters: Senator Gannon, the phrase you will see that starts in
Idaho Code 33-202, it says that unless the child is
otherwise comparably instructed the child shall be enrolled
in public, private or parochial school. The otherwise
comparably instructed is the mantle that covers home
education, so yes, ………

Sen. Gannon: So then, you would say that home education is a
comparable form of instruction?

Dr. Peters: ……it is comparable and oftentimes superior, but it is not by
itself automatically comparable. For example, if there is
evidence of someone who claims to be home educating,
who in fact is not doing their job because they lack the
skills or lack the will to do the job, they are not providing
instruction that is comparable to that available in the public
school system. Therefore, that doesn’t mean that gives
them a get out of jail card……

Sen. Gannon: In that case, then what law would we use, or what code
would we use to go after that parent and I have a specific
example in mind without naming names. I know of a
situation where we have a parent that was an eighth grade
dropout, that is home schooling children ­ quote­ home
schooling her children. She gives home schooling a black
eye and I guess as the home schooling attorney, you
would not want us to go after her using this code, without
trying to figure some way to ingest her children into the
Juvenile Corrections system.

Dr. Peters: Senator Gannon, please understand, all of you, ….claims
to the educating of his or her children at home and is not
doing the job, you have our full blessing to see them
prosecuted. We would never want to shield any of those
children from having their parents prosecuted.

Testimony

Next to testify was Ms. Linda Larson, principal, Emmett Primary School.
She said that she has been in education for 34 years, with 18 of those
years in administration, and attendance has always been a frustration.
She stated that you cannot educate children if they are not there. With
the NCLB requirements of holding schools accountable, schools need the
support of the parents to ensure that the children are there. As an
administrator, she said that being held accountable is okay, but if the
children are not there, the school and teachers cannot be held
accountable. Ms. Larson said she feels this bill is a good start to making
parents responsible and urged the committee’s support for it.

Ms. Ronalee Linsenmann, a Nampa parent, stated that bills should say
what they mean and mean what they say.

Next to testify was Ms. Sandra Stange. A copy of Ms. Stange’s testimony
is inserted in the minutes.

I have been a School Social Worker for the past sixteen years and have worked

extensively with children from at risk families. The families are “at risk” for many

different reasons, but one of the most frequent symptoms we see at school for
these children is their lack of regular and consistent attendance. It is often the
case that when a parent/guardian is not able to function fully in their own lives,
one of the first things that goes is the effort they must make to see to it that their
children are in school on time and on a daily basis. It seems to me that we cannot
necessarily “fix” all the reasons that families are at risk, but as a community we
can raise the bar of expectations for parental responsibility . There are many
studies and statistics that indicate the correlation between school attendance and
school success. When children develop early patterns of being non-attenders,
they are at a much greater risk of truant behavior in adolescence, and
consequently at greater risk of dropping out of school. Early elementary
students, in particular, are quite dependent on their parents to see to it that they
are in school on time and every day. I am often called on to visit with families who
are unable to meet this goal. They generally say they’d like their kids to attend,
but

they just can’t get them up on time, or any number of other excuses. Sometimes
we are able to provide assistance, or implement an intervention that solves the
problem. Other times, no matter what we do, the family continues to short change
their child’s education, by not solving the attendance problem. While the school
understands children are sick, and all families have an occasional calamity , or
good reason for their student not to be at school, we are concerned about the

chronic non-attenders. These are children who miss 30 or 40% of the school
days each year, and they are children who do this year after year. It would be
most helpful in attempting to hold these parents/guardians accountable to have
an Idaho Code in which the court could impose misdemeanor charges, or better
yet court imposed conditions, against the parents of these children. During
elementary, it is not the children who are to blame for chronic truancies; they are

only the victims of parents who are unable or unwilling to carry out their duties. It
is this worker’s observation that some families will only respond if faced with legal

ramifications for their lack of getting their children to school. It would be a limited
number of families who would need to be referred. We would continue to problem
solve and provide support services to families before sending them into the court
system. However, a law holding parents accountable would provide us with

further options, when we come up against a family where nothing else motivates
them.

Thank-you for your time and consideration of passing Bill No. 1233

EXCUSED: