08-0203-0202

08-0203-0204

08-0203-0203

08-0202-0203

08-0202-0201

08-0202-0202

47-0101-0201

47-0102-0201 &

47-0103-0201

08-0203-0201

In response to questions about why NAEP only tests 4^th and 8^th grade
students and whether NCLB will change this, Dr. Stoneberg explained
that most of the Title I funds are spent at the elementary level and this
may not change because Congress selected the NAEP assessment to
comply with NCLB because 45 out of the 50 states are already using it.
Chairman Tilman expressed concerns about how the NAEP Coordinator
position was funded, how this position fits into the whole assessment
picture, the involvement of the State Board with this position ­ basically,
no one has talked to this policy committee about this. Dr. Stoneberg
explained that there are five parts to Idaho’s assessment strategy: ISAT
(fall and spring); Idaho Reading Indicator, Direct Math Assessment, Direct
Writing Assessment and NAEP. He stated that his NAEP position is
federally funded, and as far as the assessment picture, it is his
understanding that the State Board is responsible for policies pertaining to
assessment and the Department is responsible for implementation. He
said he works closely with Sally Tiel, who is responsible for making sure
the programs are going forward.

Several questions were asked about whether NAEP is the only Federally
required test, does the state have a say in which students are selected for
the test, how much time is taken out of class, what the measurement of
error is, whether NAEP is comprehensive enough to do away with all the
other assessments, and are state results from other assessments
provided to NAEP. Dr. Stoneberg responded “yes” that NAEP is the only
Federally required test and “no” the state does not have a say in which
students take the test. He did say that if a school has fewer than 121
students all students may take the test. He estimates the time of the
assessment to be less than 90 minutes and the measure of error less
than two points. He also explained that the other state assessments
provide data on each district, each school and each student in Idaho
where NAEP compares data nationally. NAEP cannot replace all other
tests because all students do not take the test and each test has its
primary function, i.e. ISAT tests basic math skills where the Direct Math
test evaluates problem solving skills.

Concerns were voiced about Federal funding going away after three
years and whether the costs of administering the tests is also Federally
funded. Dr. Stoneberg stated he feels the Federal money for this position
will continue and that all costs of administering the tests are Federally
funded except for the School Coordinator’s time.

A final question was asked about the “opting out” provision for the NAEP
assessments and whether they “opt in” another student if a parent
chooses not to have their child take the exam. Dr. Stoneberg explained
that under Federal law parents have the option to “opt out” but under
State Board Rule they do not. Because Westat employees are Federal
employees they can remove the student at the parent’s request and the
statistics have a built in provision to account for this.

EXCUSED:

When asked how the Department and Board are dealing with
remediation, Ms. McGee said they would be looking at the entire system
this spring. She mentioned that Idaho has received $3 million for the
Reading First program which should facilitate remediation and also school
districts who have been using level testing can immediately identify
students who need help.

Several members of the committee are educators and they fully support
these efforts, but voiced their concerns about the amount of time it takes
for teachers to analyze the individual scores and develop plans. They
were also worried about having to follow the standards and not being able
to be creative in their classrooms. Ms. McGee explained that the
assessment committee feels they shouldn’t tie assessment to
accountability for the first three years. Because there are standards for all
subjects, she did not feel that teacher’s creativity would be suppressed
but only enhanced. She mentioned the new Information System that
Albertson’s has committed to fund throughout the state and explained this
should bring data uniformity into place, allowing teachers to have this data
management tool at their fingertips.

A concern was voiced about all of the testing taking place in the schools
and whether the ISAT can replace some of these. Ms. McGee assured
them that the Board and the Department will be continually looking at the
entire package to see if there is duplication.

A question was asked about accountability of school trustees since we
are holding the teachers and administrators accountable. Ms. McGee said
the accountability has just met with Cliff Green, Executive Director for the
Idaho School Boards Association, to talk about this. She said trustees are
volunteers in their districts, but she feels they can be very effective in
setting policy and helping the Department and Board get rid of
cumbersome, unnecessary regulations.

When asked if the amount of money coming to Idaho from NCLB is
enough to get the job done, Ms. McGee said personally she feels it is
enough if we target the money properly. She said one area the Board
members plan to look at is transportation.

It was asked if the Board has a date to complete an accountability plan?
Ms. McGee said the Board’s goal is to have an accountability plan ready
for the Legislators next year.

Time and cost of professional development for teachers were key
concerns voiced, and it was asked if these programs could take place in
the summer and if our institutes of higher education are doing their job. If
so, why are we continuing to fund professional development, especially
for new teachers? What are districts doing to articulate their
requirements/expectations for new teachers to the colleges and
universities? Ms. McGee said it is possible to hold some professional
development courses in the summer, but some of the training requires
student to be present. Regarding teachers not being prepared when
entering the classroom, Mr. Jim Hammond explained that through Idaho’s
Most program they have defined a new performance model for teachers.
Several universities are working with districts in their area. Because of
high teacher turnover in the first five years, Mr. Hammond said he feels
new teachers still need proper induction and need to be able to work with
a master teacher. The question was asked if we are tracking teacher
turnover and if we are making a difference in this area. Mr. Hammond
said he will be presenting an update on Idaho’s Most in the next few
weeks and will try and address these questions indepth.

EXCUSED:

EXCUSED:

Mr. Tim Hill, Bureau Chief for Finance and Transportation, State
Department of Education, was called upon to explain the trend data they
analyzed to come up with the percentage of increase (Attachment 2). This
attachment depicts the past 8 years of salary data for Instructional,
Administrative and Classified positions and shows the difference in actual
salaries vs. salary-based apportionment. He stated that in 1997 the
districts were using about 13% of their discretionary funds for salaries and
now that has gone up to 17%. Districts (50 out of the 114) have about $62
million dollars coming in from supplemental levies for maintenance and
operations. The Department is trying to determine if the formula is
providing an adequate level of funding, but not trying to take funding up to
the full level, just cover technology and special education positions.

EXCUSED:

Agricultural Research and Extension Service, Pages 1-3 and 1-4 ­ the
most significant change in this budget was the decrease in state dollars
for full-time positions. Federal funding received does allow them some
flexibility in the number of positions cut.

College and Universities, Pages 1-11 and 1-12 ­ Mr. Hasselquist went
through the various components of this budget and explained that the
Governor is recommending a 2.4% inflationary increase and discussed
the nonstandard adjustments for enrollment workload adjustment and
other external adjustments which include several formula-driven
components. Also, based on the State Board action, the Governor’s
recommendation includes a 10% increase in student fees. It was
explained that matriculation and non-resident fees are the only fees
calculated in the general funds. An additional 1% increase is included for
employee compensation. It was pointed out that only 42% of college and
university funding comes from state appropriations.

Community Colleges, Pages 1-25 and 1-26 ­ the two community
colleges divide the appropriated funds in half. The tuition at the
community colleges amounts to about $1,550 per year vs. $3,000 at the
Universities. Community colleges receive property taxes from bordering
counties and the other counties pay a fee of $500 per student.

School of the Deaf & Blind, Pages 1-33 and 1-34 ­ their superintendent
is aggressively pushing to improve the school. Their biggest challenge is
to get teacher’s salaries at the same level of public schools.

Health Education, Pages 1-45 and 1-46 ­ Mr. Hasselquist mentioned
that part of the investment Idaho is making in these programs is to bring
medical doctors back to Idaho. The increases seen here reflect the costs
for the increased seats that were approved last year by the Legislature.

Historical Society and the State Library, Pages 1-53, 1-54, 1-59 and 1-60 ­ these budgets reflect only the MCO increase. The Governor is
recommended an increase to fund the Lewis & Clark Trail Committee.

Professional-Technical Education, Pages 1-65 and 1-66 ­ this budget
encompasses both high school and post secondary professional technical
programs. Increases are being requested for secondary enrollment
workload adjustments and increased enrollment. At the postsecondary
level increases are requested for Capacity Building and 27.2 new
positions.

Educational Public Broadcasting System, Pages 1-77 and 1-88 ­ funds
requested are to support the infrastructure of the digital system, to
complete one more link, and to enhance service in some local areas.

Public School Support Budget, Pages 1-83 and 1-84, the State Board
supported maintaining an MCO budget, but did accept the Governor’s
request for a $2 million increase for assessment. When asked if the $2
million additional for assessment would go to the Board, it was stated that
the Board did not include this in their budget.

Special Programs, Pages 1-97 and 1-98 ­ this request deals with
increases in scholarships for various programs and involves an increase
recommended by the Governor for need based scholarships.

Superintendent of Public Instruction, Pages 1-107 and 1-108 ­ these
funds are appropriated to the Superintendent’s office and the Board does
not review this request. When asked why the Board does not review, Mr.
Hasselquist explained that the Superintendent is an elected official.

Vocational Rehabilitation, Pages 1-115 and 1-116 ­ this budget request
is for Epilepsy Services, Independent Living Council, Renal Disease
Services, and Vocational Rehabilitation. An increase was requested by
the agency but not recommended by the Governor.

EXCUSED:

Federal Funding Received for Various Programs ­ Representative Trail
asked about these funds, and Mr. Hancock stated that the legislature
does not appropriate federal funds through the public schools budget, but
the Department maintains and distributes federal funds. The Governor’s
recommendation is for $4 million for Achievement Standards
Implementation ­ $2 million from the general fund and $2 from Federal
funds distributed as part of the public schools budget, not through the
Department. Representative Jones pointed out that it is not clear on how
federal funds for NCLB will be distributed. Mr. Hancock said he has not
read the act and does not know if statutorily the funds must go to the
Department. He said because the public education budget is managed by
the Department, putting the federal funds for NCLB in their budget may
not be a problem.

Property Tax Replacement ­ It was explained that by law the state is
required to fund 1mill and that the districts are not limited in the amount a
levy can generate but by the percent of levy. If the assessed property
value exceeds the percent set, the district receives less support from the
state.

Different Budget Requests ­ Representative Eberle asked if the
Department and the Governor’s office had met to try and work out the
differences in the requests. Mr. Hancock explained that the Department’s
budget is determined by a coalition of the IEA, ISBA, IASA, PTA and he
and Jeff Shinn from the Governor’s office sit in on this. The Governor’s
budget recommendation is formulated by the Department of Financial
Management.

Transportation Costs ­ It was pointed out that Transportation includes
salaries, bus purchases and valid costs of transporting students for the
purpose of education. Representatives Barraclough and Eberle pointed
out that several districts have saved money by purchasing basic buses
with no frills and by several districts going together on the contracts.

Increase in Salary Based Apportionment ­ it was asked if enrollment is
decreasing or fairly flat, why the increase. Mr. Hancock contributed this to
the one-year provision that if enrollment is down in a district the district
will still receive 99% of their apportionment and to increased enrollment in
the urban areas. He felt that charter schools have also driven up the
support units.

EXCUSED:

INFORMATION

REQUESTS:

The executive budget mirrors the public schools budget for the
statutory items, except that the Governor is not recommending a 2%
increase in base salaries nor is he recommending and increase for
classified personnel. He is only recommending the index increases
mandated by Idaho Code.

The State Board of Education budget was done outside the executive
request, and Mr. Shinn stated he did not know how it differed from the
executive budget.

Idaho does not have a statewide mandated salary scale. The
appropriations are sent to the districts, and salary decisions/negotiations
take place locally.

EXCUSED:

Lead Agency ­ The Albertson Foundation is neutral as far as a lead
agency, but believes the agency must have access to the data that
needs to be standardized. From a policy standpoint, the state must
determine which agency should have the lead for this system.

Security ­ The data will be encrypted and the access will be
determined by the lead agency. It was explained that with the system
design proposed, a security breach would only have to be solved one
time, not at every district.

Report Capability and Paperwork Reduction ­ It was pointed out that
the system will house data in a manner that will allow reports to be
generated for NCLB and other programs at the lead agency rather than
each district having to generate the reports. These capabilities should
eliminate much of the paperwork being done manually at the district or
building level.

System Upgrades ­ It is expected that upgrades will be required each
year, but long-term contracts will include software upgrades.

Adequate Bandwidths in Idaho ­ It was explained that in areas such as
Stanley where insufficient bandwidths exist, servers could be installed
and the lead agency would maintain and support these servers.

Ongoing Costs ­ It is estimated that ongoing costs will be from $5.7 to
$7 million per year once the $35 million grant has expired. Training can
be done using a train-the-trainer approach and through the Universities.

Use of Compass Software ­ It was explained that Compass
capabilities are an extension of this system, and the Pocatello school
district is one of the working models for ISIMS and they also use
Compass. It was emphasized that the basic system must be in place
first.

Helping Students ­ It was explained ISIMS would enable the state to
gather consistent data on every student in the state.

EXCUSED:

Ms. McClaran stated that the agency request is about 1% less than the
Governor’s (Attachment 1), and she outlined the general differences
between the agency request and the Governor’s recommendation in
higher education for FY 2004.

The Governor did not recommend general inflationary adjustments
(with the exception of the college/university budget), nor did he
recommend a medical inflationary adjustment for some of the medical
programs.

The Governor did not recommend funding the change in employee
compensation (CEC); however, he did recommend funding to be applied
toward the employee portion of the health and dental insurance cost
increases.

The Governor also recommends $1,026,800 in additional ongoing
general funds for need-based scholarships found under special
programs administered by OSBE, and he recommends bonding for $67.2
million in deferred public building fund capital projects ­ of this amount,
$61.1 million are for education.

EXCUSED:

Rapid Growth and Funding: If growth is too rapid, a formula may be
used to allocate seats to districts. If IDLA is funded through ADA it would
take away the advantage to the districts, make it competitive, and create
a paperwork nightmare. Quality education for the students is their goal
and using the IDLA to make money with online training for teachers and
others may take away from this goal. It is felt that the $600,000 budget
request will serve about 1,600 students.

Class Size and Teacher Salaries: Class size is capped at 25 because
most of the teachers are part-time teachers who may teach full-time in
public schools. Salaries are based on number of students and with a
class of 18-25 students a teacher is paid $2,600 for a semester credit
plus $200 for a Masters Degree and $200 for Online Learning
experience. For specialized classes where enrollment is limited, the
teacher earns $225 per student for a course.

IDLA Structure: IDLA is a legal entity that functions under the State
Department of Education but all financial transactions are handled
through Blaine County. Dr. Mike Friend, Executive Director, IASA,
explained that the statute creating the IDLA required the establishment of
a host district for accreditation purposes. The dollars flow through the
State Department of Education and the fiscal agent is Blaine County
District. The Board of Trustees has established the pay rates and hires
the teachers.

SUBMITTED

EXCUSED:

Equity Issue: Dr. Bowen said the recommendation by the Board to
address the equity issue on an ongoing basis means that inequities are
not getting worse, and they have realized a marginal increase (2%). His
hope is that future funding will be such that historical inequities will be
addressed.

Student Fee Increases: Dr. Bowen said student fees have increased
by 100% and he attributes this to a massive shift in public policy and to
the fact that states who have higher student fees receive more federal
funding.

Criticism for New Engineering Program: Dr. Bowen said he has
received criticism for starting a new program in tight times, but attributes
that to those who feel if you invest in something new you are taking
away from them. He said he felt the program would be self-supporting in
two years and would enhance ISU’s engineering program.

Weighted Credit Hours: Dr. Bowen explained that there are a number
of considerations in the way the formula is computed such as level of
course (freshman, graduate, doctorate) and also the field of study. A
graduate course in biology is funded at 6.5% more than a freshman
English class. Some of the changes were made because of inequities.

Saturating the Market: Dr. Bowen said there may be too many
graduates in some areas but there are extreme shortages in other areas
and it is basically up to the student to chose wisely.

Budget Sources: ISU is funded 34% by the state and 18% by student
fees and the remainder comes from grants, contracts, food services,
dorms fees. Budgets have increased because of more federal funds, but
the funds come with restrictions that do not allow them to be used to
hire staff.

Budget Cuts: Dr. Bowen said they may have to return to a small,
viable institution and restrict enrollment. He was asked if classes could
be used as profit centers to pay for instructors, and it was explained that
only 1/3 of student costs are reimbursed through the workload
adjustment. He stressed his priority is to concentrate on full time
enrollment because it results in more funding.

When asked if ISU will include use of the ISAT and ISIMS as part of
the course offerings, Dr. Harris said “yes”. The teacher work samples
require the students to collect and analyze data and it may be possible
to include use of the ISAT and ISIMS.

When asked how they plan on accomplishing the new initiatives with
existing staff, Dr. Harris said the faculty will continue to work “flat out” to
accomplish the initiatives, but with additional resources the initiatives
could be implemented quicker and better.

To the question about whether new teachers graduating from ISU will
require less mentoring, he said he feels a different type of mentoring will
be required to allow them to progress at a better rate.

In response to ESL for adults and young people, Dr. Harris pointed
out that ISU is involved in the “Grow Your Own” program and have
about 40 para-professionals in this program. ISU is also offering a minor
in ESL.

Regarding changes to evaluate students and prevent dropouts the
first year of teaching, Dr. Harris said the admission standards are much
higher and students are in the public schools much earlier in the
process. Students will be removed or provided remediation if they are
not performing. He said he doesn’t like the public schools to make
decisions that should have been made at the University.

EXCUSED:

EXCUSED:

EXCUSED:

Higher Fees Result in More Federal Funding ­ Dr. Ruch explained
that there is a relationship between federal financial aid and fees.
Basically, the package for student fees is predicated on the type of
federal funding and the ability to offer loans at a higher rate.

Premiere BSU’s Engineering Program ­ Dr. Ruch said he recognizes
the importance of technology to the economy, but doesn’t necessarily
agree to centralizing the program because each university is offering a
specialty engineering program.

Positions Eliminated (Filled or Unfilled) ­ He said four were filled and
the others in some stage of recruiting which takes about a year. He
stated that positions resulting from retirement revert to the Provost to
reallocate. However, they are still 22 positions short.

Stabilization Fund ­ Dr. Ruch said BSU locates places where they
need money and they might be able to come up with extra dollars in the
short-term, but they have done all they can, and every service dollar not
received means less services.

Equity Issue ­ Dr. Ruch pointed out that under the old equity formula
the world was changing but the formula was not and it was not focused
on growth ­ BSU was the least funded with the most growth. He said he
feels the equity formula was very thoughtfully done, but needs to be
reviewed every 8-10 years.

Number of Athletes Graduating from a 5-year Program ­ Dr. Ruch
said he will get those figures.

Pay Cuts vs. Layoffs and the Education Value Factor ­ Dr. Ruch said
he has not met with his staff to discuss pay cuts rather than layoffs.
Regarding what a degree is worth (cost of education and job obtained),
he said CEO’s want good decision making skills, writing skills and
breadth of understanding while PR’s want job ready skills.

Admission Policy and Role as a Community College ­ Dr. Ruch said
there is no firewall between their baccalaureate and community college
functions and adults are a critical part of the mission.

NCLB Difference ­ He stated that students with a strong background
in math, science, English and foreign language would make a world of
difference.

Zero Based Budgeting and Financial Exigency ­ Dr. Ruch said they
have not gone to a zero based budget, and he explained he does not
feel that financial exigency is viable because of accreditation, recruiting
faculty and losing their AAA bond rating ­ they have an orderly way of
reducing costs.

­ BSU requires students to pass the Praxis I and has raised the
required grade point. She said the same literacy assessment is required
statewide and this exam was developed by a statewide literacy team.

­ Dean Garrett asked Ms. Rickie Miller, professor at BSU, to explain
whether ISAT data is being used. Ms. Miller said they are addressing
this and will incorporate it when the data is actually available. They work
closely with the State Department of Education and this will be an
ongoing effort. Dr. Jackie Meyer, Principal at Meridian, explained that
as part of their total experience, student interns their senior year are
part of the fall and spring testing and they receive practical experience
in how teachers use the data.

­ Impacts of National Board Certification were addressed by Dr. Bob
Barr and he feels Idaho’s efforts have had a remarkable impact. There
is an ongoing effort with various education associations to track
performance.

­ When questioned about having to provide large amounts of additional
funding to teach teachers how to teach reading, writing and math, Dean
Garrett said there are always ongoing professional development
changes and they have not always know how best to prepare teachers.
She described the College of Education’s efforts to work with the arts
and sciences department to ensure they understand teacher education,
and respectfully offered that the student population is changing.

­ Elementary student teachers have four different placements in the six
semester but usually are placed with the same teacher their senior year,
and secondary student teachers have three placements with three
teachers.

­ Dean Garrett and Dr. Ruch addressed the issue of remedial courses
and the fact that it takes most students at least five years to get a BA
degree by pointing out that if students took only two math courses in
high school and have been out of school for several years they will
generally have to take a remedial math course. They also said that the
fact it takes five years to get a degree doesn’t have to do with how
bright they are but the fact that they have families and work almost full
time while attending college. Chairman Tilman asked Dr. Ruch if it is
time for the state to require four years of math, science and English for
high school graduation from a policy standpoint, and he indicated it
would make their job easier.

­ It was pointed out that BSU doesn’t offer a program to prepare
administrators so they don’t have the opportunity to teach them how to
deal with data, etc. The State Board of Education has determined that
ISU and UI are to offer programs for administrators. When asked why
we would want to force successful teachers who want to become
administrators to leave the area to become administrators, the answer
was that UI offers these courses at the Boise Education Center. Dr.
Miller explained that Meridian school district offers training in these
areas.

EXCUSED:

­ The involvement of the 44 counties allows them to work with children
locally at an earlier age, and $11 million goes to the 44 counties to
support this effort. Representative Bradford complimented Mr. Reinke
on the progress being made since he took over as Director.

­ The nine drug courts are helping and about 55% of the juveniles have
an addiction problem.

­ The Custody Review Board was created through S 1460 to better
handle the 19 to 20 year olds and to determine if they need further
treatment. This process involves parents, victims, county and state
officials and does a much better job of managing adult offenders.

­ Splitting out the programs and having county involvement has been
an amazing challenge, but the Magistrate Court holds parents
accountable, brings people to the table, and allows them to get services
to the local communities ­ they are resource brokers in the community.
It has been a challenge because there are county employees who are
supervised by the court. As far as being able to bring resources to the
table, i.e. safe and drug free schools funding, Mr. Reinke said they have
not done this.

­ There was about 11.6 months lapse between the pre- and post-tests.
Students receive 6 hours of instruction year round and there are 12
students per teacher. There classes are more like those in a one-room
school and students are grouped by treatment needs ­ very time
consuming and students all have individual plans for instruction.

­ An increase of Special Education students may be because these kids
lack interaction with those in authority. When they go to court they act
out more and lack social and decision making skills. Many of the
parents have the same needs as the students.

­ Most non-English speaking students are not well educated in their
native language.

­ Teachers are Idaho certified in at least one subject area.

­ They are looking at use of distance learning. They have received
$132,000 for technology upgrades this year and they are planning to
link their facilities.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Shackelford provided a brief historical picture of education in our
nation. He stated that for the first 200 years education was a local issue
with very few Federal funds. When the 1% initiative passed it shifted
funding from local control to the state. In the mid-80’s the Secretary of
Education declared the US a Nation at Risk because of low expectations,
inefficient use of teaching time, and teacher recruitment. In 1997, Idaho’s
reform began with the development of standards, assessment and
accountability. He cited funding for the achievement standards and the
contributions made by the Albertson Foundation as contributing factors in
helping Idaho schools be successful. He said Idaho clearly understood
what work needed to be done and they were working on it when along
came NCLB which has been interpreted as tearing apart local control.
Now they must look at the NCLB requirements and determine how they
fit with what Idaho is doing and if not, how they can. Idaho’s MOST will
also be presenting several ideas on teacher training and certification,
and teachers are expected to use technology and gather and analyze
data. Although these are thrilling and exhilarating time, educators are
overwhelmed with all of this

Dr. Friend used the handout (Attachment 1) to outline the six component
of the puzzle and tie them to the expected outcome: “All Schools in
Idaho Meet Accreditation Requirement to Help Ensure All Students in
Idaho Meet and/or Exceed the Idaho Achievement Standards”. He
stressed that schools are not afraid of accountability and it is recognized
that the teacher is the one who makes a difference. He said it is felt that
the Idaho State Information Management System to support data based
decision making will pull all of the pieces together.

EXCUSED:

EXCUSED:

Loss of Top Scientists ­ UI has lost scientist and this is a real problem
because there are not enough science majors. Top universities are hiring
assistant professors.

Need Based Scholarships and Promise Scholarships ­ Dr. Hoover
explained that we are making progress in keeping the best students
through the Promise and other scholarships. He said Idaho’s incomes
are some of the lowest, and there is a need to make scholarships
available to first generation and minority students so we don’t lose kids
who are qualified to attend college.

International Students Remaining in US ­ Dr. Hoover stated that
International students pay full tuition, not all of them leave, and we want
to encourage them to attend American universities to expose them to
democracy.

Voluntary Pay Cuts and Long-Term Economy ­ Dr. Hoover said if the
economy continues to decline faculty cuts will be involuntary and some
faculty members already donate 5% of their salary to scholarships. He
said deans and vice presidents are probably most vulnerable in a poor
economy, but UI maintains they must recruit and compete with the best
schools.

Taking Advantage of Lab Science & Engineering Experts ­ Dr. Hoover
pointed out that the Intermountain Northwest Regional Alliance (INRA),
an 8-university consortium of which INEEL is a part, has changed in the
last 18 months. He said that UI invested $4 million in the subsurface
science center and offers full masters and doctoral degrees in
subsurface science, and they hope to increase to $6 million.

Low Graduation Rates ­ Dr. Hoover explained that graduation rates
reflect the fact that students transfer two and three times and when they
transfer they are considered dropouts. He talked about some universities
offering incentives to students to graduate in 4-5 years and if they don’t
then fees will be increased.

Decrease in Science and Engineer Majors ­ It was pointed out that
because of the rearrangement of the US economy many students are
coming back to these fields. He said both of these majors require a great
deal of math and the biggest discriminatory factor for high school
students is lack of math.

EXCUSED:

MOTION:

Representative Cannon said he doesn’t want to recommend anything
that will hurt teachers, but on the other hand he feels we can seize this
opportunity to send a message to administrators asking them to
participate in trying to trim back. When asked how he defines “hurting
teachers” he said he doesn’t want to see them receive less pay next year.

Representative Boe voiced a concern about the Governor not
recommending funding for the IDLA. She stated how important this effort
is for rural Idaho and it would be a shame not to fund this effort. She
suggested recommending at least a minimum amount of funding.
Chairman Tilman indicated that school districts receive funding for some
of the courses the IDLA is offering and it may be possible to make some
policy changes to help fund these courses.

Representative Jones pointed out that “Other Programs” is an area
where the committee’s recommendations can make a difference, although
some of these items are tied to statute, lawsuits and other requirements.
Chairman Tilman reminded the committee that proposals can be brought
forth to change statute.

Representative Andersen said from his perspective it looks like we need
to delve into the policies before recommending the funding.

Representative Nielsen asked if Items 7 and 9 under “Program
Distributions” are based on basic statutory requirements, and Chairman
Tilman explained that the Superintendent’s budget request has a built in
2% increase in the base salary, and he suggested the members contact
the budget analysts from the Governor’s office, JFAC and the Department
for more information.

Representative Trail stated it would help to see a summary on Federal
funding received to fulfill obligations. Chairman Tilman said discussion are
going on among the various entities about Federal funding and how it can
be used.

Representative Garrett recommended looking at teacher incentives in
light of the teacher enhancements being proposed through NCLB.
Chairman Tilman mentioned looking at early retirement, mentoring, and
other programs to ensure these programs are still legitimate needs.

Representative Block mentioned that the input she is receiving from her
administrators and teachers is to cut programs rather than across the
board cuts.

Representative Rydalch mentioned that ISIMS was not a line item, but
felt this needed to be considered. Chairman Tilman agreed that this is an
intricate piece in looking forward, and the Albertson Foundation is
requiring certain commitments this year or the offer will go away.

Representative Kulczyk voiced a concern about the substantial cut in
classroom supplies while teachers in his district are saying they don’t
have paper and pencils. Chairman Tilman responded by saying that the
legislature has tried funding school supplies in various ways, but it doesn’t
appear to be working ­ the money is pooled at the district and doesn’t
always get to the classroom. Representative Trail mentioned the $250
credit given to teachers because President Bush recognized this problem.

Representative Barraclough pointed out that to get through FY03, the
state may be required to cut agencies by another 3% and education by
2% which would reduce the base for FY04. He suggested they talk to
state employees about not receiving raises and Health and Welfare about
their budget cuts. He also expressed a concern that the worksheet for the
FY04 budget does not reflect the Federal funding, county taxes and
revenue from bonds, and that the total education budget is more like
$1.57 billion with that funding added in.

Representative Eberle said we have a system that was designed 100
years ago and has been patched over the years until now it is an octopus.
He suggested we need to look at how we do business and explore use of
technology, distant learning, etc.

Representative Lake asked Chairman Tilman if he needs a
recommendation from the committee by Monday to take before JFAC,
and the Chairman said he would just be outlining the policies that the
committee will be looking at. Representative Lake said he felt this
committee would be derelict in their duties if they do not give the
Chairman guidelines as a committee or as individuals, and they will have
to decide if they hold/cut budgets or increase taxes.

Representative Garrett reminded the committee that they also need to
consider the discretionary funds and whether these should be cut.
Representative Jones pointed out that these funds are used by the
districts for health insurance, salaries, transportation, electricity and to fix
buildings.

Representative Boe stated it is true that we have increased support
units, staff and also demands ­ achievement standards, assessment,
technology, IDEA requirements. She mentioned that the Joint Legislative
Oversight Committee is reviewing many of these issues and will be doing
audits.

EXCUSED:

MOTION:

Beginning teachers salaries are set by statute at $25,000 of which the
state funds $24,100 and the districts are required to fund the remainder.
Idaho has 1260 FTE out of 1300 that fall in this category. It is estimated it
would cost the state an additional $1 million to fund the entire $25,000.
Representative Barraclough asked whether the average teacher salary in
Idaho is around $38,000, and Mr. Hill said that the salaries are published
by district by the Idaho School Boards Association and the Department.

When Representative Boe asked what the impact would be if we funded
the IDLA with $500,000 from the bond levy equalization fund, Mr. Hill said
first we have to assume the fund will get the full $1.5 million. If the number
of bonds passed exceeds the estimates, S1474 would not be funded, and
the Legislature would have to fund a supplemental.

Representative Lake asked if most districts start with the minimum
salary of $25,000 and churn through the steps for all other teachers ­ Mr.
Hill said many do not.

Representative Kulczyk asked about putting sideboards on school
supply money, and it was explained that last April districts were informed
of the Legislation passed, and a separate payment was issued to each
school district for their portion for supplies. Once the money is received, it
is the district’s responsibility to distribute. If given directly to teachers it
would result in tax implications.

Representative Nielsen asked if the LEP funding is mandated by statute,
and Mr. Hill said there is no statutory requirement, but there is a lawsuit
which requires this funding. Idaho has seen increases in the number of
students, but also the schools are better able to identify the students
needing help ­ about $238 per student goes out to the district in a
separate payment.

When Representative Lake asked about the idea of substituting federal
funds in lieu of state funds, Mr. Hill explained the federal funding is not
real flexible. He feels it could jeopardize what federal funds we receive.

Mr. Hill explained the Governor’s recommendation for salary based
apportionment does not recommend a 2% increase in the base salary nor
does it recommend increasing the staff allowance from .375 to .385, but
the Superintendent’s request does. He stressed that the Governor’s
request for salary based apportionment cannot be changed without
changing the statute.

The number of IDLA students was discussed and it was pointed out that
there are approximately 600 students taking 1,000 courses, and if the
student is already taking 4 hours of courses at the district, the school
district does not receive additional funding. Dr. Bob Haley said he has
been involved in the IDLA since the beginning and indicated if funding for
IDLA goes to the district it would require a whole tracking system. Another
alternative would be to take $48 per support unit off the top. Regarding
cost of courses through IDLA, it is estimated the cost is about 1/3 of the
state average.

Representative Garrett asked about the number of teachers receiving
beginning teacher support, and Mr. Hill said there are 1200 1^st year
teachers, 1230 2^nd year and 945 3^rd year which calculates out to about
$590 per FTE.

EXCUSED:

EXCUSED:

­ The language on Page 2 that changes the application deadline to
January 1 addresses an accounting issue, makes it possible to determine
how many schools have applied for bonds, and facilitates the Legislature
with including this item as a set figure.

— Six districts are receiving interest payments and if Blackfoot is added
the amount will be $890,000. The state estimated $1.5 million, but the
appropriation will be based on the requests submitted. The fiscal impact
of HB 188 is $196,308 per year for twenty years.

­ Blackfoot was cognizant of the SB 1474, but made the decision to go
ahead with their election because they felt the votes were there, and they
didn’t want to risk not passing the bond to build the auditorium and the
gym. Blackfoot began this process in 1999.

­ Regarding opening the gate and being flooded with other requests if this
legislation passes, Representative Cannon said in his mind this issue is
about when the Governor signed SB 1474.

­ Administrators are retiring early, they receive an average of $33,000,
and then some of them leave the state to pursue positions in other states.
About $760,000 was spent in FY02 for this purpose.

­ This incentive is encouraging the better qualified teachers to leave the
profession. It’s like we give them a “golden handshake” and then asking
them to leave.

­ When new or beginning teachers are hired often they are eligible for
mentoring and other assistance which drives up the cost and makes it
difficult to calculate a savings.

­ Several patrons in members’ districts have already made retirement
plans for this year, and if the emergency clause is enacted they will not
receive the incentive. Representative Lake said he is sympathetic, but this
program was not intended to be an entitlement. In fact, if the emergency
clause is removed many more may chose to apply.

­ This legislation does not harm teachers because they can chose to
retire or stay in the system. The Superintendent of Schools stated last
year in her presentation to JFAC that this program is a low priority for the
Department.

­ It is unknown how many teachers and administrators have applied for
early retirement this year.

­ This incentive has been used to reduce staff due to declining
enrollment, and this legislation would eliminate that opportunity.

HB 187 to General Orders with a committee amendment to remove the
emergency clause. He pointed out he represents a school superintendent
who has made commitments to teachers considering early retirement, and
he is concerned about the loss of integrity. Representative Lake debated
against the amended substitute motion, pointing out that early retirements
could cost $10 million and reduce discretionary funds. Representative
Naccarato spoke in support of the amended substitute motion because it
allows those who have medical conditions to retire. The amended
substitute motion to send HB 187 to General Orders failed by voice
vote.

EXCUSED:

Serve a Diverse Student Population

Provide a Center for the Region’s Educational Needs, Economy and
Cultural Events

Collaborate with Universities

Promote Community Economic Development

He talked about the Governor’s budget recommendation, and emphasized
how important the increase for health benefits is and the importance in
additional dollars for growth.

CSI’s Relationship with Dell ­ CSI furnishes two classrooms for Dell’s
training, which is done by Dell’s employees. Students who successfully
complete the training are then reimbursed. Dell contributes to CSI as well
as to the community. CSI is also linked to Micron for training purposes.

Promise Scholarships ­ These scholarships contributed about a 15%
increase in students in the fall a year ago. About 30% of their students
use student loans, and those students end up with about $5,000 of debt in
two years.

Additional Reductions this Year ­ Student fees increased by 10% last
year which helped them survive last year’s reductions. If an additional cut
is taken this year, physical plant activities will be delayed and student fees
may have to be raised. Real areas of concern are with Federal mandates
where program costs keep increasing.

Rep. Clark used a chart to explain that section of the code. He explained
that “‘Angel Money’ falls out of the sky from God” when school districts
aren’t sure how much they are going to get. In some districts this money,
or part of it, is distributed to the teachers by contract. Last session JFAC
decided to do away with “Angel Money” and move it into funding for the
next year. Changing contracts with the teachers in the middle of the year
was not well received. This bill sets new policy and establishes the Public
School Stabilization Fund. The yearly appropriation for schools is based
on estimated “Support Units.” If less Support Units are needed, and there
is money is left over, that money will go to the Public School Stabilization
Fund up to 3%. Over 3%, the money goes into the General Fund. (Line
26). The chart (Attachment 1) shows the history of Estimated Support
Units, and the Actual Support Units from 1990 to 2001. When school
districts have had less support units than estimated, they had to take
money from operations funds to make up the difference.

1. The overall money isn’t large, but it still helps school districts.

2. The bill takes away local control over the extra money which is used
for extras–equipment, or bonuses to the staff.

3. They realize that money will be tight, and districts will need every dollar
they can get.

In response to questions, Mr. McKinley said he thinks only 12 to 15
districts have a clause that distributes “Angel Money” to the teachers.
The $871 bonus Meridian school teachers received was in contract. The
Supt. of Meridian Schools says it was the right thing to do. When asked,
Mr. McKinley said he would speculate that school districts would get less,
rather than more, money over the long term. For example, when things
were good, PERSI dropped the school’s participation for several years. In
that case, these savings would not have stayed in the district.

In response to questions, Mr. Friend said this bill treats every district
alike. It treats everybody in an equitable way. In response to how this bill
affects local control, Mr. Friend says when the money flowed in, local
control decided how it was spent. When a district runs short, it is totally
up to the district to decide how they are going to make it up. In response
to Chairman Tilman’s question, Mr. Friend said that as it is now, JFAC
will decide how all of the money is to be spent. In answer to questions,
Mr. Friend said he would prefer to overestimate support units, and if
underestimated, districts have not been bailed out in the past.

In response to questions, he agreed with the number of 12 to 15 districts
who give part or all of “Angel Money” and other excess monies to the
teachers. He also said that districts wouldn’t rely on this Fund, but use
their own reserves as they need a cash reserve to pay bills. Some
reserve may be required by their bonds.

Mr. Friend spoke again in answer to questions. He said school districts
will have no ability to tap this fund. It will only be after the calculation is
done at the end of the year. Districts won’t be able to get this money
before.

By unanimous voice vote the motion passed. Rep. Clark will carry
the bill.

Rep. Trail referred to the MOST Report which says that Idaho school
districts lost 9.5% of their teachers last year, 2.2% was due to retirement.
Our teacher population is older than the national average, which could
mean Idaho will have a more serious problem in the future than other
states. He said we need more teachers, and Idaho’s salaries are a
deterrent to attracting and retaining quality teachers.

In answer to questions, Rep. Trail said he chose not to limit the scope of
the bill to only those teaching areas with the greatest need, such as math
and science. He followed the State of Georgia’s “across the board”
coverage. He chose to cover only those who graduate from Idaho
Colleges and Universities to “reward home-grown teachers” and keep
them in the state.

Rep. Trail then explained the bill. Teachers who have graduated from an
Idaho college and have taught in Idaho for two years, then become
eligible. They must promise to teach two more years. From this point, for
each year taught, a teacher would receive a $2,500 reduction in his or her
loan, up to a total of $10,000 for five years. College presidents have
testified that 80% of the teachers graduate with $20,000 in loans. This bill
would impact 600 teachers and cost 1.5 million a year. He said currently
there are forgiveness plans for teachers who teach in hardship areas such
as Washington D.C., and schools whose students score in the twentieth
percentile in terms of achievement.

In answer to questions, Rep. Trail said the colleges and universities are
responsible for the collection of loans. He also said this bill would only
help traditional students, not the older students returning to the class
room. He said Oregon feels they get a 30 to 40% retention of teachers
staying beyond their contracted time with a similar program. He
commented that Alaska has a big program to train retired military to
become teachers.

EXCUSED:

IDVA is a public school and all students are welcome, but students
must enroll as they would at a public school, and parents must agree to
follow the goals of the school and the curriculum. She stressed that the
curriculum is very rigorous and may not be for all students and parents.
She explained that IDVA may be less expensive for parents than home
schooling and provides reassurance to parents teaching their children.

The IDVA is chartered through Butte County School District, but is
operated by a Board of Directors. The budget is not a line item under the
school district’s budget, but has its own budget. The district does have
oversight, and the attendance is reported to the Department. They are
funded using the same divisor as any other public school the same size.

The IDVA started with 998 students in September and they now have
955, which according to Representative Barraclough is a 4.3% dropout
rate.

K12 company has a person who looks at each states standards and
ensures their curriculum is aligned. Their curriculum exceeds Idaho’s
standards.

Parental involvement is one thing the IDVA has over public schools.
IDVA wants to attract as many students as possible in the next few years
while remaining fiscally responsible. They will be adding grades 6 and 7
next year and two additional grades annually until they offer K-12.

Testing for the IRI has improved since fall from 393 tested to 531. They
had 250 students at Level 3 in the fall and 322 at Level 3 on the winter
test. They tested 88% of their students in the winter, but there are
parents who do not trust the public schools and refuse to let their children
be tested. Their goal is to have 95% of their students takeing the tests.
The teachers act as testing coordinators and parents are given strategies
to raise scores. It was stated that public schools don’t offer the option of
not taking state tests, and Dr. Aikele said there are parents of public
school students who refuse to have their children take the tests.

The IDVA advertises their offerings and sends out information mailers.
Enrollment forms can be downloaded, and students must be assessed
before being accepted. When the statement was made that they are
taking the core students and creating fragmentation in the public schools,
Dr. Aikele explained that they take all students and have many students
with special needs. Chairman Tilman stressed IDVA does not offer one
service that can’t be provided by public schools. It is hoped that the same
innovations can be incorporated into all public schools.

It was clarified that their students are about half and half from public
schools and home schools.

EXCUSED:

Numerous water research agencies were invited to participate in the
Water Center.

The economic impacts and the number of jobs generated from this
project have not been shared with the public and they should be.

ISBA will own the facility along with UI, Idaho Water Resources, and
the U.S. Forest Service. State and federal agencies are being
encouraged through legislation to own buildings rather than lease them.

Funds for the UI cash management fund come from interest generated
from student fees and auxiliaries and are generally used for deferred
maintenance.

Current office space downtown is not being used, so will this facility
impact that situation? This is the reason for phasing in the project and for
moving all of the UI facilities into one building. This center is the only
significant office building in downtown Boise and will consist of research
labs as well as office space.

It is a common practice for Universities to lease space to commercial
entities such as food services and student health facilities. They get the
Board of Regency’s approval and issue an RFP.

When asked to frame what the problem is with the $10 million loan, Dr.
Hoover explained that the Foundation was left with a considerable
financial issue and a Core Management Group was formed and made
the decision to make the loan. Loans require the State Board of
Education approval and before UI could inform the Board this became
public through a public records request. The Board is looking at this. Mr.
Gary Stivers, Executive Director, State Board of Education, stated that
the Board will be reviewing the Financial and Management Practices
involved in this loan, and they will hire an independent reviewer and
outline the scope of the project. UI will be responsible for the cost of the
independent review.

EXCUSED:

MOTION:

Ms. Toney outlined tasks completed by MOST:

With 250 stakeholders involved, they developed performance-based
standards in 38 content areas. Former certification standards were based
on course completion, while the new standards will ensure education
graduates are well prepared.

MOST has been working with the Department and the colleges/
universities to implement a test of teacher content knowledge (Praxis II)
as a pre-service requirement.

MOST stakeholder groups are finalizing teaching quality policy
recommendations in the following areas for performance-based (1) tiered
licensure structure; (2) professional development requirements; (3)
teacher compensation model(s); and (4) assessment process for
licensure advancement and renewal.

MOST has worked on alternative routes to teacher licensure. Ms.
Toney pointed out that MOST’s teaching quality recommendations align
well with the requirements of No Child Left Behind.

EXCUSED:

This memorial suggests repayment of the loss of some $20 billion to be
spread across the 13 western states ­ Idaho specific numbers are $811
million in one time funding and $328 million in ongoing funding. Senator
Goedde was asked how realistic this is, and if the other 13 states are
also proposing similar legislation. He said other states are proposing
similar legislation, and if the 13 states work together he feels this may
get results.

Mr. Hammond pointed out that the new performance-based standards
focus on competency by requiring teachers to pass the Praxis II test and
requiring longer internships before entering the classroom. He said we
have moved from a factory model to an individual model because of
standards and assessment. Mr. Hammond outlined Idaho’s MOST
accomplishments and future components of this project. He explained
the four proposed models: Tiered Licensure, Professional Development,
Middle Level Preparation, and Alternative Routes to Teacher Licensure
(Attachment 1). He pointed out that teachers are currently required to
complete six credit hours every five years to retain their certification, but
the new proposal will require professional development units relevant to
instruction. He stressed that MOST’s work does not criticize the work of
the many dedicated teachers, rather it recognizes the need to equip
teachers for the new model of education.

It was clarified that MOST’s work will finish this spring, and they will
turn over their work and their recommendations to the PSC. The
increase in certification fees will fund the PSC if legislation passes. It was
also pointed out that most of the $1.5 million grant money was spent on
travel to bring together the stakeholders who developed the standards.
Mr. Hammond said he was comfortable that the PSC would support the
same mission as outlined by MOST because they are trying to raise the
standards of their profession and will report to the Board.

When asked how this plan affects administrators, Mr. Hammond said
they had talked about standards for administrators, but MOST was
charged to focus on teacher quality. It was pointed out that you can have
quality teachers, but if they are put back in the same environment
nothing will change. Mr. Hammond agreed with this concern and said
MOST will be recommending that this effort needs to be addressed. It
was mentioned that the term “good building administrator” is disturbing ­
what about the children and the teacher? Mr. Hammond agreed
administrators need to be more. Through the performance-based model,
teachers can provide a leadership role while staying in the classroom.

When asked if the Board has a plan to meet the NCLB requirement of
states having qualified teachers in every American classroom by the
2005-2006 school year, Mr. Hammond replied that he was not sure we
can get there that soon, especially with the budget constraints.

In response to concerns about the IEA not supporting these efforts, Mr.
Hammond stated that the President of the IEA was a member of MOST
and they had supported this effort.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Stivers was asked if he is comfortable in going forward with intent
language, and he stated they want to move ahead and maintain
services. He also said they are not aware of how to accomplish this
through statute, but they are certainly open to suggestions. Mr. Stivers
was encouraged to pursue making this more permanent from a policy
standpoint. Chairman Tilman said he appreciates JFAC giving this
committee the opportunity to look at this policy change, and he hopes all
agencies will follow the Board’s example and look for efficiencies.

EXCUSED:

Page 1, Lines 24-25 will provide more latitude for negotiation; Line 29 will
facilitate replicating techniques that work well. Page 2, Lines 26-27 clarify
that charter schools can identify their attendance area. Page 4, Section
33-5207, Lines 31-38, will simplify the appeal process and allow for a
three member panel to review the evidence rather than just one hearing
officer. The panel will include one member appointed by the
superintendent of public instruction, one designated by the persons who
have appealed the decision, and the third will be selected upon mutual
agreement. Page 5, Line 40 encourages entities to sit down and negotiate
and provides an opportunity to correct violations.

Use of virtual distance learning and on-line learning was included in the
original intent language to encourage its use ­ there are three charter
schools using distance learning in Idaho, and it is hoped that we
incorporate its use into traditional schools.

The time limit used when a charter school fails to remedy a situation is
set when the charter is granted. If violations are not corrected and the
school is convicted of violating the law, this is a legal process and the
court will determine the conviction.

Oversight for a charter school is spelled out in the charter by the
authorizing entity. Charters are public records, and the Department has
long-term oversight.

Charter schools are not legally categorized as a district because they
are not a taxing district, but for funding and reporting purposes they are
considered a separate district.

The chair for the appeal panel is not spelled out in the legislation. The
appeal process has only been used once or twice in the past and the cost
has been minimal.

This legislation, if adopted, will go through Rule to outline specific
implementation requirements or clarifications.

When asked if loss of revenue or what a student will learn drove the
Board’s decision not to approve the second charter school, he said
neither ­ the second charter school did not meet Idaho Code, and they
did not follow the process. Nampa’s list of students for the second charter
school has been around for four years, and he believes many of those
students no longer plan to attend.

It was pointed out that Section 33-5202 encourages innovative teaching
methods, and this is what the Legislature has wanted for years. Mr. Henry
was asked to explain how this harms public schools, and why they want to
discourage opportunities for the public schools to do better? He said he
feels Nampa is doing the right thing. He said there is very little about a
charter school that makes them look like a public school.

On Page 4, could the school board be the third party on the appeals
panel? Mr. Henry said “they could be”.

Mr. Henry was asked if his school board has discussed how they can
accommodate those students wanting to enroll in a second charter
school, and he said they have not discussed this at a formal Board
meeting.

When asked if any of the seven items are not good policy, Mr. Henry
said “no”, and he would not object to having these put in existing statute
for public schools.

When asked if a charter school is a public school, he responded “yes”.

EXCUSED:

This legislation does not create an unfunded mandate.

The district can remedy a breach of contract by (1) suing the teacher,
(2) filing a complaint with the Professional Standards Commission (PSC)
or (3) refusing to let the teacher out of the contract. All of these options
can create bad relationships, be lengthy, and be costly. The ISBA’s
position is that the teachers have signed a contract, and districts rely on
these contracts. If the district breaks a contract the teachers are entitled
to due process which is much more arduous.

This legislation does not apply if teacher is leaving and going out-of-state or not going to another teaching position.

The original legislation was written so teachers would do the
reporting/notification, not the districts, but was rewritten throughout the
negotiations with other organizations.

Concerns were voiced about the legislation enabling two parties acting
in bad faith, the teachers being hurt, the teachers not notified of the offer
before district officials discuss the offer, and adversarial positions being
worsened. Dr. Green said the ISBA sees this as a process to enable
communications to take place, and the districts are concerned about
staffing the classrooms when notice is given late in August.

When asked about continuing contracts and what time period a teacher is
not under contract, Mr. McKinley explained that a teacher receives a
Letter of Intent around May 15 to determine whether they will return the
next year, and then the contract is signed around June 15. Contracts then
run from June 15 that year through August 31 of the next year. He said
the IEA does not consider the Letter of Intent a contract. It was asked if a
teacher has not signed the Letter of Intent or the contract and is looking at
a position in another district, will that district notify the teacher’s district.
Dr. Friend said there would not be an obligation to notify the district.

This program is based on a successful program in Montana which has
many similar characteristics to Idaho.

In questioning, Rep. Gagner stated there is no subsidy for the doctor’s
practice to assure sufficient income.

In answer to questions, he said students are leery of a requirement
that they must come back to Idaho, and such requirements don’t seem to
work. There would have to be a viable practice and a need if the student
wanted to go to a particular area. He also said he thought 8% was too
high, but the State Board has oversight to set the rate. He agreed that his
chart just shows the debt after four years, it does not cover residency. He
said several physicians in a local residency program have a debt load of
$150,000. There wouldn’t be a pay-out for seven years, until the students
entering medical school this fall have graduated. Montana makes sure
they have the money to guarantee the payment of $50,000 before they
sign the doctor on.

In further questioning he stated the national definition of rural is a
population of 25,000 or less. However there are communities in Idaho
such as Lewiston, Idaho Falls, and Twin Falls that are underserved. He
said the bill doesn’t address specialists either.

He said that Idaho students in this program would get first chance at
the pay-back provisions. If there weren’t enough in that group, then the
next group would be Idaho students who paid for their own schooling.

When the issue was raised about those from other states applying,
Rep. Gagner said those who pay into the fund will get first choice to
withdraw from the fund. It will be a future decision if we open the fund up
to others. He agreed that “underserved” might be placed after “rural” for
those who could qualify for these funds.

In answer to questions, Dr. Blackman said Alaska has such a high
rate of return of its students, because “Alaska kids like to go back to
Alaska.” Montana opens their plan to those not on the WWAMI program if
they can’t find enough doctors in that program. In further questioning, he
said that basically Idaho pays the out-of-state tuition for its students at the
University of Washington.

Chairman Tilman pointed out that the ratio is the same for the state’s
part in the costs of a student at one of the Idaho universities­the state
pays over 70%.

In reply to questions, Rep. Tilman said he got his number of
administrators from the published reports by the Idaho Association of
School Districts. In response to who is an administrator, Rep. Tilman said
it would be superintendents, principals, and assistant superintendents and
principals. Secretaries would be “classified” jobs. He agreed it would be
better to state on the SOP that this is a reallocation, not a savings. By
definition there are currently 11,102.2 administrators in the state. In some
districts superintendents are doing other jobs­in Orofino, the
superintendent also teaches and drives a school bus, yet the pay is for a
superintendent.

In response to questions, he said he would not be in favor of all money
being discretionary. He firmly believes that education for our kids should
be driven by the standards. If all decisions are left to local control, there
won’t be any standards in Idaho. Some decisions need to be at the local
level, but not the standards and achievement. He agreed that this bill
would help local school boards, but only if the “pie” stayed the same size.

Mr. Haley said HB 287 will increase the work load of the Department
of Education. If discretionary funding is increased, the number of
administrators will go up, not down. In 1997, there were 54 more
administrators than allocated. When discretionary funds went up in 2001-2002, there were 109 more administrators than allocated. Discretionary
funds are now tight, and there are only 69 more administrators than
allocated.

He suggested reasons for the growth of administrators from the
Meridian District. Meridian built Eagle High School and was required to
have 5 administrators­1 for every 400 students. Two new middle schools
have 2 administrators each, and 8 new elementary schools have 1
principal each for 500 to 800 students. In addition there are two
alternative schools with principals for 150 students in each one. There is
a waiting list of students for the alternative high schools. Alternative
students need a full-time administrator,

Nampa has opened four or five new schools, too. As students shift
from districts around the state, buildings have not been closed. Pocatello
did close a school and decrease administration. He said as a high school
principal he put in 11 hour days plus he covered night time activities on a
rotation basis. He asked the bill be held in Committee.