EXCUSED:

Guests

John Eikum – Executive Director, Idaho Rural Schools

Jerry Helgeson – Educator, President, Meridian Education Association

Anne Pasley-Stuart – Lobbyist, Idaho Nurses Association, and member of
Boise School District Legislative Committee

Steven Meade – Legal Counselor, Idaho School Boards Association

Cliff Green – Executive Director, Idaho School Boards Association

Tom Farley – Bureau Chief, Bureau of Federal Programs

Mike Friend – Executive Director, Idaho Association of School
Administrators

Phil Homer – Lobbyist, Idaho Association of School Administrators

Vikki Reynolds – Administrative Assistant, Idaho Association of School
Administrators

Bob Haley – Legislative Liason, Department of Education

John Watts – Lobbyist, Idaho School Boards Association

Jim Shakelford – Executive Director, Idaho Education Association

Staff and
Committee
members

The Chairman introduced Juanita Budell, committee secretary and page,
Erin Darnell. Erin is a high school senior at Emmett High School and lives
on a ranch in Sweet. He then asked the committee members to introduce
themselves and to say a few words.

Senator Tom Gannon, Vice Chairman, Buhl

Senator John Goedde, Coeur d’Alene

Senator Ron McWilliams, Caldwell

Senator Elliot Werk, Boise

Senator Edgar Malepeai, Pocatello

Excused from this meeting were Senator Laird Noh, Kimberly; Senator
John Andreason, Boise; and Senator Jack Noble, Kuna.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Gilmore gave a brief background of events leading up to the lawsuit
filed by Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity (ISEEO).

The plaintiffs in the suit are 25 schoolchildren and their parents; ISEEO, an
organization of school district superintendents; and 26 school districts who
contend that the State has not met its constitutional duty to establish and
maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common
schools in a safe environment conducive to learning.

The 1993 decision of the Idaho Supreme Court said they would look to the
legislative and executive branches to determine what the minimal
requirement was. They then looked at the State Board of Education’s rules
and determined there were three areas in the rules the State Constitution
would look to and that they needed to meet a certain minimum. They
were: curriculum and instruction; transportation; and school facilities.

After the 1993 decision, all of the State Board’s rules were repealed and
sunsetted over a two year period. The State Board was then charged with
implementing a new thoroughness standard, enacted by the Legislature in
1994. It soon became apparent that some schools did not meet the safety
standard (safe environment conducive to learning). Some districts have
been unable to pass school bond levies which would have helped them
build or repair their facilities. In 2000, an interest subsidy program was
implemented for bond indebtedness, which gave districts more of an
incentive to pass bond elections. The money from this program has now
been used, which was $15 million.

Mr. Gilmore said the State’s position was that there was only one district
that tried and could not provide safe facilities with the resources available
to them. They determined that a number of other districts had the
resources, but spent their money in other areas. Mr. Gilmore said the
District Judge disagreed and declared the entire system unconstitutional.
She reserved jurisdiction and started another series of proceedings last
summer.

In the meantime, the Division of Building Safety has been given some
additional authority. Imminent safety hazards – requires immediate steps to
be taken; serious safety hazards – the Division of Building Safety has a one
year window in which it can have repairs made.

The latest action by Judge Bail was to appoint a Special Remedial Master,
at an estimated compensation of $400,000 to report to the District Court
the conditions of Idaho’s school facilities. Charles Hummel has been
appointed to this position.

Mr. Gilmore provided the committee with the following material:
Memorandum In Support of Verified Petition For Writ of Prohibition and/or
To Exercise Appellate Jurisdiction Over Orders of the District Court and
Verified Petition For Writ of Prohibition and/or To Exercise Appellate
Jurisdiction Over Orders of the District Court. Both were filed December
23, 2002 in the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho.

The Writ of Prohibition is to prohibit the District Court and the District Judge
from exceeding the Court’s jurisdiction and intruding into the Executive and
Legislative Powers.

Senator Schroeder asked when the Supreme Court might respond. Mr.
Gilmore said the Supreme Court is very unpredictable and it could take
weeks or months. Mr. Gilmore also said the litigation could go on several
more years.

Chairman Schroeder allowed time for the committee to hold an informal
discussion on a number of topics pertaining to their responsibilities.

EXCUSED:

Announcement

Senator Schroeder announced that he needed to put a rumor to rest that
is circulating. The rumor is that the Senate leadership made a deal to
refer education bills to other committees. This rumor started in the House
and Senator Schroeder said he has talked to the Majority Leader about
this issue. This is the germane committee for education and education
bills will be referred to this committee. If leadership requests a hearing on
a bill, or if they indicate that a bill should be held, that is what will be done.
If the committee holds a bill, leadership will back up the committee’s
decision 100 percent. Senator Schroeder said he was told by leadership
that this is the way it is and by this announcement, it should put an end to
the rumor .

Tim said to help understand the complexity of school financing, the
presentation will help explain the following questions:

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?

Handouts of the presentation were provided to the members of the
committee and also to the audience. (Copy attached.)

To fully understand school financing, one needed to be present at this
meeting to see the charts, graphs, and statistics used in conjunction with
the verbal comments. Tim said he could be reached at his office if further
explanation was needed.

EXCUSED:

WWAMI has extended an invitation to a reception and dinner on January
21. If anyone wishes to attend, turn in your reservation to the committee
secretary.

Tomorrow from 8 a.m. to noon on the 4^th Floor of the Rotunda, Service
Employees International Union Local 687, will be available to talk to.

A Bond equalization levy index calculation table has been made available
by the Department of Education. This table was requested by the
committee when Tim Hill made his presentation regarding school funding.

Chairman Gannon welcomed Randi McDermott, Plans and Policy Officer
for the State Board of Education, who will present the requested changes
and Beth Weaver will address the Driver Education changes.

08-0203-0202

EXCUSED:

47-0101-0201

47-0102-0201

47-0103-0201

EXCUSED:

1. Education funding
2. Tax credits/vouchers
3. Parent involvement
4. State achievement standards
5. Safe and nurturing environment
6. Safe school facilities

Regarding funding, she said they will pursue all reasonable avenues to
ensure funding needed to provide a quality public education system for
the children of Idaho.

The Idaho PTA believes tuition tax credits/vouchers would be detrimental
in Idaho. If public funds are removed from public schools, tax increases
may be needed to compensate the local districts that lose funding.

The Idaho PTA believes that schools should incorporate parent
involvement into all aspects of education. It supports The National
Standards for Parent Involvement. (Copies were given to the committee
members.)

Regarding state achievement standards, Ms. Van Orden said the Idaho
PTA is concerned about high stakes testing. It opposes the use of a
national, mandated standardized test as the sole criteria for measuring
progress. They feel an assessment system should use multiple measures
of performance, offer tests that are linked to student achievement
standards, and include other indicators of educational quality. The overall
goal of student assessment should be to identify how instruction and
learning can be improved.

Regarding a safe and nurturing environment, the Idaho PTA supports
initiatives that foster safety within our schools. This is by providing a
supportive climate and violence prevention measures, class size
reduction efforts, and after school programs.

The last item on the Idaho PTA’s legislative agenda is safe school
facilities. They believe that local school districts have the primary
responsibility for providing safe school facilities. When state assistance is
allocated, it should be distributed equitably to local districts.

In closing, Ms. Van Orden said she feels parental involvement is the key
factor to good schools.

1. Student Achievement
2. Professional Development
3. School and Community Relations
4. New Teacher Support
5. Professional Advocacy
6. Adequate Funding

Regarding class size, they support reducing class sizes in grades K-6 to
no more than 20 students per teacher and in grades 7-12, to 25 students
per class.

In the Professional Development area, educators in Idaho who have
attained National Board Certification are awarded $2,000 each year up to
five years. Ms. Phelan said they would like for it to be for ten years.

The IEA knows how important it is for parents to be involved in their
child’s education. They are in support of legislation to provide incentives
for businesses to allow working parents to volunteer at least one hour per
month in their children’s school during the regular school hours.

The New Teacher Support program is critical to the success of the new
teachers and the IEA believes funding must be continued.

Professional Advocacy – the IEA believes that school district employees
should have the same employment securities as state employees when
serving as reservists in the military. They would be entitled to a leave of
absence, without loss of pay, time, or efficiency rating under the
provisions of the national defense act.

Regarding adequate funding, the IEA supports Dr. Marilyn Howard’s
budget request. The IEA opposes any funding taken away from public
schools to support private, parochial, and home schools.

Regarding their legislative agenda, Dr. Green said every year ISBA holds
a business session at the annual conference. Districts bring resolutions
to that meeting which are then presented and voted on. This year, nine
resolutions were passed at the business session. One was in opposition
to school vouchers and tuition tax credits. Another was funding for
summer school programs – using carried over funds. The Board is also
looking at certificated hiring practices. Another issue is identification of
unschooled children. Dr. Green said this does not mean home schooled
children, it is children not receiving any educational services and he is
looking for someone to sponsor this bill. ISBA is also asking for
additional funding for kindergarten and gifted programs.

1. Public School funding
2. Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
3. Technology Support
4. School Facilities

Regarding funding, the Association supports a 2004 Public School Budget
request that provides the minimum resources to fund state and federal
mandates as well as other critical identified needs of Idaho students.
IASA supports efforts to provide a stabilization fund, reducing the impact
of underestimation of support units and other variables impacting public
school funding, as well as potential holdbacks in the future. They are also
opposed to all forms of educational tax credits and vouchers.

The IASA believes that the current standards, assessment, and
accountability initiative will improve the level of achievement of all
students. Full funding will be required in order for this initiative to be
successful.

The IASA supports the Idaho Legislature in its efforts to assist in providing
technology in all Idaho schools and ongoing funds dedicated to
technology must continue to be made available to every school district.
Accountability for the use of these funds must remain in accordance with
the locally developed technology plans.

Regarding school facilities, the IASA recognizes the need for the Idaho
Legislature to provide additional alternative funding mechanisms for the
construction of school facilities. They also support an amendment to the
Idaho Constitution that would lower the supermajority requirement.

Dr. Friend also presented the Association’s “Position Statements” on a
number of issues. These are identified in the handout provided to the
committee, Legislative Beat. He also provided a fact sheet regarding the
Idaho Digital Learning Academy. A presentation regarding the Academy
will be scheduled for a committee hearing.

EXCUSED:

Jim said his presentation will provide a historical picture of how we got to
where we are. Dr. Friend, Executive Director of IASA, will provide
information about the various school improvement initiatives that are
underway in Idaho and Dr. Green, Executive Director of ISBA, will discuss
what that means.

Mr. Shackelford introduced nine people who have participated in this
project (Stakeholders). He said there are also six practitioners who are
available to answer questions and they were introduced.

A copy of Mr. Shackelford’s presentation is attached. Highlights from his
talk include:

1. 1978 – the passage of the 1% Initiative brought a significant
   change in how our schools were funded.
2. Mid-1980’s – greater state and federal involvement and control.
3. 1997 – developed a comprehensive, whole-system reform initiative
   that envisioned three distinct elements ­student achievement
   standards, assessment system and accountability process.
4. Present – the first two of these steps have been completed. A
   special task force has been appointed by the State Board of
   Education to create a draft accountability plan.
5. Financial support – the Legislature has for the past two years
   provided general fund dollars to help schools realign their
   curricula, professional development strategies, and assessment
   processes. The Albertson Foundation has made generous
   contributions to every school district and their goal is to help Idaho
   public schools be successful.
6. 2002 – No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), a sweeping reform plan,
   signed by President Bush.
7. “MOST” – a special committee to look at the issue of teacher
   quality. How teachers are trained, certified, and re-certified.

Jim said it is a thrilling, exhilarating, and profound time for the teaching
profession, but also one of considerable confusion and anxiety. He then
turned the podium over to Dr. Mike Friend.

1. The ISBA remains committed to the goals and objectives of
   improving student achievement;
2. The willingness of the education community to embrace
   accountability and they support the intent of reform;
3. All parties involved are working collaboratively;
4. NCLB came with promises of resources, which to date have not
   been realized;
5. Education community applauds and fully supports the Albertson
   Foundation’s $35 million gift to create and implement a new
   student data tracking system;

In closing, Dr. Green said that “if we don’t work together and support each
other, I can assure you we will fail”. He also said that they want to
succeed because the goal is the right one for Idaho’s children and asked
that the committee stand with them.

Time was allotted for questions from the committee, as well as testimony
from the audience. The audience was comprised mostly of educators and
their main concern was time: time for teaching and time for complying with
the new requirements.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Gannon thanked the Board for taking the time to visit and
suggested that perhaps they could return in the future for a “Question and
Answer” session.

Mr. Huntley had a handout for each committee member and it provides a
condensed overview of the 11 major issues, some of which he will briefly
talk about this morning. The 11 sections are as follows:

1. Original decision of Judge Bail determining that the present
   funding system is unconstitutional and that deficiency is a
   statewide systemic problem.
2. ISEEO’s proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which
   provide more specifics than the Court’s opening opinion.
3. Decision of Judge Bail appointing Remedial Special Master.
4. Order of Judge Bail dated December 19, 2002 confirming
   appointment of Master and providing additional detailed reasoning
   as to its merits.
5. ISEEO attorney summary of reports on building conditions from
   approximately 85 school districts.
6. Exhibits from ISEEO trial depicting basis of need for increased
   appropriation of $55 million per year.
7. Statement of Purpose in RS being filed this week providing for
   removal of public utilities exemption from Sales Tax Act to gain
   $50.8 million to fund fix of public school facilities with any excess
   over $55 million to go to colleges and universities.
8. Draft of Bill described.
9. Hummel Architects Protocol.
10. Offer for mediation.
11. Petition for Writ of Prohibition against Judge Bail appointing
    Remedial Special Master.

(This document will be on file in the Senate Education office for review.)

Following Mr. Huntley’s presentation, time was allowed for questions from
the committee.

EXCUSED:

Senator Davis arrived at the conclusion of the discussion regarding RS
12405 and was informed of the committee’s actions.

Mr. Matthews provided two handouts: Idaho Economic Forecast Summary
and Employers’ Education Coalition Report. He referred to the Summary
throughout his presentation and his talk consisted of four points.

1. This year, we will begin to see a slight upswing in economic
   growth and just a little economic growth will be significant.





2. We do not have enough strength to generate tax revenues
   sufficiently to hold budgets harmless or to hold at last year’s level,
   but enough strength that the size of revenue growth may not derail
   it.





3. With all the states that are in the same situation that we are in right
   now, we need to ask ourselves where will the prosperity come
   from in the next decade. In the Boise area, it boils down to
   Micron. Technology is the reason for rapid growth. To be
   winners in the future decade, there must be a quality education
   environment. To loose education momentum would be a serious
   circumstance. If we have to have some new revenue to avoid
   losing the momemtum in the education environment, Mr. Kelly said
   he would be on that side, believing that the long run investment
   and advantages far outweigh the short run pain in terms of
   protecting that momentum and sustaining that growth.





4. This relates to the Governor’s desire to rebuild some of the
   reserves. Regarding maintaining a good bond rating, if the state
   slips in its bond rating, it is very hard to reestablish that rating.
   Fiscal strength is very important.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. Matthews for speaking to the committee
and announced that they could hear him again at 3 p.m. when he
addresses the Local Government and Taxation Committee.

EXCUSED:

Some facts that were pointed out by Dr. Thomas: LCSC was founded in
1893 as a normal school and functions today as a state university. Its
programs include Academic, Professional-Technical, and Community.
This year’s growth increased 5%. Over the past 15 years, student
headcount has increased from 2,000 to over 3,000 academic and part-time students. The placement rate in 2002 is 95.8% for Academic
programs and 94.0% for Professional-Technical programs. The nursing
graduates’ exam pass rate was 100% in 2001.

The six emphasis areas are teacher education, nursing, social work,
justice studies, business, and professional-technical. In addition to
delivering credit courses to over 3,100 academic and Professional –
Technical students this year, the college provided non-credit, extended
programs to over 5,400 students in the region. It also provided support to
over 7,000 people at the Coeur d’Alene Center and the Outreach Centers.
There were 4,900 students in the workforce training programs.
Community Services (AmeriCorps, adult literacy, Senior Nutrition, family
education, corrections facilities programs, etc.) was provided for over
40,000 Idahoans.

The impact of FY03 budget cuts for personnel resulted in 16 FTE
positions lost; no raises; and unfilled vacancies. Low demand programs
were either down-sized or eliminated and some courses are offered less
frequently.

President Thomas said LCSC is meeting its mission and is operating
efficiently. Their strategic plan will enable them to continue their success
into the future. She stated that she appreciated the Legislature’s support.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Thomas for her presentation and
congratulated her for the good job she is doing. He then announced there
would be a 15 minute break.

EXCUSED:

Senator Goedde asked Ms. Randi McDermott from the State Board of
Education if she would provide the committee with a comparison of costs
for students of higher education in Idaho and surrounding states. Ms.
McDermott agreed to provide that information.

Senator Schroeder thanked the student lobbyists for their presentations.

Chairman Schroeder introduced Dr. Robert Hoover, President of the
University of Idaho, who was the next speaker.

Dr. Hoover said there were several areas he wished to address – UI’s
background, strategic priorities, budget reduction and the Governor’s
budget request. Following is a brief summary.

The University of Idaho was constitutionally established as the Idaho
land-grant institution in 1889. Its mission includes teaching, research,
and outreach. The outreach centers are located in Boise, Coeur d’ Alene,
and Idaho Falls. Research and extension services are in 42 Idaho
counties.

The strategic priorities are the strategic goals; residential campus of
choice; research/graduate education programs; outreach, economic
development; supporting infrastructure; and national rankings. The
institutional priorities are to grow enrollment and quality of undergraduate
programs; to grow research and graduate education programs; extend
outreach in mission areas; collaborate with other higher education
institutions; increase private fund-raising, contracts and grants; build
infrastructure to support all this; and emerge as a nationally ranked public
university.

The three role and mission goals are: residential campus of choice in
Idaho and the West; globally competitive center for selected high-quality
graduate, professional and research programs; and to expand capacity
and delivery of outreach programs. The infrastructure goals are
personnel, finance, facilities and infrastructure, and advancement. The
objective is to be in the top 50 public universities.

Regarding research, there was more than $88 million in research activity
in FY02. It has an economic impact of $110 million to Idaho’s economy.
The economic impact projected for FT03 is $140 million.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Hoover for speaking to the committee
today and for the good job he is doing at the University.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Rush provided a copy of the Professional-Technical’s FY2002 Annual
Report to each committee member. In this report, Mr. Rush stated that
“budget holdbacks, increased public support and the single largest fall
enrollment increase in history for Idaho’s technical colleges made 2002 a
year of challenges and significant progress.” Also, the economic
downturn and a need for higher level work skills created significant
demand for professional-technical education in high schools and colleges.
In addition, an increasingly complex work environment and the new Idaho
achievement standards made program quality more important than ever.
To address that need, the system continued to improve curricula and
expand program options.

The mission statement for the Professional-Technical Education is to
provide Idaho’s youth and adults with technical skill, knowledge, and
attitudes necessary for successful performance in a highly effective
workplace.

The Professional-Technical Education system experienced significant
growth between 1997 and 2002. Two hundred forty-one new secondary
programs were activated and 108 programs were discontinued.

Three of the six technical colleges are part of four-year institutions, two
are part of community colleges, and one is a stand-alone technical
college. The state appropriation for funding was 86.5% and the federal
funding was 12.7%, with 0.8% coming from other funds. The Division of
Professional-Technical Education also fiscally administered the School-to-Work Grant.

Mr. Rush provided a PowerPoint presentation (attached), assisted by
Gerry Hostetler. Ann Stephens was available to answer any questions.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Mike for his report and also for the good job
he is doing. He then said there would be a 10 minute break.

Introduction of
guests

Guest Speaker

Chairman Schroeder introduced Jeff Shinn, Analyst with the Department
of Financial Management, who will present the Governor’s budget
recommendations relating to Professional-Technical Education and Public
Schools, K-12. Mr. Shinn provided a copy of the Executive Budget
Recommendations to the committee members (attached) and he
referenced his remarks to this handout.

Senator Andreason inquired as to the growth of enrollment this year. Dr.
Bob West, Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, said the
over-all increase this year is about 2,000 students as compared to last
year. Tim Hill, Bureau Chief of Finance and Transportation stated there
has been an increase in enrollment over the past four years. Senator

Andreason requested information regarding this matter and Mr. Hill said
he would provide it for the committee.

In Jeff’s concluding remarks, he said there are three things to remember
in the budgeting process: (1) the agency request; (2) the Governor’s
recommendation; and (3) the legislative appropriation. These three steps
occur for all agencies, not just education. He also said that all information
regarding the budget can be obtained from the internet. The Department
of Financial Management molds the requests to the budget and the
Governor is required to present to the legislature a balanced budget.

EXCUSED:

Dr. Ruch said he would talk about the following issues:

1. How BSU managed the FY03 Budget reductions.
2. Enrollment increases
3. Strategies for managing enrollment growth
4. Faculty and student honors and highlights
5. BSU West – Growth at the current Canyon County Campus

Why the new campus

Governor’s recommendation to bond

1. FY04 Budget Request

Dr. Ruch provided the committee two handouts (attached). One is a fact
sheet, the other a legislative report.

Highlights of his talk are as follows:

Boise State’s goal is to maintain the quality of its programs and services.
However, in 2003, student fees were increased, elimination of more than
40 jobs (including 22 faculty positions), cancellation in the purchase of
$600,000 in much-needed equipment, and a freeze on the development
of the Boise State-West campus.

BSU was founded by the Episcopal Church in 1932 as a Junior College,
and is now the largest institution in the state with more than 17,700
students and grows about two percent per year.

The Governor’s budget recommendation for FY ’04 is to provide funding
to restart more than $67 million in new construction and renovation
projects. Restored funding to this and other projects would provide an
important economic stimulus to the state.

The university offers courses in eight colleges: Applied Technology, Arts
and Sciences, Business and Economics, Education, Engineering,
Graduate Studies, Health Sciences, and Social Sciences and Public
Affairs. Besides the main campus, there are education centers in Canyon
County, Mountain Home Air Force Base, Gowen Field and Twin Falls. It
also delivers classes via the Internet, compressed video, microwave,
cable, computer conferencing and radio. The university has an extensive
evening program at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and the
summer session is the state’s largest.

Senator Schroeder thanked Dr. Ruch for his 10 years of leadership at
BSU and wished him well in his retirement.

Senator Schroeder announced there would be a 10 minute break.

Ms. McClaran provided a six page handout (attached) that listed the
general differences between the Agency request and the Governor’s
recommendations for FY 2004 and she reviewed this for the committee.

EXCUSED:

Arriving in time to observe the Senate Education Committee in action and
to hear about charter schools were nine students and one teacher from
the Sandpoint Charter School. Chairman Schroeder asked their teacher,
Jennifer Greve, to introduce her class.

Ms. Mauer gave the committee members a five page handout with
pertinent information regarding charter schools (attached). She referred
to this material throughout her presentation.

Some highlights Ms. Mauer said regarding charter schools: There are
currently 13 charter schools in operation, with three more to open in the
Fall of 2003. Funding is based on average daily attendance. Local
school boards grant charters and they may renew and/or revoke charters.
Charter schools are required to employ Idaho certificated instructional
staff and they must undergo criminal background checks. The charter
schools must participate in the statewide assessment program, be
accredited, and conduct annual financial and programmatic audits to
present to trustees.

Following the presentation, time was allowed for questions from the
committee.

Chairman Schroeder asked several students from the Sandpoint Charter
School why they chose to attend a charter school. Their replies were that
they preferred the smaller class size compared to a regular public school.

Senator Schroeder thanked Ms. Mauer for her presentation and also
thanked the students for choosing to visit the Education Committee
meeting today.

Mr. Olsen gave a PowerPoint presentation and furnished a notebook, with
copies of the slides, for all committee members. (Copies attached and a
copy is on file in the Senate Education Office.) Please see the notebook
for a full report. Following is a brief summary of the presentation.

The goal of ISIMS is for the standardization of Idaho student data. It is
funded by the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation. The Foundation
has provided $3.5 million for this project, which began November, 2001.
The mission statement of ISIMS is to equip the Idaho educational system
stakeholders with the most efficient and effective student information
management and reporting system.

Goals and benefits are:

1. to improve student learning
2. to enhance educational decision-making
3. to support schools and teachers more effectively
4. to facilitate student transfers
5. to maintain an effective data gathering mechanism
6. to comply with the NCLB requirements
7. to improve security and privacy of student data.

Some of the issues that need to be resolved are:

1. state funding of ongoing costs
2. requiring districts to use centralized system
3. state agency to manage system for all stakeholders
4. a unique student identifier
5. a common course code system
6. cost of internet connectivity infrastructure.

Mr. Olsen said this offer is open until the end of the 2003 legislative
session.

EXCUSED:

Ms. Mauer gave a recap of yesterday’s presentation, emphasizing that
charter schools are public schools, supported with public dollars. She
then explained reasons for revocation and the appeal process. Annually,
the charter school must report to the trustees of their district as to their
goals, fiscal expenditures and present other pertinent information.

Dr. Howard had two handouts for the committee, Public Schools Budget
Request and the support program distribution factor sheet (attached).
She said the budget was developed based on recommendations of the
Public School Coalition. Members of the Coalition are: Idaho School
Boards Association; Idaho Association of School Administrators; Idaho
Education Association; Idaho Parent Teachers Association; and State
Department of Education.

State general account funds include state sales taxes, corporate taxes,
and personal income taxes are the largest sources of funds provided to
the public schools by Idaho taxpayers. In 2002, the Legislature
appropriated $852,200,000 for FY2003. This request is for a general fund
appropriation of $897,504,000 for FY2004.

The FY2004 request includes the Public School Coalition’s
recommendation to (1) increase salaries to make Idaho’s school districts
more salary-competitive with neighboring states, for both recruitment and
retention, and (2) increase the number of classified positions for which
districts may receive reimbursement.

Using the handouts provided to the committee, Dr. Howard reviewed her
proposed budget.

During the “questions and answers” session, a question was raised
regarding Idaho’s federal funds. Dr. Howard was asked to furnish the
committee with a letter from Secretary Paige regarding these funds.
There was concern as to what would happen if the budget is cut and there
are not funds for some of the required programs.

Following the budget presentation, Dr. Howard spoke briefly about “No
Child Left Behind”. Some of the topics covered were teachers’ credentials
and the definition of a “highly qualified” teacher, as required by NCLB.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Howard for her presentation and also
thanked her staff for all their hard work.

He then called for a 15 minute break.

A copy of her report is attached.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Henry provided a handout to the committee which he referred to
during his presentation (on file in the Senate Education Office).

Mr. Henry indicated there is some frustration of the Nampa School Board
with the Board of the Charter School. The lack of cooperation to provide
financial documentation seemed to be one area of great concern. Also,
after being threatened to be sued, Mr. Henry said the Nampa School
Board struggles with how far they back off and still make sure the Charter
School is abiding by Idaho Code. He asked the committee, “How can we
(the Board) do our job and not appear to be intrusive?”

The committee asked questions of Mr. Henry during his presentation.

Senator Schroeder requested a copy of the charter. Copies were
provided to the committee members by the State Department.

Bart McKnight, Chairman of the Charter School Board, was given an
opportunity to respond. During the questioning of Mr. McKnight, one
question that caused concern was the way Board members are selected.

Chairman Schroeder said the issue before the committee is how do we
make charter schools work, maintain the public trust, and also provide
opportunities for parents to have their children educated. The Chairman
stated that the charter school issue would be revisited at a later date.

Chairman Schroeder called a 10 minute recess.

Chairman Schroeder made the following summary: The study revealed
that there needed to be necessary adjustments to enrollment, funding,
and research. The State Board put a value on those items, as well as
including the unfunded workload adjustment. He also asked Keith to give
the committee information regarding university funding in dollar amounts.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Gilmore provided three handouts for the committee. They included a
one page summary how the $10 million appropriation provided by the
2001 Legislature was distributed (to help schools with safety issues);
Article VIII, 3, of the Idaho Constitution (Limitations on county and
municipal indebtedness) and Idaho Code 33-804A (School plant facilities
reserve fund levy for safe school facilities); and a copy of Johnson and
Fairfield vs. Boundary School District #101; Boundary County
Commissioners; Boundary County Treasurer Wilma Devore; and Zions
First National Bank. Mr. Gilmore referred his remarks to these
documents (attached).

He said the Idaho Supreme Court has ordered a trial on a challenge to the
constitutionality of the Legislature’s initial attempt to help school districts
deal with unsafe buildings. It overturned Judge Hosack’s decision to
throw the legal challenge out on a technicality. The district won approval
in February 2002 of a $970,000 a year property tax increase to cover the
bill over 10 years. Under the 2001 state law, the levy needed only 60
percent majority approval instead of the 67 percent required for building
bonds. The four district property owners sued, claiming the levy
proposition was really a bond which needed two-thirds of the vote for
approval. The levy passed with 64 percent of the vote. The Johnson’s
and Fairfield’s claimed that the law authorizing the levy is in violation of
the state constitution.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. Gilmore for his presentation.

Dr. Burke had two handouts regarding the college. One is a summary of
the economic benefits generated by North Idaho College and the other is
a Fact and Information brochure. (Attached.)

He said NIC is Idaho’s oldest community college. It began in 1933. NIC
enrolls over 4,200 students in its academic programs and nearly 8,000 in
various non-credit courses. The college delivers courses to various sites
throughout Idaho’s five northern counties through off-site facilities, the
Internet, and an extensive network of interactive video classrooms.
Students obtaining an associate of arts or associate of science degree
transfer with junior standing to all other Idaho public colleges and
universities.

The NIC Workforce Training Center is located in Post Falls and provides a
broad range of credit-free business, professional, special interest, and
personal enrichment programs.

Dr. Burke said the student placement rate for NIC Professional-Technical
graduates have had the No. 1 placement rate in the state for the last five
years. Nursing graduates for 2002 passed the national nursing
certification exam at 100 percent.

Dr. Burke said he felt that Idaho cannot afford to not invest in higher
education. He has eliminated some athletics, some classes, and offered
early retirement for eligible faculty members in order to cut costs and stay
within the budget.

Senator Goedde said he would like to thank Dr. Burke and the college, as
they work hard with business and the education community, to satisfy the
needs of the business people and create jobs so the kids can stay in
North Idaho. Senator Goedde said it was refreshing to see that kind of
positive effort.

Senator Schroeder thanked Dr. Burke for speaking to the committee.

Dr. LaRowe presented the committee with the college’s fact sheet
(attached) which he reviewed.

Some of the highlights are: EITC is a state supported technical college
and was created in 1969. It received $4.5 million in FY03 from the state
allocation and $4.4 million in additional revenues from grants, contracts,
and fees.

There is online instruction and Dial Up connectivity, as well as community
education centers in Arco, Salmon, St. Anthony, Rexburg, and Driggs. It
has literacy councils serving 11 rural communities.

The enrollment figures for FY02 were 1,399 for AAS/Certificate; 6,026 in
short-term training; 435 in the Center for New Directions; and 932 in
community education.

Dr. LaRowe said the budget strategies for FY04 would be to further
reduce operating expenses; discontinue two or more credit faculty;
increase credit enrollment; attract grants and contracts; and increase
student fees.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. LaRowe for his talk. He said the
committee would recess until 10:15 a.m.

Dr. Bowen said the ten most popular majors of graduates were Secondary
Education, Elementary Education, Nursing, Biology, Social Work,
Management, Finance, Psychology, Zoology, and Mass Communications.

Senator Malepeai praised Dr. Bowen and the administrative staff of ISU
for their contribution to Southeast Idaho.

EXCUSED:

Several PTA members presented a skit, depicting the organization a few
decades ago (in their wearing apparel and passing out cookies). Their
message to the joint committee was that they do more than bake cookies.
They are actively involved in school issues at the local, district and state
levels.

Ms. Van Orden then presented the six Idaho PTA Legislative Priorities for
2002-03 and commented on each. Following is a summary of her
remarks.

1. Education funding – they will pursue all reasonable avenues to
   ensure appropriate levels of funding needed.
2. Tuition tax credits/vouchers – they believe these would be
   detrimental in Idaho.
3. Parent involvement – they believe that schools should incorporate
   parent involvement into all aspects of education.
4. State achievement standards – they are concerned about high
   stakes testing.
5. Safe and nurturing environment – they support initiatives that foster
   safety within the schools.
6. Safe school facilities – they believe that local school districts have
   the primary responsibility for providing safe school facilities.

Ms. Van Orden stated the Idaho PTA supports the Public Schools Budget
Request for FY 2004 as submitted by Dr. Marilyn Howard, State
Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Regarding parent involvement, Ms. Van Orden said according to the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), all schools that receive Title I dollars in
every school district in America, must have a written parent involvement
policy. The policy must be developed jointly with, agreed on with, and
distributed to parents of participating children.

Time was allowed for questions from the joint committee.

Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. and said the
remainder of the time would be spent discussing budget revenues.

After the discussion, the committee determined they would like more
information regarding:

(1) The Albertson Foundation’s program – Idaho Student Information
Management and Reporting System (ISIMS).

(2) Transportation services.

(3) School consolidation – with a map of the districts.

Chairman Schroeder said he would arrange to have the necessary people
provide further information to the committee.

EXCUSED:

Ms. Shaklee provided the committee with a copy of the their state report,
written November, 2002. She said the Parents as Teachers is a parent
education program designed to help parents be the best teachers for their
children in the early years. The Born to Learn curriculum translates
information on early brain development into concrete “when,” “what,”
“how,” and “why” advice for families – taking neuroscience from the
laboratory into families’ homes. Components for this voluntary program
include: monthly home visits, group meetings, screening, and resource
referral. The curriculum supports and teaches parents how to provide the
kinds of experiences that give their children the best possible start in life.

This program serves 1332 families, 1889 children in 37 programs. Parent
educators get families in touch with community resources to help them
meet their many challenges including GED and continuing education,
housing and utility assistance, Head Start, library programs, mental health
and childcare programs.

After one year of PAT, parents report significant increases in knowledge,
confidence and skill level. There has been a significant increase in the
amount of time parents spend reading to their young children. Of the
children in the PAT program age 19-35 months, 97.3 percent are fully
immunized.

Ms. Shaklee introduced two mothers who testified as to the positive
effects this program has had on their families. They were Alice
Westerman and Britiney Slaughter.

At the conclusion of Ms. Shaklee’s presentation, she answered questions
from the committee. She also thanked Senator Schroeder for inviting her
to the committee’s meeting to present the program.

The Chairman said there would be a short recess before hearing Dr.
Farley.

Dr. Farley provided a notebook of material relating to NCLB and he
encouraged the committee members to read it so that they may become
better informed of this Act.

He then said his presentation would focus on eleven major “points of
emphasis” (attached). They are as follows:

1. Appropriations/Allocations
2. Development of Standards/Assessments
3. Meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
4. Choice Options
5. Highly Qualified Teachers
6. Qualified Paraprofessionals
7. Supplemental Education Services (SES)
8. Research Based Programs
9. Accountability Report Cards
10. 21^st Century Community Learning Centers (21^st CCLC)
11. Persistently Dangerous Schools

The committee asked questions during the presentation.

Dr. Farley pointed out that a committee is working to establish Idaho’s
definition of a “highly qualified teacher”. The definition for a “persistently
dangerous school” will be finalized by June 30, 2003. Senator Schroeder
thanked Dr. Farley for his presentation.

EXCUSED:

EXCUSED:

The ISBA is a statewide advocacy organization of over 550 publicly
elected officials representing 114 school boards with a focus on public
school governance. The vision of the ISBA is to be the driving force of
trustee leadership for excellence in public education. The mission of the
ISBA is to provide leadership and services to local school boards for the
benefit of students and for the advocacy of public education.

Dr. Green talked about the three roles of the trustee: authority – the right
to command or act; power – ability to act; and influence.

He then introduced Terry Schwartz, President of ISBA, who talked about
their resolutions and positions. (Copy attached.)

Mr. Schwartz then introduced his daughter, Samantha.

Samantha said she attends Arco High School and she presented a
student’s viewpoint of why the education budget should not be cut. Some
of her concerns were transportation, teachers, and loss of programs such
as art and music. She concluded her talk with a quote -“better an empty
purse than an empty head”.

Chairman Tilman thanked Samantha and ISBA for their presentation.

Before starting his presentation, Mr. McKnight gave a brief background of
busing. He said during FY02, approximately 2,643 school buses traveled
an estimated 28.7 million miles to transport 246,684 children to and from
school and school-related activities. The National Research Council’s
study re-affirms the State Department of Education’s position that school
buses represent the safest way for children to travel to and from school
and school related activities.

Several requests for information were asked of Mr. McKnight and they are
as follows:

1. to provide the names of manufacturers of buses and the cost.
2. data, newer than 1996, in comparing Idaho to contiguous states.
3. data on sales of buses out-of-state.
4. comparison charts.
5. New Mexico’s busing information.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. McKnight for his presentation.

EXCUSED:

He then said he would like to present a gift to the committee’s Page, Erin
Darnell. The Chairman read the letter that was signed by the members of
the committee, citing Erin for her prompt, courteous and efficient manner
in which she served the committee. He then presented her with a Senate
watch. Erin thanked Senator Schroeder and the committee and said she
had enjoyed the experience of being a page.

Attached is a copy of Dr. Meyerhoffer’s presentation. The committee
asked questions throughout the presentation.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Meyerhoffer for speaking to the
committee and also for the good work he is doing at CSI.

Dr. Bob West, Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, was the
next speaker. He had been asked to brief the committee regarding
school district consolidation. Attached is a copy of his presentation and
questions were asked during the presentation.

EXCUSED:

The first order of business was to approve the minutes of previous
meetings.

Mr. Olson introduced Wayne Rush, program officer; Roger Widner,
consultant; Bryndon Joyce, program assistant; and Christi Rood,
consultant. All are with the Albertson Foundation.

At the meeting of January 30, a notebook was presented to the committee
members explaining the ISIMS program. Another handout was provided
today with more information.

Mr. Olson reviewed the mission of the Albertson Foundation regarding
this project. The mission is to equip Idaho’s education system and
stakeholders with the most efficient and effective student information
management and reporting system. The Foundation funding will total $35
million. The goals/benefits are: improve student learning; enhance
educational decision-making; support schools, teachers, parents
effectively; facilitate student transfers; maintain effective data gathering;
comply with NCLB requirements; and improve security/privacy of student
data.

Mr. Olson said there are two major components.

1. Student Information Management System (SIMS) – teacher,
   student and administrative functionality and curriculum
   management for the day to day operations of the school/district.
2. Reporting & Analysis/Data Warehouse (DW) – the data warehouse
   consolidates the school/district data and provides reporting and
   analysis to all stakeholders via standard report and analytical
   tools. The data warehouse also provides the facilities for
   combining data from other state and regional sources and
   provides a way to move data to post-secondary institutions.

After hearing from Mr. Olson, Chairman Schroeder directed specific
questions to specific people. Following is the dialogue:

Schroeder to Olson: Review the money commitment.

Olson: The AF will build, design, then turn over to the state to operate — to
a state agency. The state is to pick up funding after the $35 M is used.
This would be approximately $5-7 million a year . The money would
come off the top of the education budget each year.

Schroeder to Olson: Suppose we establish law, then future legislation
changes the law. What then?

Olson: AF is asking for contractual arrangements of the state and
agreeing that the system lives on for 10 years. Upgrades will be
automatically made. A centralized system and minimized issues at users
end. No money for tech people, as districts have their own tech people.
Expect state to provide servers for rural areas. Schools will rely on this
system. AF is looking to state to provide this system to districts and
require districts to use only this system for data. The focus is to help
teachers follow students, parents follow students, students know where
they are. Includes assessment data. Grade book on line, class work
planning, attendance, etc. Working on connectivity – to 114 districts – not
to individual buildings. AF is hoping there are not a lot of costs to
districts. Looked at four different models. This one seems most efficient –
a centralized system, lower ongoing costs.

Schroeder to Department of Administration: Conflict of bids?

Richard Elwood responded for the Department. He sees no red flags.

Schroeder to Gary Stivers, Executive Director, State Board of Education,
same question.

Mr. Stivers: OSBE can work through without any problems.

Schroeder to Stivers: Where should the system be located?

Stivers: OSBE has looked at various buildings. Took in consideration of
the flood plain, as well as locating the system out-of-state.

Schroeder to Olson: Will this system tie-in with data from federal
programs? Does AF expect boundaries?

Olson: It needs to be with an agency that involves education, under that
umbrella. AF wants to be lawful. Purchasing rules differ, and they need
to be clarified. It will tie-in with federal requirements.

Schroeder to Dr. West: Can the Department of Education manage this
system?

Dr. West, Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction: We are now
dealing with 17 different programs that are now in effect. The Department
can operate this system and it also understands purchasing.

Schroeder to Stivers: OSBE is a policy making body. What is the Board
doing?

Stivers: The Board has seen the presentation of ISIMS. The Board has
an oversight obligation. It (the Board) needs a development policy,
accountability, budgetary review, contract review, assessment and
accountability. Day-to-day left with the Department of Education, but
Board has oversight.

Schroeder to Stivers: Separation of policy and administration. What
discussions have taken place between the Board and Department of
Education?

Stivers: Lots of discussion.

Schroeder to Stivers: When will this be resolved? AF wants to know by
the end of this legislative session.

Stivers: We will definitely have something ready.

Schroeder to Stivers: Said he wanted three things. (1) Wants definitive
answers on contract aspect of law, in writing (competitive bidding on
contracts). (2) Need answers quick. (3) Wants weekly report from State
Board, Department of Ed, and Albertson Foundation on resolving issues
concerning ISIMS.

Mr. Olson’s closing remarks: AF frustrated by who will oversee this
system. Needs state policy. They also want to know if anything is in state
laws or rules that would prevent a state agency from overseeing the
system. It needs to be identified. Also want operating rules put in place
to last over time.

One last question asked of Mr. Olson was if school trustees had been
included in their talks. He indicated that at a stakeholders meeting, Dr.
Cliff Green, Executive Director of Idaho School Boards Association, gave
positive feedback.

The committee then voted on the motion. A voice vote indicated it passed
unanimously.

Discussion revolved around A 10, the Early Retirement Program. It was
determined that not all teachers are adequately notified within the
required time frame. Senator Schroeder requested Dr. West to send a
letter to future eligible teachers, then send a letter to him to verify how this
notification was carried out.

It was stated that there seems to be some concern over the number of
administrators in the school districts. Senator Noh urged that JFAC not
act precipitously.

EXCUSED:

Dr. Deide asked the committee to endorse the Governor’s facilities
bonding proposal. The committee was given three handouts: Permanent
Building Fund Projects; Creating Jobs through Facilities Bonding; To
Bond or Not to Bond. Dr. Deide said there are several good reasons why
this is a good idea. The state can borrow money at a low interest rate; put
1100 to 1250 construction workers back to work; good for economy, as it
has a ripple effect; has been previously approved; great economic
stimulus package. The source of funds would come from the permanent
building fund and there would be some impact on the general fund. That
amount would be approximately $2.1 Million annually.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Dr. Deide for appearing before the
committee.

The Chairman said he would now continue with the discussion of the
budget proposals, using the Comparison Sheet (attached). He went over
items B2-10.

Senator Schroeder requested a 10 minute break, and said upon
reconvening, there would be more discussion regarding B7, Achievement
Standards Implementation and the $4 million involved.

Dr. West provided the committee with a letter from Dr. Tom Farley,
Bureau Chief of Federal Programs, that explained this $4 million
appropriation. Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1, of the No Child Left Behind Act
authorizes a grant program through which States may receive funds to
assist in meeting the assessment requirements of the Act. Federal
FY2002 appropriations have provided the Idaho Department of Education
with approximately $4 million for this purpose. Dr. Farley writes – “While
we are in the early stages of putting the Idaho Standards Achievement
Testing program into effect, we must, at the same time, develop and
implement additional student assessments required by No Child Left
Behind. It is these additional, federally-required, assessments that are
the focus of Idaho’s funds from Title IV-A of the Act. In March of 2002,
the Idaho Department of Education entered into a Compliance Agreement
with the U.S. Department of Education. This agreement sets out clear,
step-by-step, obligations and time lines for activities that will allow the
State to meet the assessment requirements.”

Dr. West explained the letter, how funds are to be used, the compliance
agreement and consequences if used differently.

Chairman Schroeder requested Jeff Shinn, an analyst in the Governor’s
office, to comment on the Governor’s recommendation regarding this
item. Mr. Shinn said he could not speak for the Governor. The Chairman
asked Mr. Shinn and Dr. West to resolve this issue, so that the State
would be in compliance with the federal requirements.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Reinke had three handouts for the committee: Q1 FY03 Fact Sheet,
Juvenile Corrections Legislative Update 2003; and Idaho’s Statewide
Report on Juvenile Recidivism.

One of the programs that has been highly successful is the Functional
Family Therapy (FFT). It is comprised of eight to twelve sessions with the
families over the course of three months. During the three months of
FFT, the youth remains in IDJC custody while returning to the home to be
part of the family, reducing the length of custody in a residential facility. It
focuses on the strengths of the families, while setting realistic outcomes.
The Department’s goal in FY03 is to serve 95 juveniles and their families.

The tracking system used by the Department is the Idaho Juvenile
Offender System (IJOS). It is tracking 36,000 juveniles in Idaho. The
Department is developing the infrastructure and data base for this system.
Three other systems feed information to IJOS.

There are 6,500 juveniles that are on county probation today. Last year
the number was 8,000. The ages of these juveniles are 10-19. If younger
than 10, Health and Welfare is responsible. Mr. Reinke said intervention
is needed at an early age, rather than waiting until later.

The average cost per day is $169.81 or $60,000 per year per juvenile.
The average stay is 12 ½ – 13 months. Of the 410 juveniles, 115 are
severely emotionally disturbed (SED). For every 10 juveniles committed
to IDJC: 5 will commit no further acts of crime; 2 will be adjudicated of a
new misdemeanor or felony; 2 will descend to IDOC; 1 will be re-committed to IDJC.

Senator Schroeder asked Mr. Reinke to furnish him with two pieces of
information. (1) The number of home schooled students that are in IDJC
and (2) the 39 thinking errors that kids make. Mr. Reinke said he would
provide that information.

Mr. Reinke introduced Ms. Glenda Rohrbach, who is in charge of the
education program for IDJC. Attached is a handout regarding the
education program which Ms. Rohrbach referred to during her
presentation.

Ms. Rohrbach has been with IDJC for 17 years and she is seeing the
increased need in range of services. She said 49% are special ed kids;
37% are emotionally disturbed; and 5% have low IQs.

The educational programs are accredited as Special Purpose Schools by
the Northwest Association of Schools and colleges. Meeting these
educational standards enables IDJC students to return to local education
agencies (LEA) and receive credit for work completed within the IDJC
education programs at St. Anthony, Lewiston and Nampa.

Ms. Rohrbach said the average stay is 11 months and the transition back
to regular schools is slow. During 2002, a total of 30 students met the
state graduation requirements and were awarded a high school diploma.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Mr. Reinke and Ms. Rohrbach for their
presentations. He then said the committee would recess until 10 a.m.

Mr. Johnson said that two program managers were eliminated, four or five
support staff, but basically, the education program is intact. There are not
educational services at the maximum security facility. The main focus for
education is on the inmates who have one year left before their parole.

One out of every three people (who are incarcerated at the prison) do not
have a high school education or GED and are below 8^th grade level
literacy. There are 73 who are special education qualified and there are
three staff members that deal with them. ISCI has nine certified teachers,
SCI has two instructional assistants, and three instructional assistants
who work in special education at all the sites.

Mr. Johnson said they have tapped into the Correctional Learning System
in Spokane, Washington which offers educational programs. There is no
cost involved in this.

In the past, education, programs and the parole board were all separate
entities and worked very poorly together. Now, all are working together.
There are 1,338 inmates at ISCI. The staff is making sure literacy, GED,
computer training, and, if needed, drug and alcohol training are all
available to those who have one year left before being paroled.

Mr. Johnson feels that the facilities at Cottonwood and Pocatello are
doing a good job also.

Time was allowed for questions from the committee.

EXCUSED:

Ms. Phelan gave a brief background of this program. She then introduced
Dr. Susan Williamson, principal of Taft Elementary, Boise.

Dr. Williamson has been at Taft Elementary for five years. She said 75%
of her students come from low income families. Taft Elementary has
been last or next to last in math and reading of the 36 schools. They are
now 9^th from the top. She feels their Resource Worker has had a very
good impact on the school. Dr. Williamson gave many examples of how
the Resource Worker works with the families, and in turn, how that helps
the students.

Ms. Phelan introduced Mickey Harmer, Program Specialist with the Health
and Welfare.

Ms. Harmer said the Community Resources for Families (CRFF) Program
is a school-based child welfare collaboration between the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare and individual school districts
throughout the state. The program began in 1994 as a way of supporting
the physical and emotional safety needs of children in the Boise School
District. It has since expanded to include 90 school districts throughout
the state. It provides local school districts with program coordination and
funding to hire CRW’s who are placed in elementary schools. These
CRW’s work with school principals, counselors, and teachers to identify
children who are under-performing in school due to unmet physical or
emotional needs occurring outside of the school environment. Referral
reasons include unmet basic needs such as lack of food, clothing, or
shelter. Referral reasons can also include school failure resulting from
environmental or family issues. They work closely with families to resolve
issues that can affect attendance and/or behavior. A great deal of the
CRW’s time is spent helping families learn how to connect with existing
community resources to support the needs of family members. Ms.
Harmer stressed that the program is voluntary and in some cases,
families do not choose to participate.

There are two kinds of services: Assessment and Referral Services (AR)
and Emergency Assistance (EA). AR services are a 30 day intervention
designed to assess family needs, refer and assist in connecting the family
with community and school resources. EA services provide an additional
90 day intervention with the family.

Today, there are 22 participating school districts and 30 Resource
Workers.

Ms. Phelan introduced Sandra Stange, Community Resource Worker with
the Boise School District.

Ms. Stange said she works at three schools – Monroe, Jefferson, and
Whitney Elementary. The Boise School District currently has four CRW’s
at 11 elementary schools and one person working with the ELL program
(English as a second language) at Riverglen Junior High. Referrals come
from within a building who see children with barriers to school success.
Sometimes, self referral is evident.

Ms. Stange gave several examples of how the program works, once a
family has met the criteria for eligibility.

Ms. Stange was asked to identify the differences of a social worker, a
community resource worker and a school counselor. She said the social
worker works with at-risk students, one-on-one, and are in both the
elementary and secondary schools. CRW’s are in the elementary schools
and they do assessments and referrals, working mainly with the families,
not the students. Counselors at the elementary school go into the
classroom and provide education that is prevention based.

Ms. Phelan introduced the final speaker, Joan Parsons, who is a
counselor at Jackson Elementary.

Ms. Parsons said her role is to help children succeed successfully in the
school setting. To do that, sometimes she needs to deal with a mental
health issue, other times a behavior issue, or a self esteem problem. Ms.
Parsons said she becomes familiar with all the children in her building and
also works with the parents of the students who need her services. She
gave several examples of her role as a counselor.

Time was allowed for the committee to ask questions of the panel. The
Chairman thanked the ladies for their information and participation today.

EXCUSED:

The Statement of Purpose for RS 13006 states that current contributions
to transportation funding for public schools are based on expenditures
from the prior year for that district. This bill will place a cap on the amount
of reimbursement at 103% of the state average reimbursable cost per
mile or student, whichever is more favorable to the district. It also
provides for an appeal to the State Board of Education for justification of
excessive costs. The fiscal impact, based on the current compensation
model, a savings to the state general fund of $2.7 million would be
realized.

Senator Goedde provided the committee with a handout regarding
transportation and is from the State Department of Education. He said
this RS would put a cap on expenditures at 103%.

A roll call vote was requested by the Chairman. Voting aye were
Senators McWilliams, Goedde, Andreason, and Schroeder. Voting nay
were Senators Ellis (Malepeai) and Werk. The motion carried 4 to 2. Out
of the room at the time of voting were Senators Gannon and Noh.

The intent language for the Public Schools Holdback is as follows:
Section X. There is hereby established in the state treasury the Public
Schools Budget Stabilization Account, which shall contain such funds as
may be provided through legislative appropriations and transfers. Moneys
so deposited in the Public Schools Budget Stabilization account are
hereby continuously appropriated for the purposes stated in this act. The
state board of education is hereby granted the authority to authorize
transfers to requesting school districts, pursuant to the provisions of this
act. School districts may request that the state board of education
authorize disbursements from this fund, as provided in Section Y of this
act. Any school district requesting such funds shall cause the state
General Fund appropriation for the Educational Support Program for the
period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, and their share of such
appropriations, to be decreased by a like amount.

The State Controller shall transfer $18,400,000 from the General Fund to
the Public Schools Stabilization Account upon this act’s passage and
approval.

The Public Schools Budget Stabilization Account shall cease to exist on
June 30, 2003, and the State Controller shall transfer any remaining funds
in the account to the General Fund.

The Chairman summarized, by saying, what this plan would do is to
provide a 2% holdback for public schools, which amounts to $18.4 million.
The money would be put in a stabilization fund and if needed, the schools
may apply for it. If used, then it will be taken out of their 2004 budgets.

There was discussion from the committee, testimony from Dr. Mike
Friend, Tim Hill, Dr. Bob West, John Watts, Dr. Bob Haley, and Dr. Cliff
Green.

Chairman Schroeder called a five minute recess.

It reads: Section 2. It is legislative intent that school districts absorb their
share of the 2% reduction in General Fund appropriations to the
Educational Support Program by implementing economies and
efficiencies in non-instructional services. All school districts are hereby
exempt from the provisions of section 33-1004(3), Idaho Code, that
pertain to the requirement that school districts either utilize or revert state
funding for administrative staff, for the period July 1, 2002, through June
30, 2003. For school districts that are unable to absorb their share of the
reduction through such economies and efficiencies, it is legislative intent
that school districts utilize general maintenance and operations fund
balances.

The minority of school districts that are unable to otherwise absorb
their share of the reduction may request that the state board of examiners
authorize the transfer of funds, up to the limit of each school district’s
share of the reduction, from the Budget Stabilization Fund, which is
hereby continuously appropriated for such purposes, up to a limit of
$2,370,000. Any school district requesting such funds shall cause the
state General Fund appropriation for the Educational Support Program for
the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, and their share of such
appropriations, to be decreased by a like amount.

Chairman Schroeder suggested the insertion of the word “may” between
the words districts and utilize (last line, first paragraph).

The Chairman then said he would like to submit the following proposal to
leadership:

After listening to expert testimony and deliberations, the Senate
Education Committee has authorized me to provide you with the following
statement:

While the Senate Education committee finds this intent language
preferable to the previously proposed intent language, this statement shall
in no way be interpreted as an endorsement of the concept outlined in the
intent language or an endorsement of any education holdbacks.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Therien presented a Powerpoint presentation on “How Digital
Learning Takes Place” (copy attached). Also attached is a copy of his
comments.

Some statistics regarding IDLA: The IDLA was created in the State
Department of Education by the 2002 Idaho Legislature and subsequently
not funded. The Albertson Foundation funded the implementation of IDLA
through a $1 million grant. There are currently 613 students representing
69 school districts enrolled in 1,008 classes. Geographically isolated or
medically fragile students have an opportunity to continue their education.
Districts that struggle with adequately covering all content areas have a
new option.

Following the presentation, the committee members asked questions of
Mr. Therien and Ms. Vakili. Testimony was taken from Jeffery Moos, a
parent, who indicated his daughter is a student at Capitol High and also of
IDLA. She is currently working as a model in Madrid and without IDLA,
she could not continue her education. He is very supportive of the
program.

A question arose as to the curriculum. Dr. Bob West, Chief Deputy
Superintendent of Public Instruction, stated that the State Department of
Education has scrutinized the curriculum.

The funding that is being requested for this program is $600,000. The
committee wants more time to pursue the financial aspects of this
program.

Some facts regarding the Idaho Virtual High School: The charter granting
entity is Mountain Home School District #193 and was granted in 2002 for
a length of three years. It has grades 9-12 and operates from September
1 to May 31, and an alternative Summer School program that begins June
1 and ends August 1. It has 153 full-time equivalent students and 303
students taking at least one course. There are 274 students previously
home schooled. The student/teacher ratio is 23:1.

Facts regarding the Idaho Virtual Academy: The charter granting entity is
Butte County School District #111 and was granted in 2002 for a length of
five years. It has grades K-5 for the 2002-03 school year; K-7 for the
2003-04 school year and plans to add two grade levels per year until
serving K-12. The school calendar is from September 3, 2002 to June 10,
2003. As of 2/17/03, there were 949 students enrolled, with additional
students on a waiting list not yet enrolled. About 50% of the students
were previously home schooled. The student/teacher ratio is 50:1.

Other information pertaining to Charter Virtual Schools:

1. The school calendar must comply with Idaho Code 33-512(1) by
   fixing the days of the year and the hours of the day when schools
   shall be in session and submit their calendars to the SDE.
2. For the purposes of establishing Average Daily Attendance (ADA),
   virtual schools must document instructional hours weekly. This
   must be done by a certificated teacher and verified by the school
   administrator. Virtual schools will annually submit to the SDE a
   definition of what is counted as instructional time.
3. Virtual Charter Schools must comply, as other charter schools,
   when receiving state foundation funds and special distributions.
4. Statewide Assessments must be conducted in a place and manner
   that ensures testing material integrity. A certificated teacher or a
   trained proctor must proctor assessments. Assessments cannot
   be administered in the student’s home.
5. An Extended Reading Program must be established for grades K-3 for students identified as below grade level on reading
   assessments. This program shall be the equivalent of forty hours
   of instruction.

Senator Schroeder asked Ms. Mauer to provide him the amount that is
being paid to K12.com for their services and how much is paid to
teachers, administrators, etc. Ms. Mauer said she had asked for that
information, but would request it again.

The Chairman told Ms. Mauer that he may invite her back to provide more
information regarding the digital schools, as there are funding issues and
public policy issues that need to be addressed.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Watts explained why districts might have fund balances. Examples
are:

Districts receive five payments per year from the State Department
of Education. Many districts maintain a fund balance to pay the bills
between each of the payments. Those districts who do not have
adequate fund balances must apply at a local bank for tax anticipation
notes.

Districts have the option to use the state’s bond rating for issuing a
bond, the fund balances in district accounts may have an impact on the
state’s overall bond rating. If fund balances are drawn down to critically
low levels, the impact on the states’ Moody rating may decrease the
marketability of Idaho bonds, ultimately affecting the entire state.

Many times districts experience unexpected emergencies where
cash is needed to address vandalism repairs, furnace, sewer line breaks,
fire, etc. Ready access to resources is necessary for maintaining ongoing
operations.

Chairman Schroeder asked when the five payments are made to the
districts. Tim Hill, Bureau Chief of Finance, indicated they are made on
8/15, 10/1, 11/15, 2/15, 5/15, and 7/15 as a clean-up.

Others testifying to the negative effects of the 2% holdback were student
lobbyists Rick Hachtel, BSU and Jeremy Pierson, ISU; Ms. Kathy Phelan,
IEA President; and Ann Stevens, representing Professional-Technical
Education.

EXCUSED:

He then welcomed Dr. Bob Hoover, President of the University of Idaho.

Dr. Hoover introduced Roy Eiguren, University of Idaho Foundation;
Wayne Meuleman, Idaho State Building Authority; Bud Tracy, also from
the Idaho State Building Authority; Robin Dodson, representing ISU’s
programs in the Treasure Valley; and Gary Stivers, Executive Director,
Office of the State Board of Education. Dr. Hoover said these people are
available to answer questions, also.

Also speaking to the committee was Mr. Eiguren.

Time was allowed for questions from the committee members.

EXCUSED:

(Maximizing Opportunities for Students & Teachers).

Mr. Hammond reviewed the history and background of Idaho’s MOST.
Two important facts are that it is an advisory to the State Board of
Education in areas of teaching policy and is funded by grants from the
Albertson Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education.

The mission of MOST is to maximize opportunities for student learning by
putting a competent, caring, qualified teacher in every Idaho classroom.

The goals are (1) get serious about standards for both students and
teachers; (2) reinvent teacher preparation and professional development;
(3) overhaul teacher recruitment and put qualified teachers in every Idaho
classroom; (4) encourage and reward teacher knowledge and skill; (5)
create schools that are organized for student and teacher success.

1. Initial License (3 years teaching – must move to Professional)
2. Professional License (5 years)
3. Advanced License (7 years)
4. Opportunity for career advancement or to maintain Professional
   License for career.
5. Specific verifications & assessments for Initial License.
6. Performance-based requirements for licensure renewal &
   advancement.
7. Performance-based requirements for out-of-state teachers,
   alternative route teachers, & non-active teachers.

(2) Proposed Professional Development Model

1. Focused on student learning needs.
2. Linked to district/school plans & individual goals.
3. Essential for continuous improvement.
4. Performance-based.
5. Comprehensive accountability system.
6. Aligned standards, curricula, assessment, and accountability.
7. Aligned with “No Child Left Behind” requirements.

(3) Recommendations for Middle Level Preparation

1. An optional middle level certification is recommended to be
   developed by the end of the 2005-2006 school year for those with
   elementary, secondary, exceptional child, and 7-12 occupational
   specialist certifications who will teach middle level students
   (grades 5-8)
2. The certification will be based on Idaho’s middle level teacher
   standards, drafted in 2002.

The committee asked questions throughout Mr. Hammond’s presentation.

Chairman Schroeder inquired about the issue of the Nez Perce language
being taught in Lapwai by the tribal elders and how that might be affected
by federal laws. Mr. Hammond said the kind of issue Senator Schroeder
brought up should not be taken away from the children and ways would
be found to legally allow those kinds of opportunities.

The Chairman said to Mr. Hammond, ” In tough fiscal times, and with
everything that is going on at the State level, and then you throw NCLB on
top of it, where are we headed?” Mr. Hammond replied that he felt these
changes could be implemented, and by doing it gradually over a long
period of time, if it made a major difference for children, it will be
affordable because it will be done incrementally.

Chairman Schroeder asked Mr. Hammond about his service on the State
Board and if the Board was (1) a policy/decision-making board; (2)
administrative board; (3) implementation body; (4) all of the above, part of
the above or which one? Mr. Hammond replied that he viewed the Board
mainly as the policy arm/decision-making.

The Chairman thanked Mr. Hammond for his presentation of “MOST”.

Mr. Terrell introduced his wife, daughter, and two grandsons. He then
told the committee about his family, his business, and civic and religious
activities.

As to his role on the State Board, he views the Board as a policy-making
body and compared it to his business. As the owner of DeBest Plumbing
& Mechanical for 30 years, he said he makes decisions and then
delegates to the people he has hired and expects them to carry out those
decisions.

Chairman Schroeder then read from the State Constitution the duties of
the State Board. He said the intent is not to have the Board administer,
but to make the decisions, and certainly not to have the Board involved in
the implementation or operation of schools.

The Chairman thanked Mr. Terrell for appearing before the committee and
told him the committee would vote on his confirmation Friday.

He then announced there would be a ten minute break before discussing
SCR 106.

SCR 106 was on the third reading yesterday. He sent a letter to the Pro
Tem, signed by himself, Senator Noh, and Senator Andreason (and would
have had the vice chairman sign it, as well as Senator Goedde, but they
were unavailable) asking that SCR 106 be referred to the Senate
Education committee for consideration as it is an education issue.

The Chairman then referred to the information (single page) that was
provided by Randi McDermott, Plans and Policy Officer for the State
Board of Education. He said it would delete rule 08.02.01 Section 100.

Chairman Schroeder said the state law says that the State Board is
designated as a state educational agency which is authorized to
negotiate, and contract with, the federal government, and to accept
financial or other assistance from the federal government or any agency
thereof, under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by
congressional enactment designed to further the cause of education. The
Chairman went on to say the Board rule says the State Board of
Education designates the State Department of Education to implement
specifically federal funded programs that may include participating
elementary and secondary schools. The State Department will develop
and disseminate guidelines, provide technical assistance, monitor
programs and aid in complying with federal requirements.

Chairman Schroeder said SCR 106 would delete this rule.

He then asked Dr. Bob West, Chief Deputy Superintendent for the
Department of Education, to let the committee know what effects this
would have.

Dr. West indicated that this would nullify a practical arrangement of 35
years between the State Department of Education and the U.S.
Department of Education with regard to the administration of elementary
and secondary public school federal funds. The effect of this would take
away from the Department the control of NCLB funds, as well as other
funds. Dr. West read from SCR 106, starting with the second WHEREAS
WHEREAS, it is the finding of the Legislature that a certain rule of the
State Board of Education relating to rules governing administration and
federally funded programs is not consistent with legislative intent and
should be rejected.

Dr. West questioned as to why it was felt the Department was not
consistent with legislative intent when they have complied with federal
requirements. He said, “If that is not legislative intent, then what is?” Dr.
West provided a four page handout which included SCR 106, the rule to
be rejected, Idaho Code, Sections 33-110; 33-102; 33-107; 33-125; an
excerpt from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; statistics
regarding funds for state formula-allocated and selected student aid
programs for Idaho; and a Summary of Federal Education Assistance
from NCLB. He went over these documents with the committee and
explained the Department’s responsibilities.

Chairman Schroeder asked Ms. McDermott if she knew anything about
SCR 106 and she indicated that she did not.

Chairman Schroeder said the argument seems to be where the NCLB
money should go.

Randi McDermott said if the rule should be rejected, the Board would
have to sit down, take 33-110 and come up with a new policy. Chairman
Schroeder said they would just be writing another rule.

EXCUSED:

Dr. Green said that last November at the annual conference of ISBA,
Meadows Valley School District brought to them a resolution regarding
unschooled children. He said it passed overwhelmingly. This RS is a
result of that resolution.

Dr. Green said that this concurrent resolution, if passed, would authorize
the appointment of a committee to study the best methods to identify and
determine the number of unschooled children in Idaho and recommend
steps to initiate outreach strategies to bring these children into recognized
school settings.

Senator Andreason led the discussion. He then made a motion to accept
the Governor’s appointment of Milford Terrell to the State Board of
Education. Senator Goedde seconded the motion. There was no further
discussion. A voice vote indicated it passed unanimously. Senator
Andreason will be the floor sponsor.

Chairman Schroeder read Page 2, pointing out the term “shall be
prescribed by law”. He said that means that the legislature, who makes
the laws, prescribes what the State Board will or will not do. They have to
obey the laws that the legislature passes. The Chairman then read Pages
3, 4, and 5. On Page 5, Chairman Schroeder noted that the State
Department of Education was defined as the State education agency by
federal law.

Chairman Schroeder said he feels the committee should discuss the role
of the Board. Is it a policy and decision making Board or is it someone
who administers more and more education programs and even implement
programs? The Chairman said this issue must be addressed before
responding to the letter from the co-chairs of JFAC.

Senator Noh asked if the author of SCR 106 was known and Chairman
Schroeder responded that at this time it is not known. Senator Noh said
he feels there are two issues – one that deals with federal money and
NCLB and the other is moving two agencies under the umbrella of the
State Board.

Chairman Schroeder then asked Gary Stivers, Executive Director of the
State Board of Education, to address the proposed restructuring by OSBE
regarding Professional Technical and Vocational Rehabilitation. The
Chairman said that what they hoped to accomplish after hearing from Mr.
Stivers, Mike Rush, and Ms. Blackstead is to arrive at a decision to
respond to the letter of the JFAC co-chairs.

Mr. Stivers said before starting his presentation, he’d like to comment that
SCR 106 is an issue that has not been brought to the Board. Chairman
Schroeder asked for his help to get to the bottom of this situation.

Mr. Stivers provided a handout to the committee which included his talk,
the existing functional structure, the proposed functional structure, as well
as the intent language. (Attached).

Mr. Stivers said the intent of this restructuring is to improve
responsiveness and services with no increase in cost. The Board is
requesting flexibility in its budgetary authority for addressing the
administrative dollars of OSBE, PTE, IDVR to facilitate the sharing of staff
and office resources in fiscal, HR and administrative support. Mr. Stivers
said after talking with the analysts, and it was determined the Board would
not be moving money or positions, they would just have the authority to
share resources.

Chairman Schroeder asked Mr. Stivers if the co-chairs of JFAC had
signed off on the intent language. Mr. Stivers said they had not.

Senator Gannon asked Mr. Stivers to provide the number of employees in
each of the organizations. Mr. Stivers said OSBE has 20; IDVR has 148,
with 17 in the Boise office; DPTE has 36; and CIS has 9.

After a discussion, Chairman Schroeder suggested that the intent
language could be improved upon. He then called for a short recess.

Testifying next was Mike Rush, Administrator for DPTE. One of Mr.
Rush’s comments was that he thinks the proposal is going in the right
direction, with the sharing of resources.

The Chairman requested the number of FTE’s be provided to Senator
Gannon, who will pursue this proposal more in depth and announced that
no decision will be made today. Senator Goedde also requested that
numbers be provided for the OSBE Teams, as listed on page 4 of the
handout.

Ms. Maggi Blackstead testified next in support of this restructuring. She
stated that by sharing some of the resources, that would free-up some of
the personnel time for other projects.

EXCUSED:

Former Senator Darrel Deide said this bill would do several things, such
as close the disparity gap, make it legal for the kids to be in school, and
also help to reach the reading goal.

Also testifying to the advantages of this bill was Harriet Shaklee (testifying
as a private citizen), Brenda Breidinger, a consultant and YMCA
administrator, and Karen Mason, Executive Director for Idaho AEYC.
They all pointed out it is a voluntary program, just as kindergarten is a
voluntary program in Idaho. They provided a handout with information
supporting their testimony. (Attached.)

Dr. Bob West, Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Schools, also
testified that this bill would make it legal for four year olds to be in the
public schools.

Regarding the restructuring and consolidation of OSBE, Chairman
Schroeder provided to the committee a copy of a letter (attached) from
Vice Chairman Gannon informing him of the results of a meeting with
Gary Stivers (OSBE), Mike Rush (DPTE), and Maggi Blackstead (IDVR).

Chairman Schroeder referred to the third paragraph and the 10% transfer
of appropriations. He asked Senator Gannon and Senator Andreason to
work on the intent language that is before them (attached). Chairman
Schroeder said perhaps the intent language could incorporate the spirit of
Senator Gannon’s letter (referring to the 10%). He then directed Senator
Gannon to prepare a letter to the co-chairs of JFAC, then it will be
reviewed by this committee before being sent to them.

There was discussion relating to SCR 106. The Chairman gave the
committee members a copy of the dialogue between Randi McDermott
and himself on 2/27 and between Gary Stivers and himself on 2/28. This
conversation was a direct question asked by Chairman Schroeder to them
if the State Board was involved in SCR 106. Both indicated the Board
had not seen this legislation.

The Chairman said he was concerned about ISIMS and the Albertson
Foundation, as well as the federal money involved and hoped (because of
SCR 106) there would be nothing to jeopardize the ISIMS project.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Reinke provided the committee with a handout that provides statistics
concerning the questions asked as related to Juvenile Corrections. Page
one has a break-down of the total cost per day per juvenile, which is
$169.81. Senator Noble had inquired earlier as to the costs of
Administration. That cost is $26.41, which is included in the total cost.

Other research done by Mr. Reinke, as requested by the committee:

21.8% of the juveniles, after being released from Juvenile
Corrections, end up in prison.

The average time between DJC release and DOC commitment is
18 months.

The average age of the DOC commitment is 19 years old and this
age group is 4% of DOC population.

Special Ed juveniles, on the average, stay 19% longer, or about
three months.

Also included in Mr. Reinke’s handout was the Table of Contents for
“Thinking For A Change”. It listed the 22 lessons, a cognitive-based
program utilized in all state juvenile facilities. Problem Solving Steps and
36 Thinking Errors were also included in this handout. Mr. Reinke
explained how all this material is used for the benefit of the juveniles.

Mr. Reinke then introduced Mr. Chuck Halligan, Bureau Chief of Family
Services for Health & Welfare, who will address the mental health issue
pertaining to DJC.

Mr. Halligan’s handout, Idaho Council on Children’s Mental Health –
Community Report Card – provides an overview of the services provided.
These services are targeted toward children with a serious emotional
disturbance (SED) and their families.

The Department of Juvenile Corrections is now tracking indicators to
better identify the juveniles in state’s custody who are defined as SED.
The number of youth committed as of August 19, 2002 was 421. Out of
this number, 114 were identified as SED.

Mr. Halligan also made available to the committee an Idaho update on
Children’s Mental Health, and a national pamphlet, Children’s Systems of
Care.

The Chairman thanked both Mr. Reinke and Mr. Halligan for their
presentations and making the information available to the committee.

Pro Tem Geddes said the purpose of this legislation is to change the
name of the Idaho Promise Scholarship Program to the Idaho Robert R.
Lee Promise Scholarship Program. There would be no fiscal impact
regarding this change. Senator Geddes said that Senator Lee worked
three or four years to get this scholarship in place and had a great desire
to make this available for the youth of this state.

There was no testimony against this bill.

Senator Goedde explained his legislation saying that funding for public
schools are based on expenditures from the prior year for that district.
This bill will place a cap on the amount of reimbursement at 103% of the
state average reimbursable cost per mile or student, whichever is more
favorable to the district. It also provides for an appeal to the state board
of education for justification of excessive costs. Based on the current
compensation model, a savings to the state general fund of $2.7 million
would be realized.

Testifying in favor of the bill was Jeff Miles, Transportation Director for the
Bonneville School District #93. He stated that he has been able to save
the district money without sacrificing safety. Some things implemented:
bell schedules were adjusted because transportation is the only area that
impacts all schools; routes were restructured; no buses taken home by
drivers; and full bus loads for activities. Mr. Miles said it was a team effort
to accomplish this. His district had 51 buses. It now has 46 and is
operating far more efficiently. One reason Mr. Miles feels things are out
of check is because the rising cost of education is 3%, while the rising
cost of transportation is 7%.

There was some discussion regarding contracts and Mr. Miles said the
contracts he has been involved with has some flexibility. Senator Goedde
pointed out that School Boards can only enter into a contract for one year
at a time and cannot obligate future school boards.

Testifying in opposition of the bill was A. J. Balukoff, a trustee for the
Boise School Board. He said Boise uses all 178 school days to calculate
the average cost, while other districts use other ways for their
calculations. He said there is one district that has two buses going to one
school, while Boise has 162 buses going to 51 school sites.

Rodney McKnight, Transportation Director for the State Department,
responded to questions regarding audits. He said the reason that audits
are not more often is because of the staffing issue. Also, there is no staff
position related to fiscal capability.

Testifying in opposition to the bill was Sarah Stobaugh, Transportation
Supervisor for the Boise School District. She feels the comparison figures
used for cost savings are somewhat overstated. She also feels the May,
1996 study done by the Office of Performance Evaluation was flawed,
relating to cost per mile and cost per student. She said using averages is
not a valid way of basing pupil transportation reimbursement. Ms.
Stobaugh also addressed the contract period. She said the Boise District
recently signed a contract for a three year period on a per bus per day
use. Senator Goedde asked if she might provide him with a copy of the
contract and she said she would.

EXCUSED:

Motion

Senator Malepeai made the motion to approve the minutes as written for
February 14, 18, 26 and 27. Senator Werk seconded the motion. A voice
vote indicated the motion passed unanimously.

Representative Trail said this legislation, if passed, would increase the
fees paid for certification required to hold professional positions in Idaho
Public Schools. It also places a limit on the portion of fees collected that
may be used by the Department to defray costs to the office of
certification. Representative Sayler also testified in regards to what this
bill will provide.

Testifying in support of this bill was Randi McDermott from the State
Board of Education. She said the Board is in support of this bill.

Dr. Bob West, from the Department of Education, said the Department
supports this bill. He said it increases the fee from $7.00 per year to
$15.00 per year. This is the first increase in 15 years. A copy of his
remarks, plus a handout, are attached.

Also testifying in support of this bill were Jim Shackelford, IEA; Patty
Toney, MOST; and Janet Orndorff, ISBA.

Ms. Stobaugh said she was asked yesterday if she had contacted the
Meridian School District regarding this issue. She said she contacted
them after leaving the meeting and was told they are not in support of this
bill. She also contacted 18 districts and asked them how they reported
their mileage and student count. It appears to her there is not
consistency around the state regarding reporting.

Jeff Miles, Boundary County School District, testified in favor of the bill.
He stressed that reporting should be done accurately.

Testifying in opposition to the bill was Armand Eckert, retired trustee of
the Buhl School District. He said Buhl would realize a loss of $81,000.

Rick Vertrees, Caldwell Transportation, testified in opposition to the bill
also. He suggested that more enforcement was needed, as well as better
record keeping.

Ms. Dawn Justice, IACI representative, said IACI feels this bill is good
public policy and they support this bill.

Testifying in opposition was Vic Koshuta, Superintendent, Garden Valley
School District #71. Their bus services are contracted and should this bill
pass, his district would lose $48,000.

Ms. Janet Orndorff, Boise School District, testified in opposition to this bill.

Rodney McKnight, Bureau Chief of Transportation for the Department of
Education, answered questions regarding audits and spot checks. He
also had handouts regarding cost per mile and cost per student. In
regards to this bill, Mr. McKnight said his position is neutral.

Written testimony was submitted by John Eikum, Executive Director of the
Idaho Rural Schools Association, who was unable to attend today’s
meeting. Thirty one school districts belong to the IRSA. Of these
districts, Mr. Eikum wrote that seven would be negatively affected by this
legislation. He also feels that if the department had sufficient staff to
monitor the districts there may be a method to reduce the overall
transportation costs and in the process aid local districts in finding ways to
be more efficient. Should this bill be approved, he suggested that it
should be phased in over a three year period.

Chairman Schroeder said testimony on this bill will continue next week.

EXCUSED:

Senator Noh requested clarification and a definitive answer to the
question Senator Goedde asked yesterday regarding if the state is
reimbursing 85% of the capitol costs for athletic trips.

Mr. Rod McKnight, Transportation supervisor, said the state does not
reimburse for athletic costs. But they do support a reimbursement of 85%
for the buses used by activities. Senator Noh requested an estimate of
those costs. Mr. McKnight responded by saying it would be difficult to do
at this time. However, there is an administrative rule that will be in effect
on July 1 that will enable his department to obtain more data, based on
individual routing and the types of trips taken.

Chairman Schroeder then asked Senator Goedde, sponsor of the bill, to
speak.

Senator Goedde said this bill is about efficiency and pointed out that for
the last decade this problem has been discussed. Now, it is time to do
something. Senator Goedde also stressed the need for more accurate
data and said it is subject to abuse. He said that he felt strongly enough
about this issue that he would be willing to send the bill to the 14th order
and increase the cap from three percent (3%) to ten percent (10%).

There was more discussion prior to motions made.

A roll call vote was taken on the original motion to hold S 1129 in
committee. Voting aye were Senators Malepeai, Werk, Andreason, Noh,
Gannon, and Schroeder. Voting nay were Senators Noble, McWilliams,
and Goedde. The motion passed, six to three.

Representative Garrett said H 263 was a very simple bill, changing the
name of the Idaho Association of School Trustees to the Idaho School
Boards Association. This change will correctly identify the entity required
to sit on the Professional Standards Commission.

There was no testimony in opposition to this bill.

Testifying in support of this bill was Ms. Janet Orndorff, trustee for the
Boise School District.

Chairman Schroeder asked Tim Hill, Finance Bureau Chief, to inform the
committee as to the costs of the charter schools. Mr. Hill provided a
handout which listed information (ADA, Divisor, Support Units) of all
charter schools. He explained this document, which is attached.

Dr. Green said he wanted to state ISBA’s position on charter schools.
The ISBA is not opposed to charter schools and they have a position
statement that recognizes charter schools as another public school choice
for parents.

Dr. Green said the reason for this RS is to clean up some language in the
current law and to facilitate the local boards who grant the charters the
necessary authority and infrastructure to enforce the charter agreement.

The Statement of Purpose for this RS states that it sets out requirements
for a charter school board of directors to include a school district board
member, and further requires that elections be held for charter school
board of director membership conducted like a school board district
trustee election. It provides that the charter incorporate the school’s by-laws, articles of incorporation and governance structure. It clarifies
requirements for charter school students enrolled to be selected by a
lottery conducted by a neutral third party, and that the charter may be
suspended or placed on probation rather than revoked if the school is
found to misrepresent the charter, by-laws, articles of incorporation or
fails to follow election laws set out in Idaho Code.

Chairman Schroeder announced that there was time for a few questions
from the committee and that discussion on the remaining RS’s would
continue tomorrow.

EXCUSED:

Dr. Green said he wanted to read from ISBA’s 2003 Resolutions &
Legislative Policies book (page 10), the Board’s position on charter
schools.

“ISBA recognizes “charter schools” as another public school choice
available to parents. ISBA supports charter schools provided that the
school board:

(a) retains sole authority to grant the charter;

(b) determines the ways in which charter schools will be held
accountable, such as determining the criteria that will be used in
establishing the charter;

(c) retains authority to decertify or not renew the charter of any school that
fails to meet criteria set forth in the charter or as otherwise specified by
the local school board, including but not limited to a requirement that
charter schools demonstrate continuous student achievement;

(d) has the authority to endure that a charter does not foster racial, social,
religious or economic segregation or segregation of children by disability;

(e) determines that funding for the other schools under its jurisdiction is
not adversely affected.

ISBA Position – ISBA recognizes “charter schools” as another public
school choice for parents.”

Dr. Green stated that there have been two complaints filed by the Office
of Civil Rights against charter schools in this state. He said the district in
which that charter school resides is responsible for that complaint. Dr.
Green said that ISBA feels that if they are to be held accountable for
charter schools, there should be some structure set up to monitor the
schools effectively.

In regards to RS 13127C1, Dr. Green said his executive committee had
one issue they would like changed, and that is the election of the board of
directors. They would like it amended to have only the parents of charter
school students, rather than district wide.

Dr. Green stressed that they are willing to meet with charter school
officials to rework this RS.

Some of the issues raised by the committee are as follows:

1. Discussion as to the word “parents”. It was felt that it should be
   more broad and perhaps also use the term “legal guardian”.
2. Lottery selection, so as to assure it is fair.
3. Number of children of employees of a charter school.
4. Digital Charter School. Charter granted by Butte County, with the
   office in Blaine County. Also, the number of students has not
   been reported, as requested.

RS 13123

EXCUSED:

Ms. Silver provided the committee with copies of the annual report of the
Idaho Displaced Homemaker Programs. The report and a copy of her
presentation is attached.

Ms. Silver gave a brief history of this program. The 1980 Idaho Legislature
passed the “Equal Opportunity for Displaced Homemaker Act” to serve
single parents and displaced homemakers. In 1982, S 1306 increased the
divorce fee by $20 to establish a dedicated fund for the Division of
Professional-Technical Education to operate counseling centers for
displaced homemakers. These fees, plus federal funds, enabled the
Division to have centers in each region.

Ms. Silver said the mission of this program is to help participants become
economically and personally self-sufficient.

The number of people served in FY2002 was 1,994. Of that number, 475
entered employment or improved their employment status; 760 entered,
continued or completed a training program; 341 graduated from a pre-employment class; and 67 completed GED’s.

Ms. Silver related several success stories regarding participants of this
program.

Time was allowed for questions from the committee. Among the
questions, Senator Gannon asked if people, who are eligible, are turned
away from this program. Ms. Silver said they are not turned away, but
might be put on a waiting list if the programs are at capacity. Another
question asked was the amount of the annual budget for this program. Ms.
Silver responded by saying it was $237,000. Fees collected from divorces
contribute $170,000 and the balance comes from the general fund. Ms.
Silver pointed out that for every dollar invested to help people in this
program to become gainfully employed, a return of $12.82 is realized.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Ms. Silver for her presentation.

He then asked Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director of ISBA, to speak.

Dr. Green then addressed the agreed-upon changes.

1. a member of the board of trustees or board designee shall be a
   nonvoting member of the governing board of the charter school.
2. revocation of tax exemption of schools put on probation has been
   deleted.
3. election language changed from all electors in the school district to
   include only district electors who have children attending the
   charter school.

An issue not resolved was a remedy for the probation period. Dr. Green
feels the ISBA needs to have a way to get the attention of the charter
schools and that would be to withhold funds. However, he suggested
lowering the amount from ten percent to five percent.

Chairman Schroeder asked Mr. Powell what his position was on RS
13127C2. Mr. Powell replied that he did not support it, but feels great
progress was made. He objects to the five percent probation and feels
some of the independence is taken away. As to the election process, he
feels the stakeholders are broader than just parents. He would include not
only parents, but teachers and volunteers. When asked about the
nonvoting member of the school board, Mr. Powell said he didn’t have a
problem with that. When asked about the lottery of selecting students, he
said he didn’t have a problem with that either.

Chairman Schroeder said he was trying to “flush out” what is agreeable
between the parties involved. He then asked Mr. Powell and Dr. Green to
meet with him at 1 p.m. today to continue to resolve the problem.

EXCUSED:

He then called on Dr. Cliff Green to update the committee on the changes
made. These changes were agreed upon by Paul Powell, representative
from the Idaho Charter School Network, Bob Henry, chairman of the
Nampa School Board and Dr. Green, Executive Director of the Idaho
School Boards Association.

The second change relates to the selection of students (lottery). The RS
now states that “the entire lottery process shall be conducted by a party
chosen mutually by the board of trustees of the school district and the
charter school.”

The third change was a technical change with regards to “placed on
probation”. The paragraph was reworded to flow better.

Dr. Green said they had discussion as to using the term “material violation
or material misrepresentation”. They agreed to leave it as “material
violation”.

After the discussion, Chairman Schroeder reviewed the changes to make
sure everyone understood them. He then entertained a motion for
printing this RS (with changes made before submitting to the privilege
committee) and RS 13123, which directs the legislature to establish a
study committee to undertake and complete a study of the statutes
governing charter schools. The Chairman said these RS’s would need to
be sent to the State Affairs Committee for a print hearing, then returned to
this committee.

Dr. Friend said this RS would amend two sections of Chapter 55. The
amendments provide for a district fee structure and provide clarity
regarding tuition payments. These issues relate to state funding. Prior
funding was provided by the Albertson Foundation.

Ms. Blackstead provided the committee with copies of her PowerPoint
presentation (attached).

Following are some highlights:

1. The goal of VR is employment.
2. Last year VR served over 12,000 people with disabilities.
3. Last year VR assisted 1,711 to achieve employment outcomes.
4. For every $1 invested, $2.50 is returned to the Idaho economy and
   reduction in public assistance payments is realized.

During the discussion following the presentation, Senator Gannon asked
if the tracking of clients reveals the cost to the state, per client. Ms.
Blackstead said she would provide that information to him.

Chairman Schroeder thanked Ms. Blackstead for her report.

Mr. Parrish said in February, legislative leadership (JLOC) requested an
evaluation of public school districts. The request called for a
comprehensive and overall evaluation of three districts and a review of 17
specific issues. His office determined they would conduct a multi-phase
evaluation.

Phase 1 would be a statewide review of district revenues and
expenditures released during the 2003 session. Phase 2 would be a
district-level review of programs and expenditures released during the
2004 session, with select districts and key issues to be reviewed.

Phase 1 of the statewide review will be a comparison of district revenues
by source – general, dedicated, and federal funds. District expenditures
will also be compared.

The Joint Legislative Oversight Committee (JLOC) has approved this
proposal and they have issued a directive for OPE to proceed with Phase
1 and to report the results during the 2003 session.

Questions were asked of Mr. Parrish and Mr. Mohan during the
presentation.

The committee was assured that the OPE works independently. Topics
are selected, then they do their work and issue a report, which is factual.

EXCUSED:

Dr. Haley told the committee that a similar RS failed in the House
Education Committee. He felt there were two reasons: (1) the negative
fiscal impact was not stressed strongly enough and (2) there was an
omission regarding colleges and universities.

The United States Congress has passed legislation requiring high schools
to provide to military recruiters access to a list of secondary school
students and their student directory information. Dr. Haley said that on
page 1 of the RS, lines 10-23 spells out what cannot be done, then
starting at line 24, it lists the exemptions.

Dr. Haley said he felt it was not a big issue, just a compliance issue.
When asked what was in the directory, Dr. Haley said it includes the
name, address and phone number of the students.

Dr. Barr provided a 14 page booklet to the committee members (attached)
which he and Dr. William Parrett co-authored. Dr. Barr referenced his
remarks to this booklet. It has seven sections, and all were discussed,
except the final section.

1. Charter Schools: National Review
2. Research on Charter Schools
3. Status Report: Idaho Charter Schools
4. Modification of Idaho Charter School Legislation Since 1998
5. Idaho Charter School Network (ICSN)
6. Idaho Charter Schools: Observations/Issues
7. References

Regarding the National Review, Dr. Barr reviewed the summary of
national issues. They are: facility funding continues to be a major barrier
and challenge; conflicts with local school boards continue to persist; some
charters lack external evaluation and assessment; authorizing agencies in
many states lack the necessary resources to provide adequate oversight,
technical assistance, evaluation and assessment; occasional problems of
fiscal mismanagement have been reported; while some charter schools
have closed, no accurate accounting of these events is available. Some
charters have been approved but never opened.

EXCUSED:

EXCUSED:

Page one is the computation of the first ten years’ cost to the state, with
the average per year of $20,907,274.

Mr. Huntley said the Task force met four times and found the following:

1. The supermajority threshold of 66 2/3 affirmative to pass a school
   bond levy is in some cases prohibitive.
2. On occasion, serious safety hazards exist in schools and there is
   no fail-safe method for local school district’s board of trustees to
   remediate the hazard.
3. There is a huge disparity among school districts in their ability to
   retire long-term debt on their own.
4. Two of the leading causes of school facility deterioration are
   inadequate and neglected maintenance.

These four points summarize the Task Force’s findings and they have
made four recommendations. Each recommendation requires that
legislation be drafted in more detail. Should all facets of the four
recommendations provided be enacted into law, the ISEEO lawsuit should
be withdrawn.

Mr. Gilmore provided a news release from the Governor and
Superintendent of Public Instruction Marilyn Howard regarding the
recommendations made by the Task Force. Mr. Gilmore feels the second
recommendation is the most important part of the package and that is
providing a way for districts to impose emergency safety levies without
voter approval.

Chairman Schroeder asked Dr. Deide, education liaison for the
Governor’s Office, to comment on the Governor’s press release regarding
the facilities recommendations.

Following Dr. Deide’s remarks, Senator Goedde made two requests. He
asked Mr. Huntley if he would provide a breakdown of each of the
recommendations and to Dr. Deide, if he would provide copies of the
computer model for the past five years of bond elections passed in the
state. Both Mr. Huntley and Dr. Deide said they would provide this
information.

The committee asked a few questions of Mr. Huntley, Mr. Gilmore, and
Dr. Deide.

Chairman Schroeder thanked the three gentlemen for their information
regarding the Task Force’s findings.

Representative Gagner said that Dr. Jim Blackman, Assistant Dean at the
University of Washington, is available to answer questions and he turned
his time to him.

Dr. Blackman said the incentive is to do something about the debt load
that the medical students have accumulated over the length of their
education.

Discussion centered around several items: Montana’s program, fee
charges, an oversight committee, and student consideration.

Representative Gagner recommended that the committee send this bill to
the 14^th order so that some changes can be made.

Chairman Schroeder suggested to Representative Gagner that he work
on some amendments to this bill, bring them back next week so that the
committee knows what the amendments are, then they will discuss it
further.

EXCUSED:

Representative Gagner suggested that:

Section 1, line 14 remove “and board of regents of the University
of Idaho”.

Section 1, line 18 change eight percent to four percent.

Section 1, line 19 change individual to average, so that it reads
“annual average medicine support fee.

Section 2, line 28 remove “and board”.

Section 2, line 29 remove “of regents of the University of Idaho”.

Section 2, line 30 after code, add “The State Board of Education
will identify an oversite committee made up of knowledgeable
individuals or organizations to assist in the administration of this
fund. Members of this oversite committee should come from the
Idaho Hospital Association, Idaho Medical Association, Office of
Rural Health, Idaho Rural Health Education Center, Medical
Student Program Administrators and others as appropriate.

Section 3, line 36 remove “and Board of Regents of the University
of Idaho”.

Section 3, line 5 add after board, “through its oversite committee”.

Dr. Green said this bill is the result of four changes made to an RS
regarding charter schools. He reaffirmed the Boards’ position stating that
“ISBA recognizes ‘charter schools’ as another public school choice for
parents”.

The areas of concern were the election process, the selection process,
and the probation period if corrections were needed.

Working on these changes with Dr. Green were Paul Powell, Idaho
Charter School Network, and Bob Henry, Nampa School Board Chairman.
Both Mr. Powell and Mr. Henry testified that they supported this bill.

He stated that during the last legislative session, Chapter 55, creating the
Idaho Digital Learning Academy, was enacted. The purpose of this
legislation is to amend two sections of this chapter. The amendments
provide for a district fee structure and provide clarity regarding tuition
payments.

Dr. Friend said that as fees are phased in, the fiscal impact will decrease.
This service is voluntary to the school districts.

A handout (prepared by Tim Hill, Bureau Chief of Finance and
Transportation) shows the amount of change for each school district if the
budget was $920 M, $930 M, or $943 M.

Testifying as to the effect were Dr. Mike Friend, Dr. Cliff Green, and Ms.
Janet Orndorff.

The Chairman said this discussion would continue tomorrow.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Hill had four handouts (attached). A budget of $920 million (blue
paper); a budget of $930 million (green paper); a budget of $940.4 million
(ivory paper); and a budget of $943 million (yellow paper). Mr. Hill
reviewed these figures for the committee.

One of the questions asked was regarding the obligation of contracts. Mr.
Hill said his understanding was that school districts were not financially
relieved of their obligation regarding contracts.

Following the committee’s discussion, Ms. Kathy Phelan, President of the
Idaho Education Association testified. Part of her testimony included the
need for districts to have enough money to meet their legal obligations.
She also emphasized to the committee to think about what happens to the
children, if programs are cut.

John Eikum, representative for the Idaho Rural Schools Association, said
if a lot of the programs are cut, and fund balances are used, there could
be strikes and other repercussions. He said it is not a pretty picture and
he is hoping that “greater minds will prevail” and come together with the
Governor’s numbers, or at least close to it. In the smaller rural districts
when a teaching position is eliminated, a program is usually lost.

Senator Andreason requested information regarding the effect any budget
cuts would have on the early reading program. Dr. Bob West, from the
Department of Education, said he would provide that information for him.

Chairman Schroeder said a comment was made on the Floor that it would
be helpful if the Senators knew the consequences of actions on some of
the budget bills. That is why he invited Tim to brief the committee. The
Chairman said he feels that it is important to know what the impact will be
when voting on school issues.

H 366.

Representative Lake said this legislation was brought to him by a State
Board of Education member. It will give the State Board of Education the
authority to determine the specifications for a basic bus. Also, the state’s
share of the transportation support program for bus purchases shall be 85
percent of the cost of a basic bus and optional features shall be paid by
the respective school districts.

There was much discussion as to what features might be optional, what is
required, “one size fits all”, white roof, tinted windows, air-ride, and special
tires. Also, it was felt that the fiscal impact was questionable and the
Chairman requested more detailed information as to how this impacts
each district. Another area of concern was regarding districts that
contract bus service.

Testimony of Mr. Rod McKnight, transportation supervisor, indicated that
a committee reviews the purchases of buses. He was asked to provide
the names of the committee members. Mr. McKnight said he would
research the questions asked and have the answers for the committee
tomorrow. He also stated that there are some rules being drawn up that
will apply to this bill.

Senator Noh said that with only three bus manufacturers, perhaps there
should be an anti-trust investigation of the school bus industry.

Chairman Schroeder announced that more discussion regarding this bill
will continue tomorrow. He thanked Representative Lake and Mr.
McKnight for their comments.

Randi McDermott, Plans and Policy Officer for the State Board of
Education, testified that the Board supports this bill and explained that
because the Board does not need to be consulted, they wished their
name removed.

Also testifying in support of this bill was Dr. Cliff Green, Executive Director
of the Idaho School Boards Association and Dr. Bob West, Deputy
Superintendent, State Department of Education.

There was no testimony pro or con regarding this bill.

He said he was asked to write a bill that clarifies legislative intent. The
first section states the legislative intent; the second section deals with
funding; and section three declares an emergency and applies to all
proceedings pending before the courts of Idaho.

Representative Eskridge, co-author of this bill, said there is a legal
dispute in his district and clarification is needed.

There was no other testimony.

EXCUSED:

The Chairman called on Mr. Rod McKnight, Transportation Supervisor, to
address the fiscal impact on individual school districts

Mr. McKnight provided a handout to the committee with regards to the
prices and sizes of buses; however, this information is not listed by
districts. Senator Schroeder requested that district information be
provided to the committee members so that they will know how their
district is affected.

Mr. McKnight has alluded that his department is working on some Board
Rules relating to this legislation. Senator Goedde asked if this legislation
was needed if Rules would be in place to take care of the problem. Mr.
McKnight said he is moving forward with the Rules, whether this
legislation passes or not. This legislation, if passed, would just be an
endorsement.

H 366 in committee. Senator Gannon seconded the motion.

During the discussion, Senator Noh made the observation that perhaps
more auditors are needed, rather than legislation.

The Chairman called for a roll call vote on the substitute motion. Voting
aye were Senators Noble, McWilliams, and Goedde. Voting nay were
Senators Malepeai, Werk, Andreason, Noh, Gannon, and Schroeder. The
substitute motion failed 3 to 6.

The roll call vote on the original motion showed Senators Noble,
McWilliams, and Goedde voting nay. Voting aye were Senators
Malepeai, Werk, Andreason, Noh, Gannon, and Schroeder. This motion
passed 6 to 3.

Senator Andreason asked that the State Board of Education scrutinize the
use of buses more closely in the future. Gary Stivers, Executive Director
of the State Board of Education, indicated it would be taken care of.

Mr. Deide said a task force was created in January by the Governor and
State Superintendent Marilyn Howard to look for ways to try to settle the
school building lawsuit. They were given until the end of February to
recommend settlement options to the state and the school districts. On
the task force was former State Schools Superintendent Jerry Evans;
Mike Friend, director of the Idaho Association of School Administrators;
Nick Hallett, superintendent of Minidoka County Joint School District; Stan
Kress, superintendent of Cottonwood Joint School District and president
of ISEEO (the districts suing the state); Randy Nelson, president of the
Associated Taxpayers of Idaho; Milford Terrell, Boise businessman who
headed the 25 member committee that looked into the school building
problem three years ago; Geoffrey Thomas, superintendent of Madison
County School District; and Mr. Deide, retired school superintendent and
former state senator.

He said the four issues were:

1. the supermajority threshold of 66 2/3rds affirmative to pass a
   school bond levy.
2. serious safety hazards exist in schools and there is no fail-safe
   method for local school district’s board of trustees to remediate the
   hazard.
3. a huge disparity among school districts in their ability to retire long-term debt on their own.
4. two of the leading causes of school facility deterioration are
   inadequate and neglected maintenance.

Mr. Deide said there are four bills to address these needs and he will
present two of those bills in this committee today. As for the other two
bills, one is in the House Rev and Tax committee and the other is in the
Senate State Affairs committee.

He said there are some differences in the four bills than what the task
force recommended and therefore, they are not totally congruent. SJR
101 calls for two election dates every year where a 60 percent majority
would approve a bond levy. The recommendation from the task force was
four days per year.

Mr. Deide said there is no difference between the task force’s
recommendation and H 389 that is in the House Rev and Tax committee.

The difference of what was recommended by the task force and S 1173 is
in the fiscal impact. Mr. Deide plans to introduce a lesser fiscal impact.
In S 1174, which is before the committee now, also has a lesser fiscal
impact than what the task force recommended.

Last year, S 1474 provided for the use of market value, unemployment,
and per capita income as the support amount factors. This bill would give
another option that would allow for the use of free and reduced lunch
price data to be used as an alternative to unemployment and per capita
income, whichever is most advantageous to the district.

Mr. Deide said the district’s amount will be reduced each year as the
state’s participation goes up. The task force recommended that the state
provide half of the cost and phase it in over a five year period. Mr. Deide
said he changed the figures from the task force’s recommendation
because he felt their request would be impossible to meet and he wanted
some legislation that would be possible.

There was much discussion by the committee on this bill. Due to lack of
time, no action was taken on S 1173. Discussion will continue tomorrow.