EXCUSED:

He and Vice Chairman Lake will be holding weekly meetings with the
Senate Education Committee Chairman and Co-Chairman, and he
mentioned the joint meetings next week with the Senate Education
Committee to address No Child Left Behind, ISAT and Charter Schools.
He explained that charter schools are spending less money per student,
have parental involvement, and produce higher scores. On all of these
issues we need to sort out what we can support and what we can’t.

He voiced his feelings about the Idaho Education Association opposing
Republicans and the fact that some school facilities and resources are
being used to do so. He stated that threats of suits only allow bad
teachers to stay in our schools.

Vice Chairman Lake stated that his goal is to prepare better educated
students. He feels we have been content too long with just exiting
students out the door.

Representative Jones mentioned that he is not an educator by trade but
is a very strong supporter of education. He served eight years on the
National Education Panel.

Representative Trail took a moment to introduce Sarah Mahaffy, House
Education Page from Moscow, Idaho. Sarah said she is a senior at
Moscow High School and plans on majoring in Elementary Education.
Representative Trail said he has been active in education for years,
taught Ag Education at Washington State and is involved in developing
Ag education worldwide. He indicated he would have several pieces of
legislation this year, and he has learned that good legislation does not
always make it through the process in one session.

Representative Bradford explained that he came to this committee
without a lot of education himself and feels he can show others the
wisdom in getting a good education. He said there are many great
teachers in the state, and we all need to strive to make education better.

Representative Block spoke about how important education is to her ­
she was a K-4 teacher for many years. She stated that education is the
future and we need to work cooperatively towards the best education
possible.

Representative Rydalch mentioned that she served in the Senate for a
number of years and taught Journalism for 10 years. She said what she
would like to see changed is the process or the refining of the process.
She is grateful for what the State Board is doing and feels that once
requirements are established it doesn’t matter where the students receive
their required education ­ not the Legislature’s job to tell parents where
students can attend school.

Representative Bauer stated it is an honor and privilege to serve on this
committee. He pointed out that we often times hear the negative and the
criticism but there is a lot of positive going on. He mentioned an internship
program at Sky View High School and also the progress Notus is making
raising their test scores by teachers teaming up to help students who are
struggling.

Representative Eberle indicated that he appreciated the Chairman’s
opening comments. He came to this committee after his experience
serving on two school boards and feels that school boards are losing
power due to Federal regulations and control. He believes Idaho needs to
take back this control.

Representative Cannon related a story about a card game where one of
the players accused another player (a gunfighter) of cheating. The player
was killed by the gunfighter. When the card player’s wife asked the judge
to find the gunfighter guilty, he said her husband was guilty because he
stood and talked rather than sitting and thinking.

Representative Garrett said she appreciated the opening remarks and
she remembers well when her father, who was a minister, asked people
to stand up and testify. She explained she has been out testifying about
the good going on in our schools. She stressed we should be celebrating
and rejoicing on how far we’ve come on the accountability issues.

Representative Kulczyk indicated that in 1996 he became a lobbyist for
the Idaho Family Forum. He believes in educational choices and giving
parents tools. He explained he has been working on getting a charter
school started, and it may take up to a year for approval under the current
system.

Representative Nielsen stated that he agrees with the comments about
choice. He also feels that the dollars should follow the kids, and his
biggest concern is about financing schools. He stressed that resources
play a big role in boosting the economy and a good economy is vital to
help fund schools.

Representative Bayer explained that he is the “newbie” who replaced
Representative Tilman in District 21. He said he is a Medical Research
Scientist, and he was educated in private and public schools. He
indicated that he has concerns about accountability and efficiencies.

Representative Sayler said he has spent 50 years either as a student or
a teacher, and said being a teacher doesn’t give inherent wisdom about
education. He feels we need to define the “best education possible” and
not change for change sake ­ look at the evidence to make changes. He
is supportive of working together, more harmony and decency.

Representative Naccarato supported the Chairman’s comments about
bringing divisions together and said we need to look at the State Board
and the Department. He has concerns with the ISAT and feels if the tests
and scores are not valid we should not continue spending funds
unnecessarily.

Representative Andersen said he spent 20 years on the farm and in
school and then taught school for 10 years, teaching a variety of subjects
and coaching. He spent 24 years working for the Idaho Education
Association and the last four years as an arbitrator for the Better Business
Bureau. He feels we are at a point where we can move forward, but we
need everyone at the table. We need to understand what quality
education means.

Representative Boe said she appreciates the fact that the Chairman
wants to work on the differences between the House and Senate and the
State Board and the Department, but she feels we also need to work on
differences with the IEA. She stated that in her district that the IEA
supports both Republicans and Democrats. She feels we need
accountability from students and teachers, and we need to provide a
thorough education that will equip students to be good citizens.

John Watts, Veritas Advisors, introduced himself and stated that he has
also been retained by the Idaho School Boards Association for the past
three years. He explained that there are five entities setting education
policy in Idaho: the Governor, the State Superintendent of Schools, 105
Legislators, the State Board of Education and the local school board
trustees. He said the best way to determine the best system is to lock
members of all five entities in a room to design a plan and the goals to
work towards. Plans are being made for an Education Summit.

EXCUSED:

08-0202-0301

Rod McKnight, State Department of Education, fielded questions from
committee members.

A question was asked regarding to the process that was in place to
identify deficiencies in the buses before this new rule. Mr. McKnight
stated that personnel did spot inspections and that the statute was
followed if they needed to be fixed or removed. The new rule adds
language which will reaffirm the statute. He also stated that school
districts are required to do the 60-day inspections. In answer to a
question regarding a cost to the school districts, he said there was none.

Mr. McKnight also stated that there has been confusion at the school
district level regarding inspections and these rules will help with
clarification. In response to a questions about busses being in service,
Mr. McKnight said that if a bus is available it is in service.

Motion approved unanimously.

08-0202-0303

Negotiated rulemaking was not conducted because this rule change is not
controversial in nature and other interested parties would not be harmed
as a result of this change. There were no hearings requested or held.
Some comments were received and those were positive. Ms. Gustafson
stated that to their knowledge there are no outstanding issues.

Keith Potter, State Department of Education, stood for questions from
the committee.

In response to a question regarding hearings, Mr. Potter stated that there
was a teleconference in the summer. He said that this was a two-year
process and the IEA, OSBE, and the IASA were contacted.

In answer to a question regarding whether a brochure would be
produced, Mr. Potter said they would probably produce some sort of
booklet and it would also be available on a disc.

Mr. Potter said that the major changes to the code of ethics are found on
Page 9 and 10 of the rules and repeated again on Pages 15 and 16. He
also stated that on Page 12, Principle 2 is more explicit and defines acts
of cruelty.

There was a question regarding Principle 2 about identifying issues of
conduct and whether this conflicts with students who need discipline. Mr.
Potter stated that if there is a problem then there is a due process that is
followed when a written complaint is made. This would go to a panel who
decides if there are sufficient grounds. This process can take as little as
two months or up to a year. A question was asked if this would be
detrimental to the teacher if they have to wait that long for their due
process. Mr. Potter said that is a possibility. He said that anytime that
there is a complaint they encourage people to work through the local
entities first.

There were real concerns by some of the committee members that the
new rules were too specific and derogatory. It was felt that the code of
ethics now in use is worded more positively. It was also felt that with the
new rules being so specific that it is opening a pandora’s box in the area
of child abuse and especially emotional abuse. It was asked if these
vague terms wouldn’t be clearly defined in law. Mr. Potter said that they
had been reviewed by their legal council.

There was a question regarding the rule on Page 13, Principle 3, and
what a teacher does on their own time. A concern was voiced about not
wanting someone who is teaching children to indulge in drugs even on
their own time. Mr. Potter said (and he gave an example) that this type of
behavior would fall under a law case. It was stated that this could be
handled at the school board level­by getting teachers who live within the
standards set. Mr. Potter said that was correct that it is the school board
who takes the first action before the state comes into it.

Mr. Phil Homer, IASA, stated they have no negative comments on the
issue.

Mr. Jim Shackelford, IEA, said they are a strong supporter of the
Professional Standards Commission; however, they are in disagreement
with the new rules. He stated that the old code of ethics approaches
instructions to the teaching profession as to what conduct should be not
what shouldn’t. The IEA feels that some of the rules leave an ambiguous
interpretation and they would prefer more specific examples. Mr.
Shackelford said this code does not just include teachers but everyone
with a certificate. He said the IEA would like additional time to work with
the Professional Standards Commission. It was felt by some committee
members that two years should be enough time.

It was asked if this does not pass what would happen. Mr. Potter said
they would use the current code of ethics. Another question was asked
about how many actions against teachers had taken place in the last year
and would this new code of ethics change that in any way. Mr. Potter said
they had 17 cases with 5-6 licenses revoked. He also said that with this
new code the number of cases might not change but the action might.

A point was made that this is a highly visible profession and any
guidelines that can be given to help the ethical teachers would be a help
to keep the profession honorable.

The Amended Substitute Motion passed by a 5 to 3 vote with
Representatives Trail, Cannon, Garrett, Andersen, and Naccarato voting
aye; and Representatives Bradford, Rydalch, and Nielsen voting Nay.

08-0202-0304

In response, the Idaho’s MOST committee created three teacher
certification routes as alternatives that will meet the requirements of
NCLB. Because of the federal requirements the present rules addressing
alternative certification will expire July of 2006.

The Teacher Preparation Task Force met approximately 18 times and the
MOST Advisory Group met 24 times since November of 2000. A total of 5
public hearings were held and were held via statewide video conference.
There were three questions regarding para-professionals but no
comments positive or negative.

Mr. Keith Potter, SDE, stood for questions. It was asked if these three
alternate routes meet federal standards and if there is adequate time for
the teachers to actually accomplish this. Mr. Potter said yes they meet
federal standards and if we are not in compliance we then can have
funding cut. He also said that over the 3-year period there should be
time.

Some concerns were that we are trapping ourselves into a flow of funds
that might be hard to budget and that it might be especially hard on
smaller school districts. It was noted that this is one of the largest
underfunded mandates.

Mr. Jim Shackelford, IEA, said that they support this.

08-0202-0302

In answer to a question, Mr. Potter said that this testing is for all new
teachers or those moving to Idaho. It also includes those teachers who
have let their certificates laps. A copy of the Idaho Statutes which shows
the fees was passed out to each member (attached).

It was asked if all teachers need to do these two things and Mr. Potter
answered this only relates to Natural Science.

Mr. Jim Shackelford, stated that the IEA is in support of this rule.

Mr. Phil Homer, said that the IASA is also in support.

EXCUSED:

08-0203-0301

She said these rules add proficiency to the Idaho Standards Achieve-ment Test (ISAT) in order for the state to meet the accountability
requirements of NCLB. They include provisions for students who are
unable to attain proficiency by graduation so that they may appeal to the
local school district and be given an opportunity to meet the standards
through some other locally established approved mechanism. The rules
allow for adaptation of the test to assist Limited English Proficient (LEP)
students. It establishes that students will take the ISAT in their 10^th grade
year and can retake, up to eight times, the portions of the test they did not
pass. The rules also define adequate yearly progress or AYP. The rule
further outlines a phased in approach for a graduation requirement that
would allow some exemptions in 2006, fewer exemptions in 2007, and full
implementation in 2008 and it clarifies that the ISAT does not take effect
until January 1, 2006. And finally, the rule clarifies the definition of full
academic year.

Negotiated rule making was conducted in May 2003 by the Accountability
Commission, and they held seven public meetings around the state to
gather information on the formation of these rules. Nearly 200 people
attended these meetings and offered input. The Board staff conducted a
statewide public hearing video conference on October 16, 2003 at seven
sites around the state with about 200 people attending. The Board also
received nearly 200 written comments.

Based on comments received during the hearing process, the rule was
further rewritten to clarify when and what measures local school boards
can use as an alternate measure for the graduation requirement, and the
Board removed the requirement that the ISAT include both a selected
response section and a constructed response section.

Concern that ISAT is being used as a graduation requirement in
general. The Board feels very strongly that an exit exam is the most
effective way to ensure that our students are graduating with the needed
skills and knowledge. The Education Council of the States research
presented at the Albertson’s Foundation in October suggests that raising
the standards is the most effective way to increase performance.

Concern about validity and reliability ­ has the exit exam been tested?
Board staff completed a rigorous and accepted process to build the tests
and to ensure reliability ­ review is available on our website. An external
review will be conducted this summer.

Concern that the test does not use multiple measures. The Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) baseline was set on a multiple choice test only.
Introducing new elements at this point may cause potential problems
because it could affect school and district AYP determinations.

Were the oral and written comments received by the Board positive or
negative? Ms. Gustafson said it was about half and half ­ written were
positive where oral tended to be negative.

Why test using only multiple choice and why test only reading, writing
and math? Dr. Randy Thompson, State Board of Education, explained
the use of multiple choice only was to provide consistency and to provide
a statistically sound basis for the exam that would be valid and reliable.
This does not preclude the school districts from using other means of
assessment, i.e. a portfolio. He said the evaluation of a student is viewed
as a partnership with educators who are able to assess student’s oral and
other proficiencies. To comply with NCLB, AYP has to be evaluated for
language arts, math and reading. The Board plans to add a science and
other components to the ISAT.

High Stakes Tests ­ The IEA believes the fact a student is required to
pass the ISAT in order to graduate from high school makes that test a
high stakes test, even though students may have multiple attempts to
pass it.

Validity/Reliability ­ IEA continues to be concerned that the ISAT has
not undergone an extensive external study to determine validity and
reliability and that it is inappropriate for students to be held accountable
for this piece of the system that has yet to be proven reliable and valid.
Ms. Nettinga pointed out that Section 105.03 allows school districts to
develop alternate measures as long as they meet specific criteria, but
Section 105.03d requires these to be valid and reliable. She voiced a
concern about what measures would be acceptable based on Dr.
Thompson’s earlier remarks about using only multiple choice tests
because they are statistically valid and reliable.

Costs ­ IEA has always supported the creation of a standards-based
system, yet they fear that the resources to ensure a quality system may
not be there. They encourage the OSBE to include the estimated cost of
achieving the goals they have outlined.

Dropout Rates ­ IEA has repeatedly shared their concern that high
stakes/exit tests lead to increased dropout rates. A study from the Center
on Education Policy titled “State High School Exit Exams Put to the Test”

cited at least three studies that offered a “moderate degree of evidence
that exit exams are associated with higher dropout rates”. That same
study indicated that high stake exams might also negatively affect
curriculum and instruction decisions.

When asked if she thought the fear of the high stakes test would go away
because students have 8 chances to take the test, Ms. Nettinga said
probably not ­ we have to remember we are dealing with children. She
said students who have learning problems would probably see this as
another failure.

Will the ISAT affect the acceptance of the GED? The GED and the
ISAT are two different sets of requirements, and the GED will not be
affected by high school diploma requirements. The GED is accepted by
the military and most Jr. Colleges. Boise State University and others are
raising the entrance standards and most give their own entrance exams.

What research is available to support the use of a high stakes test?
Most of the research is fairly new and has been done by the states. Ms.
Nettinga said she would provide the members with copies of some
research she had found.

Can a 9^th grade student passing the test waive taking it in the 10^th
grade? Dr. Thompson said “no”. Students can “bank” the portions of the
ISAT they pass at 10^th grade level for graduation.

Are we setting a bar of knowledge or trying to improve education? It is
difficult to separate the two, but what the Board is trying to do is establish
a minimum standard of competency. Idaho colleges are having to give
6,000 students remedial math. We need to warrant that students have
requisite knowledge to move on to business or college.

How will Idaho know how they compare to other states? Based on the
data gathered by many state, it should show if Idaho has set the standard
too high or too low.

What are the ISAT requirements for home schools, charter schools,
alternative schools and detention centers? Homeschoolers are given the
option, by their school district, to take the ISAT. Most districts do not
require homeschoolers to take the ISAT unless they want to participate in
athletics or other extra-curricular activities. Charter schools and state run
alternative schools are required to administer the ISAT. There is work to
be done with alternative schools where students only attend for a portion
of the year. The Board is working on this. Students in state operated
detention centers will be required to take the ISAT, while those in private
centers will not.

What is the difference between the ISAT and the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP)? Every student is required to take the
ISAT test where the NAEP is a stratified exam taken by a sampling/
percentage of sub-populations with a school or district. A problem was
brought up regarding the NAEP where districts don’t have adequate
participation of a sub-population because of absentees. Ms. Miller
explained that schools are given extra weeks to comply in certain cases.

How can Limited English Proficient (LEP) students be expected to pass
the ISAT? LEP students are given the test for three years in a row, but
not included in the test results. Two additional years can be added if
necessary. The percentages required for students to pass the tests will be
increased over a 10 year period to reach the 90% proficiency, i.e. reading
starts at 66% and math at 51%. Students must also attend the school for
a full year to be included in the results. If a student moves to a district in
January, they can participate in the test but will not be included in the
results.

Wouldn’t it be productive for the Legislators to be able to look at the
ISAT so they can adequately address constituent questions and
concerns? Dr. Thompson said that sample booklets can be provided and
a hands-on demonstration can be arranged at Boise High School.

Dr. Haley was asked to remind the members about Idaho’s minimum
requirements. Dr. Haley said there is no 90% attendance requirement in
statute, but many of the districts have kept the requirement. The 90%
attendance requirement and the “C” average were required by statute at
one time and maybe these issues need to be revisited. He stressed that if
ISAT is to be implemented, having an external validation will help it stand
up in court. Dr. Haley stressed that it is Idaho’s fault that the colleges are
having to offer remedial math to 6,000 students. He said only four credits
of math are required in high school and most students take these in 9^th &
10^th grade. By the time they take the SAT or college entrance exams, they
have forgotten most of what they learned.

EXCUSED:

Rep. Nielsen made a motion to accept Subcommitte A’s
minutes of January 15, 2004. Seconded by Rep Bradford.
Motion passed.

08-0202-0303

MOTION:

Representatives Bradford, Cannon, and Garrett said that most
of the educators that they talked with liked the clarification and
are comfortable with the new code. Representatives
Andersen and Trail said that the educators that they talked to
still have some reservations.

Dr. Bob West, SDE, stated that the concerns of the Education
Committee regarding the negative manner in which the rules
list examples of unethical behavior for each of the ten ethics
principles was worked out in a compromise with the SDE, IEA
and OSBE. The booklet to be created by SDE will begin with
positive statement from the State Superintendent, a preamble,
aspirations and commitments of ethical conduct followed by
each of the ten positively stated principles with illustrative
language for each. A reader of the booklet will be directed to
the end of the document with a list of the rules as proposed,
including examples of prohibited conduct.

There was a question from the committee asking how these
codes would get to those educators. Dr. West said that
whenever a person’s certificate was about to laps and they
send in their paper work then a booklet would be sent to them.
The booklet would also be sent to Superintendents, principles,
and counselors.

Mr. Jim Shackelford, IEA, stated that they are now in support
of the changes.

Rep. Cannon made a motion that Docket No. 08-0202-0303
be accepted as written. Seconded by Rep. Bradford.

Rep. Nielsen asked if they vote in favor of this motion now will
they be bound by that vote in the full committee. Rep. Cannon
said that as the person who made the motion he would be
amiable if Rep. Nielsen changed his mind. Rep. Andersen
stated that this was just making a recommendation to the full
committee. Rep. Trail agreed.

All members present voted to accept the motion.

30-0101-0301

MOTION:

In answer to a question regarding the talking book library, Dr.
Bolles stated that this is one of the areas which has not been
affected by the cuts as it is the responsibility of the Library of
Congress.

Rep. Nielsen made a motion to accept Docket No. 30-0101-0101. Seconded by Rep. Andersen. Motion passed.

47-0101-0301

MOTION:

their wording had been more explicit than the federal wording,
they were asked to make the wording be less specific.

It was asked why their federal partners don’t like the wording,
and Ms. Payne stated that it was thought that the State may
not allow things that the feds allow.

There was a concern whether we would still be able to do
what we need to do if we turn down this rule. Ms. Payne said
yes. It was then asked if the State was threatened to go along
with these changes. Ms. Payne said no.

There was also a question regarding CRP and what type of
services they provide. Ms. Payne said that they are all over
the state and they provide things like job coaching and job
placement.

It was mentioned that there was a concern from the Senate
side that the descriptive summary did not follow Idaho statute.
Ms. Payne said they would do better next year. It was
pointed out that the fee summary was adequate because
there is not a fee; the inadequacy arises in the descriptive
summary. This summary is important because it becomes
helpful to someone who doesn’t have the full document or
time to study it. All agencies should be cautioned to have
better descriptions for the public.

Rep. Rydalch moved to adopt Docket No. 47-1010-0301.
Rep. Nielsen seconded the motion. Motion passed.

EXCUSED:

08-0203-0301

Dr. Keeler explained that the TAC has spent more than a year evaluating
the documentation provided by the test contractor, Northwest Evaluation
Association (NWEA). She described the makeup of the committee and
each member’s area of expertise. She summarized the technical
committee’s concerns as:

1. that it is valid ­ measures the adopted curriculum;

2. that it is reliable ­ measures achievement consistently across items
and test administrations;

3. that it is without bias ­ no minority group will be treated unfairly by the
test; and;

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

Dr. Keeler said that NWEA did respond to some of TAC’s questions/
concerns last week, but TAC still has concerns. The responses given by
NWEA, the TAC’s outstanding concerns and some alternative measures
are outlined in detail in Attachment 1. Dr. Keeler said the bottom line is
that the State and NWEA both need more time before implementing this
test as a requirement for graduation to ensure the ISAT is in good shape
and to eliminate the State being sued.

Dr. Friend indicated that Superintendents from Region 1 and Region 6
each put together proposals for intervention strategies. A group of about
12 high school principals joined them last Tuesday to look at the
proposals and began to formulate one plan. He pointed out that the
proposals include performance and practice intervention strategies to help
students who are struggling. These intervention strategies and
remediation measures are vital because students can’t apply for a waiver
until their senior year, which may be too late.

When asked if the IASA has concerns about requiring the school districts
to develop the alternative mechanisms, Dr. Friend said the reason the
superintendents in the two regions began developing their proposals was
because they don’t want 114 different plans, and many districts do not
have the dollars or resources to develop a plan. In response to whether
we are putting techniques into the plans to help students not to freeze on
a test, he said hopefully they can minimize the fears. It was pointed out
that students going on to college or into the workplace must learn to take
and pass tests. Dr. Friend said the IASA is in favor of moving forward on
the rules and they will provide additional comments on ISAT at the joint
meeting on Wednesday.

In response to a question about whether there is an ideal amount of time
before mandating tests, Dr. Howard referred to the IRI where they had a
year to pilot and repair the test. When asked from her perspective if we
should move forward on rules and then change along the way, she said
they are concerned that a single multiple choice test must have a parallel
plan to evaluate if students are doing what’s required ­ taking the test 6
times isn’t a motivating factor. In response to a question about bias, Dr.
Howard explained that it is a way of looking at an item to see if the item
would be unfamiliar or demeaning or if one student population would have
an advantage over another. When asked if there is anything in the test
that would preclude someone reading the test to a student, she said she
is sure it would be against the rules on the reading portion itself.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Farley also provided a detailed AYP summary showing Idaho’s Spring
2003 AYP results (Attachment 2). He pointed out that every school is
required to meet 36 individual targets and missing any one target
identifies the entire school as not meeting AYP for the year.
Attachment 2 outlines the most common participation targets missed and
the most proficiency targets missed. He said schools can appeal, but the
appeal process is intensive and the Department realizes the process
needs to be improved. He stressed what’s left to do now is find the
resources to meet the requirements, concentrating on qualified teachers,
paraprofessionals and remediation.

Based on the requirement to meet 36 individual targets, Idaho does not
have failing schools, only those needing improvement (see “AYP School
Improvement Timeline” in Attachment 1).

Also on the AYP Timeline, Year 4, Item 2 under Supplemental Services,
“Caps the per child cost” is based on Title I schools.

Growth requirements for schools performing at an extremely high levels
are not the same as for those needing improvement.

A study is being conducted to determine the funding needed to meet the
requirements, but what he fears is we must look differently at the qualified
teachers and paralegal requirements. It is also his understanding that
certificates and endorsements would meet qualifications.

Idaho cannot and will not throw out the ISAT. Every test a child takes
now means something. ISAT is the test and must be validated and
checked for bias ­ must use a stethoscope not a hammer.

NCLB changes the law and raises the bar ­ it uses teeth to see that the
AYP is met.

Adaptations and accommodations will be developed for students with a
low IQ.

The State Department of Education is aware that money is being
redirected from gifted and talented programs. Idaho has an excellent GT
Coordinator and we must assure all curriculum is taught well.

Federal requirements mandate only outcome, but do not mandate how to
achieve ­ they do give some flexibility in moving funds. NCLB does not
require a high stakes exam, but requires states meet the AYP targets.

Ms. Lesko has drafted an RS for a Senate Joint Memorial and hopes to
have the RS introduced this session.

Funding, Flexibility and Local Control — In the last nine years there has
been an 132% increase in Title I funding. Idaho received $27.2 million in
2001 and 42.5 million in 2004 for Title I and all tied to NCLB because of its
requirements. He also stated that there is $6 billion that states have not
tapped into and Idaho has $3.9 million of Title I funds that could be used
immediately ­ Federal funds can replace or supplant state funds under
NCLB which provides flexibility at the local level to apply the funds where
needed to meet requirements. He suggested that the state funds going to
the locals schools needs to be as flexible.

Teachers ­ NCLB deals with highly qualified teachers and Idaho places in
the top five states for number of highly qualified teachers. Teacher
requirements are set by the states so Idaho should look at opportunities to
remove barriers and look at other ways to bring highly qualified into the
classroom.

He feels NCLB unites all individuals towards results ­ teachers, parents,
administration, school boards, OSBE and the Department. Government
and Legislatures will have report cards. Mr. Luna pointed out that in 1960
we felt it was impossible to go to the moon, but by pulling together the best
and brightest we did. He said no society in the world has ever done what
we are trying to do under NCLB.

States have a 23-27 month window in which to use Federal funds or they
will be lost. Idaho has had money left over in all categories, but may have
earmarked it for future programs. It is possible that no one knew about
funds or have deferred use. NCLB mandates that every child learn math
and reading and apparently the cost for implementing this was $6 billion
less than anticipated.

If Idaho rejects NCLB it will jeopardize all Federal funding and Idaho is
currently receiving $156 million for all Federal programs.

He does not agree that NCLB leaves behind children in rural schools, but
recognizes that all schools (urban, suburban and rural) have unique needs.
Rural teachers many times must teach multiple subjects and the state can
play a role by utilizing paraprofessionals.

It is disturbing that technical training and other valuable programs are
being cut in some districts because they are finding it difficult to assure a
wide variety of classes and assure students meet the NCLB requirements.

Dr. Howard identified problems we need to think about as (1) Under
NCLB, even high quality schools may be placed on a “need improvement”
list because if a subset of the population fails, the whole school is placed
on the list. You don’t have to have the same group fail each year to be put
on needs improvement; and (2) in the 2^nd year of school improvement,
students will have the option of attending another school and must be
transported ­ parents in Florida enrolled their children in a failing school so
they could get a $1,000 voucher; (3) in Title I schools the dollars are
targeted to elementary and not to high school students; and (4) schools
that are not Title I are not subject to the same ramifications.

Dr. Howard thanked Tom Luna for pointing out that there is $3.9 million
available to Idaho so now she can supplant a 1% raise for teachers and
fund technology. When asked about the money and whether she felt she
had flexibility, she stated that the Chiefs were outraged. She said you
cannot ask for the money ahead of time and it is usually earmarked. If any
of Idaho’s money is not used it is usually small amounts not used out of
grants.

EXCUSED:

In January 2002, Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) was selected
as the vendor to administer the ISAT. They are a non-profit education
assessment organization serving 1100 member districts nationwide that
represent more than 3 million students tested per year. In addition to
offering a diagnostic test in the fall of each year, the SBOE and the State
Department of Education (SDE) worked collaboratively to revise the fall
version into an on-grade level test that could be used for the NCLB
requirements and administered in the spring.

Attachment 1 provides complete details of Dr. Thompson’s comments as
they relate to the (1) eleven steps used to build the ISAT (validity); (2)
alignment of the ISAT to the Idaho standards; (3) reliability of the test; (4)
relationship to NCLB; (5) dropout and graduation rates; (6) teaching and
curriculum; (7) student motivation/improving scores; and (8) legal issues.

1. How does the use of a systemic measurement scale influence the use of
the test for graduation decisions?

2. Is the selection of test questions done in a manner to assure that the
test matches well to the Idaho content standards?

3. Is the test able to make accurate decisions concerning student
performance?

4. Is the test comparable in its measurement characteristics to tests used
for graduation qualifying in other states?

Attachment 3 contains Dr. Kingsbury’s testimony in its entirety. Major
points he made are summarized here. The measurement scale for the
ISAT is a growth scale that allows students to be accurately compared
from grade to grade. It is not just the responsibility of the high school
teachers to ensure students succeed ­ there are many warning signs
along the way. As Dr. Thompson pointed out earlier, all items used on the
high school ISAT were selected by Idaho educators to match a specific
content standard. Regarding the question of whether the ISAT, for a
graduation standards test, can consistently place students into the correct
performance category, the classification accuracy on the spring 2003 high
school ISAT was .92 in language usage, .92 in reading, and .91 in
mathematics.

Dr. Kingsbury stated that the federal government does not require states to
have a graduation qualifying examination and does not specify the
characteristics that a graduation test should have. Most of the information
concerning graduation tests comes from a comparison in a 14-state study
(Attachment 3). When comparing Idaho’s tests to other states having
exiting exams (Texas and Florida), he found about the same level of
classification accuracy. He pointed out that the exit exam requirement
varies greatly in the 27 states requiring them, and Idaho has adopted the
policy that if students don’t pass they will be given additional opportunities.
He said there are lots of district to district autonomy and many may have
graduation policies already in place.

Dr. Keeler acknowledged that NWEA has provided answers to some of
their questions, but more time is needed to get the ISAT in good shape, for
the testing company to do their work, and the TAC to do theirs. She
emphasized that “Idaho is forced by NCLB to use a test that is still in
development, but we are not forced to implement and untested test as a
requirement for graduation”. She described alternative measures that could
be used for gradation requirements and suggested students could
graduate based on 4 of the 5 requirements (Attachment 4). She again
stressed the need for more time.

Dr. Howard’s testimony is presented in its entirety in Attachment 5. She
provided an overview of how we got to where we are today:

­ Standards and Assessment Commission originally planned for a test that
would measure students in the fall and spring, and tests would inform
instruction and record how much students had learned.

­ NWEA was chosen as the vendor for the test

­ The US Department of Education would not accept these tests but
wanted an on-grade on-level test.

­ NWEA had no experience as a company with developing and managing
the test required by NCLB nor did they have the staff to develop test
questions ­ their model had been to have teachers contribute and select
questions.

­ SDE specialists identified teachers who were invited to come to Boise to
select questions. This was a frustrating time for all involved because they
couldn’t influence the process because NWEA was not taking order from
the SDE.

­ Three SDE staff spent six months full time to clean up the data mess left
by NWEA. SDE wrote technical manuals and filled in many gaps.
Concerns surfaced about the appropriateness of the test for special
education students.

Costs of testing in the state are estimated at around $4 million, and it was
pointed out that the cost of the ITBS three years ago was less than $1
million. Dr. Howard said she is not suggesting that we return to the ITBS
because we do need to measure the standards. She stressed that the
SDE is working to make the ISAT a strong test, and they believe that what
we measure gets taught. She emphasized that it is important to determine
what is important enough to be included on the test and to what degree
those skills should be assessed. That work is underway, but we are not
there yet. She urged that passing the ISAT not be made a graduation
requirement at this time ­ we are not ready to bear the burden of high
stakes now.

Ms. Kathy Phelan, Idaho Education Association, in the interest of time,
submitted her comments in writing (Attachment 6).

EXCUSED:

Chairman Schroeder stated he has visited most of the charter schools in
the state, and this body supports charter schools ­ the question is not
whether we have charter schools in Idaho, but how we manage efficient
charter schools. He mentioned that a six-member committee made up of
representatives and senators is being convened to address virtual charter
schools. We have some issues regarding separation of powers, and the
Office of the State Board, in trying to help the Idaho Virtual Academy,
made a motion to fund that entity, but they do not have the authority nor
the responsibility for allocating tax dollars. Mr. von Tagen was asked to
address this issue.

Regarding questions about exemptions from law suits, whether employees
of charter schools and their contractors are covered under PERSI, and
differentiation between elected official and self-appointed, Mr. von Tagen
said these issues need clarification. Most charter schools may have
addressed these issues in the rules contained in their charters. He clarified
that employees of charter schools are state employees and therefore are
covered under PERSI, but contractors would not be covered. An attorney
with a specialty may be considered a “special agent”.

(1) Charter School compliance with laws and admission procedures ­
enforce laws; (2) use of federal grant money ­ comply with the guidelines
and intent of the program; (3) create opportunities for enrollment and
eliminate wait lists; (4) align state charter laws and the OSBE temporary
rules as they pertain to the selection of students. (Full testimony found in
Attachment 22).

EXCUSED:

1. Does the State Board of Education’s order that the State Department of
Education base funding on “average district per-pupil budgeted expenditure of the
previous year of multi-district public charters and non-resident students” and
“deduct the funds for public charter schools from the allocation to the resident
districts and send them directly to the public charter school where the students
are enrolled” prevail over the budgeting and appropriations authority of the
legislature?

2. Is the State Board of Education’s order to base funding on “average per-pupil
budgeted expenditure of the previous year for multi-district public charters and
non-resident students” and “deduct the funds for public charter schools from the
allocation to the resident districts and send them directly to the public charter
school where the students are enrolled” contrary to the FY 2003 session laws and
existing laws governing the funding formula for school districts and charter
schools?

Mr. von Tagen concluded that only the Idaho Legislature has plenary
power and authority to appropriate funds in support of the public school
system, and to prescribe the means and manner in which such funds are
apportioned to the local school districts and public charter schools. Also,
the resolution adopted by the Board relating to the funding of certain
public charter schools prescribes a means and manner of apportioning
funds to such schools that is materially contrary to the funding mechanism
established by the Legislature. When expending funds based on the
formula, the unique characteristics of the district are taken into account,
and the formula may change based on experience of teachers and other
factors. This can be changed, but only by the Legislature. Mr. von Tagen
responded to committee questions.

Another question was asked how the formula applies when students come from a
foreign country or out-of-state and a charter school employee comes from a
business entity, and Mr. von Tagen’s response was that he would need to do
more research.

In response to what happens if the Board fails to carry out its powers or they go
beyond their authority, Mr. von Tagen said if they are over-stepping their bounds
a writ of prohibition can be issued by the court, and they can be called to account
for the money spent.

Chairman Barraclough asked what Mr. von Tagen’s counsel would be in the case
of IDVA where they will go out of business if funding is not received, Mr. von
Tagen said this doesn’t have to happen, and the committees need to decide if
they will hold fast to the funding formula. The formula is outdated for these types
of situations.

When asked about the draft rules where the Office of the State Board would be
the authoring entity for charter schools, Mr. von Tagen said that he felt he could
not answer something with so many ramifications. Senator Schroeder indicated
there would be meetings with people from the IDVA to gather information so we
can proceed to resolve this situation so kids can keep learning. A subcommittee
will be looking at virtual learning for Idaho and making recommendations.

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

Mr Farley responded to committee questions as follows:

How does the money on the table for NCLB that we heard about earlier in the
week fit here, and how are states notified? No money is left on the table for
NCLB at this time, and each state is notified under Title I.

Define obligation and expenditure. Appropriation is the amount identified;
obligation is a plan rather than a commitment; expenditure is actual spending.

What’s creating the discrepancy in what we were told earlier about NCLB funds
being on the table and what you are saying. An unclear understanding of how
funds are received and drawn down over a 27-month period.

When does the 27-month period begin and end? It begins July 1 and ends
September 30 unless funds are obligated but not spent and then an additional 90
days is given until December 31.

NCLB ­ “Tuesday we heard about the so-called NCLB federal mandate.
An expensive, simplistic, rigid, punitive one-size-fits-all federal law that
assumes all children in the same grade learn the same things at the same
time….”

ISAT – “Wednesday we heard that if we adopt a so-far unproven exit
exam, it’s not really high stakes because a student can take it multiple
times. And then we learned that a test proves its reliability when a person
takes it multiple times and gets the same result. We oppose using the
ISAT as an obstacle to graduation…”

Charter Schools ­ “Yesterday we heard about the effectiveness of small
learning communities, individualized instruction, individual attention and
the power of parental involvement­parents involved in their schools love
them. Ms. Phelan testified that “the Idaho Education Association has
always supported public charter schools and was an active participant in
the discussions that created current charter school legislation.”

She offered three important improvements: (1) adding clarification
regarding the fair and open election of charter school board members; (2)
adding language to clarify that all students must have equal opportunity to
apply and be selected for charter school attendance; and (3) adding
language requiring charter schools and the local school district in which
the charter school exists to create and implement a procedure for regular
exchanges of learning that might be applied in the regular public school
environment. Ms. Phelan closed by asking that they “please strengthen
the public charter law. Don’t allow public funds to be siphoned into what
are essentially private and home schools. Please strengthen Idaho’s
commitment to public education.”

Improve student learning

Increase learning opportunities/expand learning experience

Include different and innovative teaching methods

Utilize virtual distance and on-line learning

Create new professional opportunities for teachers

Provide parents/students with expanded choice

Hold schools accountable

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

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

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

The Board responded by drafting temporary rule 08.02.04 that:

• Creates a definition of multi-district public charter school
• Establishes a consistent process for the review and approval of
  public charter schools
• Establishes a time-line for the approval process
• Defines founders and creates a standard for assigning seats for
  founder’ children
• Clarifies oversight responsibilities, including renewal and
  revocation of charters
• Allows the Board to delegate oversight of Board approved
  schools to an executive agency
• Eliminate the liability to local districts resulting from a public
  charter’s approval by the Board
• Clarifies and supports non-discrimination in public charter school
  enrollment
• Removes the sections related to geographical limitations on
  approvals because this section of the code has expired

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

A lengthy question and answer period followed with questions centering
around (1) the appeal process; (2) success of charter schools and the
plan to integrate innovative ideas and practices into the traditional
schools; (3) selectiveness of students and access to all; and (4)
measuring growth of students without a standardized test.

(1) Appeal Process ­ There seems to be an inconsistency in the spirit of the
Board’s finding of fact in respect to the trustees granting the Nampa II charter. It
seems to indicate that if a group submits a charter in compliance with the law that
the trustees “must” or “shall” grant the charter where 33-5205(3) states trustees
“may” grant charter. Dr. Thompson indicated that he is not in a position to speak
on legal matters, but the State Board was trying to ensure there was adequate
consideration given and no arbitrary actions were taken. When asked what the
hearing officer’s recommendations were back to the Nampa school board
regarding Nampa II, Dr. Thompson said he would feel uncomfortable trying to
speak to this.

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

(3) Selectiveness of students and access to all — Dr. Thompson was asked
if, in his view, he felt that the success of charter schools and the high
scores on the ISAT weren’t because of the selectiveness of students,
parent participation, selective atmosphere rather than the quality of
teachers or the methods used? His response was that one of the critiques of
educational research shows a lack of rigorous scientific methodology, and in
order to be effective we need to determine growth of a student. The data we have
right now is “ending” data which is misleading. We don’t have the data to support
that theory. It is proven that involved parents and teachers provide an extra
advantage to students, and the Board will include ways to draw parents in.
When asked if the Board will be working with the stakeholders, specifically the
Hispanic and Tribal Caucus to provide charter school access to all, he said they
would. A subcommittee will be looking at the gaps. This concern will be a topic of
discussion on the Board’s agenda and is a priority.

(4) Measuring growth of students without a standardized test — You
indicated we need to be scientific when evaluating growth, how can this happen
when the fall and spring tests are unrelated? Dr. Thompson indicated that both
tests have shown to measure growth. They both have leveling components and
the Board has requested they be made comparable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

­ How does Nampa II charter school fit into the first paragraph on page 5,? Dr.
West explained that as the chartering entity, the Nampa school board provides
day-to-day oversight for federal and special education programs and must see
that schools are in compliance.

­ When asked about data on the socio-economic makeup of charter school, Dr.
Thompson responded that socio-economic makeup makes a difference in the
starting point, and that data is not quite ready, but it is being tabulated and
massaged from ISAT.

­ On page 5, wouldn’t it be better to have complete separation in statute because
now for funding purposes they are their own districts, but policy decisions fall to
the school boards? Dr. West stated that anytime legislators make something
clear in law it helps.

­ On page 4, selection process, would new charter schools give preference to
siblings if one of the children is drawn in the lottery? Dr. West explained that the
first year students are selected randomly from a hat, and in the second year
siblings are give preference. Other concerns/comments on selection were that if
children of board members can be self-selected, this is not equitable. Parents
have always had the alternative of private schools, and legislators should not set
a quota. Dr. West mentioned that there could be implications of Civil Rights
violations if charter schools become too selective.

­ Are public schools as equitable as we think, because some parents get a job in
a particular community so their children can go to that school? Dr. West
responded by saying that Idaho Code allows for an open enrollment policy.

Based upon IACI’s reading of the Idaho Constitution, Idaho Code, and
Idaho case law, they support the general principle that the OSBE is
responsible for governance of education policy in Idaho. She referred to
Mr. von Tagen’s earlier points regarding art. 9, sec. 2, and went on to cite
that Idaho Code 33-116 states that all public schools are under the
supervision of the State Board of Education. Idaho Code 33-125 directs
that the State Department of Education (SDE) is an executive agency of
the State Board of Education and that the Superintendent is responsible
for carrying out the policies and procedures established by the State
Board.

Ms. Molitor has been informed that in the past the OSBE focused on
higher education issues, leaving much of the K-12 administration to the
SDE and the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Since NCLB initiated a
push for increased accountability, this Board has taken its constitutional
duty more seriously, with a renewed focus on K-12 issues. The way IACI
views it, the Board is comprised of seven individuals who are taking their
responsibilities seriously. The bottom line is, the OSBE is charged with
implementing the education policies that the Legislature has approved for
this state. She urged they support the Board as it asserts its
constitutionally-granted rulemaking authority implement the policies you
have approved for Idaho’s public education system.

A breakdown of the $13,138,295 for Title II-A, improving teacher quality,
shows that $135,671 of federal funds were spent for Administrative Costs
($118,280 SDE; and $17,391 OSBE), and $345,640 was spent on State
Directed Activity for K-12 and $345,640 was spent for State Directed
Activity for Higher Education. One area of concern regarding Title IIA
funding is that fact that the OSBE has held back $175,000 of the Bilingual
Education funds because of concerns about improvements in
performance. They are looking at ways to develop a better program and
improve performance.

Mr. Stivers talked about the Title VI funds targeted for state assessments
and mentioned $3,907,307 was identified for “Other Academic Indicator”.
There is a strong desire that rather than use the money for another
academic indicator, they use the funds for software that provides teachers
with remediation tools. Mr. Stivers provided a flow chart titled “Federal
Program Process Chart” and briefly discussed how the federal program
responsibilities and dollars flow between the Board and the Department.
This process helps assure funds are being spent on targeted activities.

Mr. Stivers was asked whether some of the NCLB federal funds could be
used for technology based remediation to offset the Governor’s
recommendation to cut technology funding, and he said the money was
earmarked for an assessment product.

A letter was written to the Deputy Attorney General to get his guidance on
the charter school temporary rules. Because of the controversy and
concerns surrounding charter school issues, and because they are such
an important educational alternative to thousands of families in our state,
it is imperative the standards be put in place in such a way that they will
have the force of law as free as possible from dispute and opposition. The
State Board wants very much to help solve a number of concerns, and the
SDE wants to be able to be a partner to carry out the rules, as proposed,
free from challenges that may thwart the goal of the improvements
sought. Please see the letter dated December 30, 2003, addressed to Mr.
Don Robertson (Attachment 8). SDE has two concerns: (1) the
component of the new rules that establishes the creation of independent
charter school districts or Local Education Agencies; and (2) the approval
of a new kind of charter school, a multi-district charter school, from
petitions that have not been first turned down by elected trustees. SDE’s
concerns are spelled out in detail in Attachment 7.

A good part of the issue surrounding these concerns deals with who has
the power and authority to make what kinds of decisions and set up which
standards. A 1998 letter to Representative Ron Black deals with the legal
relationship between the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the
State Board of Education (Attachment 9).

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

SDE cited problems as (1) the inevitable learning curve to orient people in
OSBE, (2) people in the field trying to figure out how to meet the direction
and program review expectations of two different agencies, and (3) school
administrators and teachers having to complete double paper work. This
creates more inefficiencies, puts more pressure on school personnel, and
will cost more for administration.

EXCUSED:

Dr. Burke presented highlights from NIC’s 2003 annual report:

• NIC’s economic impact to the community is $106 million. In addition,
  NIC contributes intellectual wealth and puts students into the
  community, where they receive service credits. One very successful
  program is the NIC wrestlers reading to area first-graders as part of the
  Shirley Parker Reading Program.
• NIC received high marks on its 10-year accreditation evaluation and
  received six commendations for its community involvement,
  fundraising and development, learning resources (management team
  running the library), leadership, campus climate and student success.
• The Adult Basic Education Center was one of 12 chosen nationwide to
  participate in a study by the U.S. Department of Education. They
  graduated 532 GED students in 2002-2003.
• NIC’s student newspaper, The Sentinel, won two national first-place
  awards from the Society of Professional Journalists.
• NIC’s nursing students have had a 100% pass rate on the National
  nursing certification exam.
• The core of NIC is its health and sciences program, and last year a
  team of high school and college students, including six from NIC, and
  engineers from Unmanned Systems Technologies placed seventh in
  the International Autonomous Underwater Vehicle competition in San
  Diego.
• One of their students was named a New Century Scholar. His is
  married with four children and is now serving in Iraq.

Representative Rydalch suggested that Dr. Burke contact the U.S.
Department of Navy and Defense Grants because they accept unsolicited
proposals and might be able to help fund the underwater rover project.

NIC is growing dramatically in the professional technical and GED
programs; young people are connecting the dots between education,
quality of life, and economic stability. Students are now able to get their
associate degree online. Dr. Burke thanked the committee for their
support last year on the bonding legislation that made possible the new
health and sciences building that will increase classroom space by 25%.

Dr. Burke responded to questions from the committee.

• Number of Students from Washington attending NIC? About 3% of
  NIC’s students are from Washington, and NIC offers them tuition
  reciprocity.
• Budget cuts and the impact on teaching staff and students? Not sure
  the budget cuts have impacted morale because everyone is part of the
  solution. Their salaries are about 14-15% less than the private sector.
  Representative Tail added that folks understand the issues and are
  stoical about it.
• Affect of extra taxes required of surrounding counties? Whole
  economic issue is sensitive. Two years ago additional money from
  legislation helped lower the tax levy. The communities are
  committed not to make taxes an issue for new businesses not
  relocating to that area.
• Difficulty of GED vs. ISAT? Dr. Burke said he doesn’t know how
  many questions are actually on the GED, but he can find out.
• Are courses being accepted by other universities and colleges? NIC
  is sensitive to that issue, and they help the students map out their
  courses to make sure they will be accepted. The problem arises
  when students refocus their majors.
• Demographics of students requiring remedial courses; how many
  coming out right out of high school? Dr. Burke indicated that many
  are adults who didn’t take math as a senior or didn’t focus on math;
  remedial courses are a bridge.

LCSC’s role and mission includes baccalaureate and associate degree
programs, professional-technical education, and community
college/community service. Their primary emphasis areas are business,
criminal justice, nursing, profession-technical education, social work and
teacher education. Dr. Thomas explained that LCSC does not overlap
with the University of Idaho as much as some think. They have a
presence in Coeur d’Alene where they offer six baccalaureate programs,
and they have a very good working relationship with NIC.

LCSC’s budget is tied to actions, and they have made dramatic progress
since 1999. Enrollment has grown 11.7% since the fall of 2002. They
experienced the largest percent increase of all 4-year schools in Idaho
even as though they cut 16 positions and initiated major program cuts.

Accomplishments cited in the instruction area were:

• Sustained quality programs in all six emphasis areas.
• PACE (accelerated teacher certification initiative) cited as model by
  Idaho’s MOST program.
• National Nurse exam pass rate was 96.8%
• Increased efficiency; consolidation/realignment of divisions
  (humanities, business, social sciences).
• ROTC returned to LCSC campus.
• New Rad-Tech and LPN programs are thriving. The hospitals in the
  region expressed a real need for this program and the LPN program
  grew out of the tremendous needs in long-term care facilities.
• New CAMP initiative; strong growth this fall.
• Review of general education core is underway.
• Increased total student credit hour production despite cumulative
  budget cuts/reversion of general education and professional-technical funds.

LCSC’s placements rates are very high ­ 96% for academic programs
and 94% in the professional technical programs. Businesses are waiting
for the students. The outreach centers and the Harbor Center in Coeur
d’Alene serve over 5,000 students throughout Region II; they are Idaho
virtual incubators. LCSC produced over 450 GED graduates, and she
explained that the GED is more rigorous than the ISAT which tests
minimum knowledge/skills. Programs are delivered to the Department of
Corrections to educate and train men and women in prison and assist
their families.

Dr. Thomas said even the athletic programs are thriving, even though she
remains as athletic director. She thanked them for the multi-purpose
activity center that last year’s legislation made possible. In respect to
salaries, LCSC raises as much money as possible through grants and
contracts and have been quite successful since 2002. LCSC has gone
without salary increases for the past two years, and they have had a 6%
turnover. LCSC will loose 3 PhD’s this year who were offered 50% more
to go elsewhere. She stated that salary issues are about fairness and
prevention. She closed by saying that LCSC has sustained its service to
the region in a time of economic challenges and enrollment growth.

Representative Trail said the multipurpose site is impressive and relayed
compliments from the school districts who say the best prepared student
teachers come from LCSC.

Dr. Thomas responded to the following questions:

• Which prison facilities does LCSC work with? LCSC works with
  Cottonwood and Orfino to provide basic skills to some and take
  others through to their GED or provide workforce training. They
  also teach anger management courses.
• Do you teach classes to help new teachers teach the standards?
  Yes, Professor Jane Hill was involved in developing the Idaho
  standards.
• How are you dealing with the fact that when the bonding
  legislation passed last year it did not include furniture for the
  mulipurpose building? LCSC has submitted a maintenance and
  operations request for $157,000 and if they do not get this, they
  will revisit the budget.
• Do you have a feel for the number of nurses who graduate from
  your programs and stay in Idaho, and would it make sense to give
  students incentives to stay in Idaho? Dr. Thomas said many of the
  students go to work at St. Joseph’s Hospital, but their biggest
  competition is Boise. She fears and incentive program would be
  very expensive, and we might drive them out of Idaho to attend
  school.

EXCUSED:

• People at UI are very dedicated and thorough in what needs to be
  done.
• Quality interchange processes are in place and will have a long-lasting
  affect. It was insightful for him to see the collaborative efforts going on,
  and the UI and Washington State work well together. He is preparing a
  report for the Governor on this.
• UI is an economic engine for the state. He indicated it is not
  appropriate to talk here about the issues surrounding Idaho Place, but
  he indicated that UI had no business being the landlord. The state
  should be very proud of the water resources facility and the
  opportunities it will bring.
• Budget hold backs have had a tremendous effect on the university. As
  they made their decisions, the leaders of the university had no choice
  but to raise student fees. Students are now paying about 32% of the
  tuition costs and are at about 90% of where their peers are. It may take
  students longer to go through school because of fee increases. Need
  to make sure we don’t loose the brightest students or create a
  mediocre institution that has access, but poor quality. With proposals
  on the table, UI will be okay. These are tough decisions.
• Never anticipated having to fire and hire a football coach.
• Concentrated on things that were threatening. He visited all of the
  colleges and asked these questions:
• (1) what do we look like?
• (2) what do we want to be?
• (3) where are the gaps and how do we close?
• UI needs to commit to retain the 28 merit scholars on campus.

Trends in recent grant money? He doesn’t have those numbers.

How much does UI spend on remedial courses? Not as much as other
institutions. The Polimer Lab is set up for computerized training for some
of the remedial courses.

In light of the recent discussions on chartering entities, how would you
feel about UI being a chartering facility? This would need to be looked at,
but he doesn’t see this happening because their mission is to run a
university and he doesn’t see the resources being available.

Were student groups cut out of the decision process, because shortly
before Christmas vacations they were asked for their input, but when they
returned they learned that the Athletic Department would be taking over
the recreation center? Mr. Michael stated he is proud of the student
leadership and there were 14 issues out there that have received student
input, but the bottom line is someone has to make a decision. He said
they are looking at getting facilities management to take over the center
which would be more efficient. He asked each department to re-engineer
themselves, and he made it clear that he would be making more decisions
before he leaves.

Are you aware of the redesigning of programs taking place at NIC &
LSCS that are resulting in savings? Yes, I am aware and all of these
things lend to efficiencies.

Is it important to proceed with standards and resources rather than
starting and then delaying implementation and use of resources?
Education world knows what’s coming down the pipe, this is an important
segment. In regards to expected accountability, is that not important?
Answer was “yes”.

Mr. Michael indicated that in 1998 the state funded 45% of higher
education, and now the state revenues are about 34%. Not knowing what
the future budgets will be, universities must stay on the cutting edge of
obtaining funding. He feels the legislature did what they could last year.
Universities on their own must raise money for faculty and student
enhancements and develop a revenue model they can rely on. Morale on
campus is tough. The 1% salary increase proposed by the Governor still
leaves professor’s pay about 25% less than it should be. You can’t expect
them to continue to stay.

Representative Garrett said she doesn’t have a complete copy of the
rules and needs more time than just this evening to review the minutes.
Representative Nielsen said he would also like a copy of the rules and
time to review the minute book. Representative Trail concurred with
Representative Garrett, saying he has had 300 email messages
supporting educational choice and only two asked that the ISAT be
tossed out.

Representative Lake said the subcommittee asked Dr. Howard if we
should pull the plug on the ISAT, and she said “no”. Representative
Rydalch said she senses what Representative Garrett is feeling. She
talked with her granddaughter and constituents over the weekend. Her
granddaughter has taken the ISAT and thought it was “a piece of cake”.
From constituents she is hearing not to delay the process, and one of the
teachers she talked to feels the ISAT is a good tool. Representative
Rydalch said she is impressed with what’s being done to address issues
raised at the hearings.

EXCUSED:

08-0203-0301

08-0203-0301 as written.

Representative Block debated against the motion, stating that her four
school districts are supportive of everything, even accepting the ISAT, but
not at this point in time. Representative Lake suggested that sophomores
have two years before this becomes a graduation requirement, and he
feels the State Board will have the wisdom to push out the date.
Representative Eberle pointed out that there will be alternate pathways.
Representative Jones said the date can be delayed by the State Board on
their own initiative, but he highly recommends a letter be written to the
State Board requiring them to set a different date. Do we know what the
Senate proposes. Representative Lake said he did not.

Representative Boe asked for clarification of several Subsections under

Section 111, page 35. Ms. Karen Gustafson, OSBE, responded saying
Subsection 111.03 was removed from the proposed rule. Subsection
111.07.10 & 13 were part of the original rule adopted two years ago.
Regarding an external review required in 111.09.11c, an RFP is being
prepared; this is in addition to what Dr. Keeler’s committee is doing. In
section 112.01c the districts would pay for the cost of remediation, but this
has been a big question/issue throughout the discussions.

Representative Kulczyk asked how much has been spent on remediation
and what are the future costs for remediation? Ms. Gustafson said that $4
million has been spent and future costs are unknown. Ms. Robin
Nettinga, IEA, said they have been asking this question all along. At the
October State Board meeting, IEA looked at the State Board’s statements
on remediation and estimate it will cost millions of dollars.

• We heard several times last week “what we measure gets done”. The
  converse is also true. His concern is that with data driven reform, only
  that which is measurable/quantifiable has value. He quoted Art Costa,
  Cal. State Professor of Education, who said, “What was once
  educationally significant, but difficult to measure, has been replaced by
  what is insignificant and easy to measure”.
• The ISAT is a minimal standard that focuses on a narrow part of
  education. ISAT does not adequately cover the standards and may not
  really prepare students for the world of work and college. There are
  higher level thinking skills, working relationships, problem solving, etc.
  that are not measured.
• Major issues are (1) does it improve student learning/achievement and
  does it increase dropouts?; (2) cost ­ testing and remediation costs are
  unknown, but significant ­ there are no dollars in the budget; (3)
  libraries closed for testing; (4) public opinion in his district is against;
  and (5) there are many issues surrounding reliability and validity.
• Asst. Superintendent Becky Ford, Post Falls, said “no child should
  graduate who can only pass the ISAT. There is much more needed.”
  Standardized assessments such as ISAT ­ one size fits all ­ not
  appropriate. May force all students to be tested in same way although
  they learn differently and at different rates.
• Task Force on Achievement Standards and Assessments for Students
  with Disabilities recommended an education policy based on best
  available education research and knowledge of learning. Multiple
  Intelligence Theory tells us that students learn differently. We are
  instructed to prepare lesson plans that incorporate that. We need
  accountability and we need multiple assessments to achieve the best
  for all students. I love the Nebraska Plan.

• We are addressing a recognized traditional public school performance
  problem, and accountability and quality assurance are steps in the
  right direction. We must make progress now! We are not the only state
  dealing with this issue, and there are many issues to address and
  improve upon.
• Regarding the time line, it may not be optional, but we must start
  somewhere!
• Regarding testing basic material, it is reasonable to start with basic
  building blocks, as opposed to the completed building.
• We have heard concerns regarding passing this basic test ­ imagine
  the fail rate if the test were even more comprehensive.
• The threat of displacing other curriculum is unfortunate and I’m not
  convinced of its reality vs. being used as a tool against testing.
• We must recognize the federal factors and the ties to funding, whether
  we like it or not.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Tilley compared the figures on the Governor’s request with those of
the Superintendent’s request, pointing out areas of major differences. The
Land Board voted to reduce the endowment fund by $14.8 million which
accounts for the reduction to the dedicated funds. This reduction was
offset by about $2 million from an increase in the lottery dividends. A
major difference between the requests, occurs at Lines 11 and 33. The
Superintendent requested a 1% increase in the salary based
apportionment, where the Governor decided to put $10 million into
discretionary funds to allow the districts to use this for salaries,
technology, supplies or where it is needed most. The most controversial
difference seems to be on line 18, technology grants. The Governor is not
recommending the one-time $5 million for technology, only the $3.4
million in the base. These decisions were made to ensure resources are
available in 2006. The $24 million of state discretionary funds does
include the $10 million in line 33. He called their attention to the $7 million
on line 32 in the Education Stabilization Funds that can be used should
support units increase. The Governor did not include the $5 million for
ISAT intervention.

• Districts are distressed to see reductions in technology, especially
  because of the ISAT, ISIMS, software upgrades and technology
  support. In Line 9, are there any federal funds that can be used to
  support technology? In the past there have been grants for
  technology, but he couldn’t find specific grants for technology. Mr.
  Luna reported that there are federal funds that can supplant state
  funds, and there may be $3-3.5 million for ISAT intervention or
  technology.
• S-1560 addressed a lawsuit, and it seems by backing out the $10
  million from the salary based apportionment, we’re going backwards.
  Governor is recommending that the $10 million not be put in salary
  based apportionment.
• How does the U.S. Department of Education’s information that Idaho is
  not making full use of federal funds impact the budget? Mr. Tilley said
  he has started a process of trying to reconcile the reports on federal
  funds from the SDE, OSBE and the school districts. Because of the 27-month cycle it is difficult to match the appropriations with how much
  was spent. He will provide the information he has put together.
• In the Governor’s State of the State, he mentioned the final
  appropriation for White Pines ­ where would I find this? This would
  actually be a revenue transfer rather than an appropriation.
• Why did the Governor not recommend money in Line 29 for ISAT
  Intervention with all the efforts going on and progress being made?
  Governor took a look at overall budget and had to make sacrifices.
  Intervention is happening, and the question is whether it is pulling
  resources away from other programs. The Indicator Study may provide
  for a program to assist teachers with remediation.
• What information do you need to determine if resources are being
  taken away? Must rely on the State Department of Education to
  determine this.
• What are the statutory requirements for Line 16, the $4.7 million for
  Safe and Drug Free Schools? These are dedicated funds from the
  cigarette tax and are divided between Corrections and public schools.
• Explain Line 9, Floor. These dollars are used for equalization. School
  districts having a high property value receive less dollars, but statute
  says they should not receive 90% less than the previous year. In
  statute a floor is required to take care of districts that wouldn’t receive
  tax dollars.
• Superintendents in Twin Falls area say they are okay with the
  requirements, but they will need four new teachers for remediation.
  Where would there be money for new teachers? This will be
  dependent upon support units. If there is an increase in support units,
  there can be an increase in teachers. As the funding formula stands
  right now, there are no provisions for additional funds.
• Where do figures come from for Line 8, Exceptional Contracts/Tuition
  Equivalents? These figures come from SDE.

A committee member brought up the fact that virtual schools don’t fit the
mold, and we need to have more information about what’s going on in
these areas. The issue of ISAT and NCLB addressing the needs for
students on the lower end of the scale and not enough being done for the
gifted and talented was raised. It was asked if this couldn’t be addressed
by incorporating a virtual academy. Dr. Mike Friend was asked if he would
speak to this. Dr. Friend explained that the IDLA in Mountain Home is a
statewide school and the curriculum can be incorporated into other
schools. In fact, Twin Falls is implementing one block through the IDLA
and Meridian has its own virtual learning capabilities. When asked what
percentage of virtual learning will take place in the next 25 years, Dr.
Friend said it will be possible to obtain a masters or doctorate through
virtual learning. He warned that there are special techniques and training
for virtual education, and it certainly is not for every child or every teacher.
It must be delivered so quality is maintained.

EXCUSED:

Ms. Watt stated the American Board for Certification of Teacher
Excellence believes that all students are entitled to a quality education,
and that a quality teacher with mastery in their subject area and
professional teaching knowledge will make a difference in student
learning. There focus is on student achievement and student growth.
Idaho has seven active candidates. Representative Block mentioned she
has three constituents who are interested.

EXCUSED:

The department does think of ways to keep the budget on an even keel
and move ahead. Through their support, the legislature allowed the
reading initiative to move ahead and made sure Idaho has a good
technology system in place. She stated she is coming to them with a
budget cognizant of the state’s economy, and one that reflects the
requirements set forth in the statutes that are in place.

The1% salary increase in her budget is in line with the Governor’s
expectations across the board for all agencies. In order to keep
technology in place, they are shifting funds, and they are offering up $2.5
million for remediation. She emphasized that the bottom line is that they
care a lot about discretionary money, although the districts wonder just
how discretionary it really is.

• 2a. Property Tax Replacement – estimated amount, about 1/10% of item
  6. A $75 million cap was put into affect last year.
• 2b. Transportation – a 3% increase was built in based on the current
  year’s appropriation.
• 2c. Border Contracts – For the welfare of students who might have to
  travel many miles to get to an Idaho school, they may attend a school in
  a neighboring state, and that state is reimbursed.
• 2d. Exceptional Contracts and Tuition Equivalents – increase of $1 million
  requested – this covers district agency contracts, tuition equivalency,
  court ordered detention centers and juvenile corrections, special
  education, etc.
• 2e. Floor – item is a function of those districts with high market value who
  would not receive tax dollars.
• 2f. Program Adjustments – allows funds to correct errors, but this is
  where the SDE funds the Booth Memorial Home.
• 2g. Salary Based Apportionment – the index used is a function of size (#
  of support units), who hired and who taught). If the statewide average
  goes up, all districts would take a reduction. He looks at recent history to
  determine the range of growth and uses a figure in the middle. The
  Stabilization Fund was established to help if estimates are too low.
• 2h. Teacher Incentive Award (Natl Board Certification) – seeing a
  tapering off in the number of teachers applying for this, and Albertson
  Foundation funding has gone away.
• 2k. State Paid Employee Benefits – because administrative staff has
  been reduced.
• 1l. Substance Abuse – Safe and Drug Free Program funded through
  taxes on lottery winnings and cigarette taxes.
• 2m. Bond Levy Equalization Support Program – this fund is a result of
  S1474 which pays a portion or all of the interest for districts who applied
  after September 15, 2002 and meet the requirements. Funds come from
  the lottery dividends and $2 million in general fund money to provide
  stability.
• 2n. Technology Grants – JFAC has established intent language for items
  2n. through 2r. The Governor is not recommending $5 million of one-time funding for technology in 2005. $3.4 million is part of the base. The
  ICTL receives $170,000 of expenses from this account, and LILI (state
  library program) receives $265,300 out of this account. Charter schools
  do receive a portion of these funds based on the previous year’s ADA.
• 2o. Idaho Reading Initiative – has been reduced by $500,000 because
  the number of children falling below the average has decreased, and
  most of the teachers in the system have received the training.
• 2p. Limited English Proficient (LEP) – increased by $375,000 due to
  increased numbers of LEP students.
• 2q. Idaho Digital Learning Academy – supplemental training provided to
  districts. Time spent doesn’t generate hours, but can count towards the 4
  hours required.
• 2r. ISAT Intervention – $5 million was requested by SDE, but Governor is
  not recommending funding for this item. The $5 million request is based
  on intervention for approximately 40,000 students (25%) at $125 per
  student. It was pointed out that part of this is not new money, and $2.5
  million would come from reductions/savings in least restrictive
  environment training, achievement standards implementation, and from
  IRI teacher training.
• 2v. Annual Contract Support Program – funded for 2 years. Districts have
  been forced to use discretionary funds.
• 2w. Federal Funds for Local School Districts – 1^st year recognized on
  budget request. These funds don’t affect discretionary funds.

Mr. Hill pointed out the reduction in dedicated funds, saying the Land
Board voted to reduce the endowment fund by $14.8 million to allow for
any shortfall in 2006. This reduction was offset by about $2 million from
an increase in the lottery dividends.

Technology Funding: The following points were made during the
discussion on technology funding.

• All school districts receive a portion of the technology funding
  based on the previous year’s ADA. For this reason, new charter
  schools must wait a year before they receive technology funding.
• Schools have received 1-time money for technology for 10 years.
• Technology will continue to advance, and it is poor planning on the
  part of everyone involved not to have a strategic plan in place to
  ensure adequate funding is part of the base budget.
• There are many costs involved with technology including software
  upgrades, information technology specialists, training, etc.
• A source of federal funding for technology does go out to the
  school districts, but it comes with strings. The SDE does not
  dictate how the funds are spent, and some of the districts have
  used this money to hire technical support personnel.

Funding for the IDVA:

The statute governing charter schools exempts them from the same
requirements as other public schools when hiring instructional staff, from
flooring, and from the same index as the school district.

• Regarding how we fairly and adequately provide funding for IDVA,
  there were several factors discussed. Funding is based on (1)
  size (# of support units); (2) who’s hired; and (3) who’s taught (K-6; high school; special education). At this time IDVA teaches only
  grades K-5 students, their staff is less experienced than other
  districts/charter schools, and their administrative staff are actually
  employees of K-12 company and receive no funding for benefits.
  Primarily because of these three factors, IDVA is being funded
  $3,200 per ADA versus charters or public schools who hire more
  qualified staff, have more special education students, and receive
  benefits for all of their employees.
• After four years working with charter schools, everyone felt the
  foundation formula was working. IDVA is brand new and it is
  obvious that changes need to be made. Another problem is that
  when IDVA started, they had 700 students and within 6-8 weeks
  they had enrolled 1,000. Their ADA did not reflect this because it
  was based on data gathered the first Friday in November.
• IDVA staff has a student ratio of 50 to 1, but they are not
  continuously in front of students. Funding adjustments need to be
  made.
• Dual enrollment is allowed by law, and students may attend public
  schools and the IDVA.
• This body has the authority to propose changes. There are no
  arbitrary decisions being made, but that’s how the formula works.

Dr. Howard addressed questions about the State Board looking at a
software program for remediation and about teachers feeling the
legislators do not like or appreciate them. Regarding the $3.9 million
being spent for a remediation program, she said this is not likely in the
near future because it would require 4-5 years of sustained funding. It is
her hope that whatever is selected will be compatible with ISIMS. In
response to the question about how teachers feel, she indicated there
seems to be a mood across the country, and a lot of rhetoric against
public schools. The “failing school” label tied to NCLB is very harsh. It is
very difficult for teachers when they are working with a child they know will
never advance. The newspapers have a lot to do with these feelings. Her
personal opinion is that we need to say things very clearly.

EXCUSED:

90.9% male and 9.1% female

93.9% are white, 4.2% American Indian, 1.6% black, and 0.32% Asian.

Ethnicity figures are 79% non-Hispanic and 21% Hispanic

Average age is now 15.7 where in 1999 it was 16.4

Crime level is 51.4% felony; 38.8% misdemeanor; 9.8% probation violation

Typically the youth will spend about 16.4 months in custody and may be
placed in a least 2 different facilities. There most serious crime is generally
a felony property crime. State facilities account for about 51% of the
placements with contract facilities accounting for about 49%.

Mr. Reinke said the juvenile court system has been a positive tool. All 44
counties now have juvenile courts with 88 magistrates. There are 12
regional detention centers in Idaho. Their goal for those who are entering
the juvenile system is that they never make it to the state level. He said out
of 6,000 kids only 433 have ended up at the state level. They are trying to
reach kids at an earlier age. Problem areas are adjudicated sex offenders
(30.8%); conduct disorder/delinquency (82.4%); drug & alcohol (55.2%);
and mental health (47.1%). He pointed out they had two suicides last year,
and they are retooling on a daily basis to cope with this major issue.

• In the juvenile system, there are no programs to deal with children
  before the 6^th grade. Some schools may have programs in place.
• The increase in sex offenders is a result of our society. If we look at
  what young children are exposed to or deal with, i.e., TV, lack of value
  systems in the home, lack of parental involvement, you begin to
  understand. IDJC has projects planned for 2004/2005 to try and
  address this.
• Drug courts are working for juveniles, they are modeled after the state
  system, and parents are brought in and sometimes jailed. They are
  seeing positive results.
• Sixteen year olds cannot decide they don’t want to go to school while at
  IDJC; staff is with them 6 hours a day in a controlled environment.
• Idaho is about 4% behind the national average on the number of
  female inmates, and the racial mix is not bad. They are working with the
  courts and looking at specific formats for Hispanics.
• There are not many places in Idaho to house those with suicidal or
  psychotic behavior other than juvenile detention. Their staff has some
  training to handle these cases, but needs more. There are 3-5 kids on
  suicide watch on a daily basis in their facilities. At least 49% of the
  youth are on 2 medications a day. Counties are no longer taking
  indigent adults or youth.
• Of the 17 youth being housed out of state, 1 is a female adjudicated sex
  offender, 14 are male adjudicated sex offenders, and 2 men are in need
  of mental health care.

Student performance (Attachment 1) is measured on the Idaho Standards
Achievement Test (ISAT). Approximately 75 students were present for both
the spring and fall testing and showed average gains per student of 4.0 for
reading, 4.3 in math and 4.3 in language. In the fall of 2003 approximately
110 students took the ISAT, and over half had been in the program five
months or less. The scores indicate that math is a big problem area. IDJC
has difficulty in attracting highly qualified teachers, especially in math and
science. IDJC must also comply with NCLB.

IDJC tries to discourage GED tests unless it is not practical for a student to
get a high school diploma. They have had very high success rates on the
GED with a 96% success rate in St. Anthony, 100% in Lewiston, and 93%
in Nampa.

Dr. Rohrbach explained that 93 of the students in IDJC’s three facilities are
special education eligible, this represents 44% of the total population of
213. They have students with severe conditions such as brain injuries,
heart transplants and severe mental health issues.

IDJC received federal funds from Title I and has a memorandum of
understanding with the State Department of Education to provide funding.
About 34% of the population is funded directly with IDJC funding.

The NCSL made it clear they have no position regarding possible legal
challenges. Rather they have devoted their efforts to working with the
administration to effect regulatory changes that would alleviate the financial
and substantive concerns that legislators have expressed about the
legislation (Attachment 2).

Representative Jones walked the committee through the various parts of
the opinion. He mentioned that prior to NCLB, the Elementary Secondary
Education Act required that Title I students have standards and
assessments. NCLB now requires all students be tested and show
adequate annual progress (AYP). Also NCLB indicates that states will lose
all of their federal funding if they choose not to participate, not just their
Title I funds. Representative Jones estimated that NCLB would result in
about a 1% increase in federal funds.

The core of the brief is found on page 7, which provides Sec. 9527 in its
entirety (Attachment 3). He explained that this one paragraph seems to say
that NCLB is not a mandate, but all of the other sections deal with why it is
a mandate. There are several states, including Virginia and New
Hampshire, who have passed legislation to opt out of NCLB. Utah has also
passed a resolution out of the House Education Committee to opt out. Utah
would lose about $103 million per year in federal funding.

A discussion followed regarding Idaho’s position, and the bottom line for
any state is that if they opt out they will have to raise more funding locally.
Whatever is taking place in other states, Idaho needs to ensure they do not
cast students by the wayside. The hope is that all have signed on to the
goals, and now we need to continue with the mechanism of how we get
there. It was pointed out there are several other educational organizations
who may have differing opinions and also provide information. One of
these is the Education Commission of Governors and Legislators.

EXCUSED:

PTA advocates for children through legislation, supporting public
education and acting as a liaison between schools and the community.
PTA is also a “parent educator” that offers workshops on parenting skills,
safety, discipline, nutrition, drug abuse and parental involvement. Last but
not least, PTA is a “service” organization that provides and endorses
volunteers in the schools and classrooms.

Ms. Block reviewed the Objects and Mission of the Idaho Congress of
Parents and Teachers, Inc. (Attachment 1). She closed by quoting Anna
B. Hayes, who fifty years ago was Idaho’s PTA President and later
become the National PTA President:

“For every child

the right to grow in stature, strong and free,

and grace to grow in fellowship

in his own right to be,

a noble, useful citizen

endowed with liberty”

State Achievement Standards and Accountability: Idaho PTA supports
the State Achievement Standards as educational goals for students, but
they oppose the use of a standardized test as the sole criteria for
measuring progress. The PTA is concerned about high stakes testing,
and they believe multiple measures of student performance to be a more
valid assessment.

Charter Schools: PTA supports charter schools, but also seeks
legislation ensuring charter schools meet local health and safety
standards, receive separately allocated funds so as not to divert limited
funds from public education, carry a performance bond and be governed
by the local school board in the district in which the charter school is
located.

Education Funding: Idaho PTA supports Dr. Howard’s proposed budget.
Items missing in the Governor’s budget were the 1% salary increase,
technology, mentoring and ISAT intervention.

Property Tax Replacement Fund Cap: Idaho PTA opposes the
continuance of the property tax replacement fund cap enacted in 2003,
because they feel this may eventually result in a $4-5 million shortfall. The
shortfall would require local levies and increase property taxes.

Safe School Facilities: Idaho PTA supports repealing all statues
pertaining to facilities.

Second Hand Smoke and Tobacco Use: Idaho PTA supports S1120
dealing with abandoning smoking in public places. Second hand smoke is
a major health issue.

• The committee voiced concerns about the PTA supporting the repeal
  of the facilities laws without bringing with them recommendations for
  what other education programs would be cut or what other sources of
  funding could be used to fund facilities maintenance. Ms. Bode said
  they believe all of the lottery money should go towards facilities.
• When asked if the Idaho PTA’s views regarding charter schools, NCLB
  and ISAT are in line with the National PTA’s views, Ms. Bode and Ms.
  Block stated that they are aligned.
• In response to PTA’s position on “pay for performance” Ms. Bode said
  she supports pay for performance rather than just “seat time”, but we
  need to be careful when developing the evaluation criteria/factors.
• Ms. Bode was asked if students can’t meet the minimum requirements
  of the “exit” exam, not the “high stakes” test, how can they meet the
  other options you outlined on your position statement? She stated that
  the PTA is not against testing, but the methods used; a single multiple
  choice test. She was reminded that the only “high stakes” are students
  who can’t read and write. She was asked is this not a reasonable
  approach to test students at 10^th grade, giving several opportunities to
  take the test, and allowing them to bank portions passed? She said
  she fears if students pass ISAT in the 10^th grade they will not apply
  themselves their last two years. Would prefer the test be given the last
  semester of student’s senior year? She answered “no”.
• Would PTA support a mandatory kindergarten, because kindergarten
  teachers say their biggest concern is the children not there? She said
  they would.

• A general comment was made about dollars spent and test scores not
  improving. It was pointed out by another committee member that when
  discussing test scores, we must identify which tests we are talking about
  and look at the way the test was measured; national norm test vs. state.

Throughout the presentation the message about the extreme importance
of parental involvement came through loud and clear. Representative
Block applauded the members for their work, and thanked them for
getting the word out about parental involvement. Senator Schroeder
thanked Ms. Bode and Ms. Block and stressed that parental involvement
does determine the success of children.

Mr. Olson described the makeup of the partnership to make ISIMS a
reality: the Governor, the Legislature, the State Board of Education, the
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, all educators, all stakeholders
and the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation. He provided a brief
background of the project from its beginning with the passage of HB 367
on April 15, 2003 to the present, outlining the progress made, the
responsibilities of the stakeholders, the cost of the project and the risks
involved (Attachment 3).

ISIMS Mission … “To equip the Idaho educational system stakeholders
with the most efficient and effective student information management
and reporting system. The project goals are to (1) indirectly improve
student achievement; (2) enhance data driven decisions; and (3) provide
information on impact of programs. The benefits to students and parents,
to teachers, to school districts, state educational agencies, and to the
Governor and the Legislature are provided in detail (Attachment 3).

Mr. Olson described the system components, software packages chosen
for user access, the hardware and platform. He also provided a timeline of
where they hope to be by September 2006 when the system is targeted to
be turned over to the State Department of Education. He emphasized that
the software chosen is proven software and is being used in several other
states. When discussing the costs for the system, he pointed out that the
$35 million grant does not address adequate band with at the districts nor
does it provide for updated computers running Windows 2000 (they no
longer feel computers running Windows 98 will suffice).

• A discussion followed. A committee member brought up the fact that in
  the business world planning for equipment would be done through a
  strategic plan, and doesn’t it make sense to use a strategic plan rather
  than “hit and miss”. Mr Olson indicated that the state will need to plan
  for the number of computers needed in a given school, connectivity
  (routers), replacement cycle, and support.
• Has the ISIMS team determined the cost of band-width and
  computers? Mr. Olson said they are not planning to do this. They have
  a contractor who will look at existing equipment to determine if it can
  carry the data. It was suggested that the team needs to come out and
  say what’s needed and provide a standard configuration so school
  districts can work together and combine bids. However, the team
  needs to find an entity in the SDE to provide that service. There is
  some infrastructure in place.
• Roughly $10 million is estimated for training. The team is hoping to
  have district personnel do some of the training.
• The ISIMS team has negotiated and purchased software licenses. The
  state will have to pay for maintenance agreements to keep the
  software current and allow for support.
• What will the effect be on ISIMS if technology is not fully funded this
  year? This could hinder the addition of computers and the upgrades to
  connectivity, and may also put the ISAT at risk.
• Does the system design vary for large versus small schools? No, it is
  very similar. Policies and procedures may be different (full time person
  versus secretary/superintendent entering data). Mr. Wayne Rush
  indicated the system is very robust and will allow schools to pick the
  right level. The small schools seem most excited about the system
  because they need the tools.
• Will there be cost savings? The team has not tried to get their arms
  around savings, but feel Idaho may qualify for additional federal
  funding because of the system.
• Have you looked at the makeup of the IDVA and how they will tie in?
  They will fit in nicely because there will only be one instance of student
  data available throughout the state so all of the schools can connect,
  even private schools, if a cost reimbursement is worked out.
• What about the implications for parents and students who don’t have
  computers and are not computer literate? The team is not addressing
  this, but the schools might want to have a computer set up and
  personnel to assist parents to access the data.
• Will the system allow teachers to do a better job and will it save time?
  Mr. Rush said they believe it will save time in the long run because
  teachers can develop lesson plans and then share them. There will be
  websites linked to the standards and test banks of questions. He
  believes it will facilitate accountability, system efficiency and student
  growth/quality.

EXCUSED:

08-0202-0301

08-0202-0302

08-0202-0303

08-0202-0304

30-0101-0301

47-0101-0301

08-0203-0301

MOTION:

Chairman Barraclough thanked Representative Jones for his remarks and
said this is why the NCSL holds him in such high esteem. Representative
Andersen thanked the chairman for allowing the full debate.

EXCUSED:

A vote was called for, and the motion to introduce RS13924 carried
by voice vote. Representative Kulczyk wished to be recorded as voting
“nay”.

When asked what the downside of this might be, Representative Garrett
explained that children with asthma are educated about the use of their
medication, and there are no side effects if another child should get
access to the inhaler.

A vote was called for, and the motion to introduce RS13553C1
carried by voice vote.

The $5 million decrease in item B-1, technology grants, in the Governor’s
budget coincides with the fact that the Governor did not include
replacement equipment funding in any of the agency budgets, except one.
Mr. Hancock didn’t know exactly how the technology grants are allocated,
but $300,000 of the $3.4 million is distributed for the LILI program and
$173,000 goes to the State Department of Education to fund the
expenses of the ICTL. He stressed that information technology (IT) staff
should be funded from the ongoing $3.4 million, and the fact that the $5
million one-time funding is being cut should not mean a decrease in IT
staff.

Regarding federal funds being garnered to offset this decrease, it was
explained that these are not new funds, and currently half of the federal
funds are distributed to the school districts using a formula and half of the
funds are provided through grants that the school districts apply for. Mr.
Hancock suggested that perhaps the state needs to sharpen its focus for
the grant funds and make funding for ISIMS equipment a high priority. It is
difficult to determine what adequate equipment really is for ISIMS, and
there are many questions surrounding this. Kellogg is to be a pilot site for
ISIMS, and they do not have adequate equipment. It is not clear if the
equipment for the pilot sites will be purchased by the Albertson
Foundation. Mr. Hancock stated that in 2006 the state, by law, will be
required to fund the equipment and maintenance for about $6-8 million of
on-going funding. It was suggested that this issue could possibly be
addressed by the audit committee. When asked about the cost for
upgrading the band width at each site, Mr. Hancock clarified that one-time
funding could be used for the system infrastructure, but additional costs of
maintaining the system will need to be addressed by base funding.

It was pointed out that item B-11 is not discretionary money if it is
earmarked for salaries and benefits. The House Education Scenario
column differs slightly from the Governor’s request in that it places the
savings in transportation costs and the discretionary funds into Item B-12,
unallocated funds for $13,176,200 million. Mr. Hancock then provided the
committee with possible options for the unallocated funds (Attachment 2).

When asked what would happen to the $13,176,200 million if the
Governor’s economic projections turn out to be too high, it was pointed
out there aren’t many other places to look for funds. Most of the public
school budget is tied to statutory requirements. A comment was made
that given this scenario, the savings from transportation costs will go back
into education programs. Mr. Tim Hill, State Department of Education,
indicated that the savings in transportation are a result of all stakeholders
combining their efforts.

The Governor followed the same philosophy for higher education as he
did with all agencies by not recommending new enhancements. The
Governor did recommend a 2% increase in CEC to allow for merit pay
increases. The 2% increase for CEC does not include the surplus
eliminator.

Agricultural Research & Extension Service: The Governor did not
recommend the requested $122,000 fund shift for loss of federal funds,
but did recommend the personnel cost rollups and the 2% CEC increase.

Colleges and Universities (BSU, ISU, UI, LCSC) and Community Colleges
(NIC and CSI): Again the Governor did not recommend the requested
fund shift, the inflationary increases or the enrollment workload
adjustment (these are the cost of educating students over and above the
new student fee increases). New occupancy costs for the new CSI and
NIC buildings were not recommended by the Governor. Because of the
drop in endowment funds, the colleges and universities would ideally like
these decreases covered by general funds. No equity funding has been
included in this budget.

A question was asked about who is the requestor for higher education
budgets, and Mr. Borden explained that all of the higher education budget
requests are submitted to the Office of the State Board of Education
(OSBE) and then combined/refined and submitted to the Governor. When
asked what changes the OSBE made, it was indicated they did not make
many modifications. A question arose about the funding percentage
differences between community colleges and universities, and it was
explained that 4-year schools are more dependent on general funds and
have more occupancy costs.

Office of the State Board of Education: The general fund increase for
OSBE can be attributed to their assessment and accountability
responsibilities. Until last year, OSBE delegated to the State Department
of Education through rule the responsibility for managing federal funds.
Last session a rule was adopted that now requires federal funds to flow
through the OSBE to the Department and then to the school districts.

Health Education Programs: FY 2005 is the 4^th and final year to fund the
additional medical seats. This was the only agency not subject to cuts.

Professional-Technical Education: Funding recommendation was
consistent with all other agencies. These programs are experiencing a
large growth, but the governor did not recommend funding for the
secondary workload adjustment.

Special Programs: The Governor did recommend funding for the Promise
Scholarships.

Mr. Borden stated that higher education has had impressive growth, and
the lean recommendations presents a difficult situation. He reminded the
committee that he is available if they have additional questions.

EXCUSED:

An extended reading program was implemented for 2^nd through 6^th grade,
and students were placed on an individualized reading plans. In addition
to the progressive classroom program, all students read out loud to a
trained reading instructor 15 minutes each day. The 2003 reading scores
for South Lemhi show that 92% of their students are reading at grade
level at this time. In order to achieve this goal it was necessary to have (1)
the school board put reading as a primary focus in elementary
classrooms; (2) small class sizes in K-3 with uninterrupted teaching
blocks; (3) excellent classroom teachers; (4) classified staff trained as
reading instructors; (5) an instructional leader who understands the
reading process and is able to articulate that process to others; and (6)
teacher training.

She stressed that learning how to read is difficult and if children have not
learned to read by the end of the 3^rd grade, they probably never will.
About 10% of our population struggles in the academic world, mostly for
cognitive reasons. There are socially/emotionally burdened children in
school and these children need immediate identification. Attachment 2
provides a list of behaviors of students who are at risk for learning how to
read.

Many teachers have not been prepared to teach reading, and learning
how to teach reading is a hands on skill that needs to have quality
supervision. Idaho is doing a good job in preparing Elementary
Administrators to run the business of the school. However, they do not
receive adequate preparation to be the instructional leaders. More training
is needed in child psychology, identifying special needs children,
counseling, maturation process, and a firm grip on the sequence of
learning K-8th grade.

To achieve 90% reading scores on the IRI test, principals need to be
instructional leaders and be able to train their personnel in the structured
reading process. Excellent teachers that are well versed in the reading
process have the ability to identify at risk children and set these children
up for immediate success. Attachment 2 outlines the successful reading
program at Leadore and Tendoy schools.

At the school building level the principals and teachers pointed out a
combination of research-based practices/fundamental tools used to help
students succeed on the IRI. These were the Star Early Literacy Test,
AIMSweb Fluency Test, Waterford Early Literacy Program, Saxon
Phonics Program, remediation/intervention programs, Albertson
Foundation’s TOBI grant, and the IRI Instructional Support Guide.

From a parent perspective factors identified were focus, effective
teachers, improvement of resources used in teaching, and communication
of testing results. Ms. Horman said she is very appreciative of the positive
changes she has seen over the past 11 years.

As policy makers it is hard to know how our great ideas or initiatives will
trickle down, but the intent of the IRI did not get lost in the translation.
Lessons learned from implementation of the IRI is that accountability isn’t
just for teachers, administrators and school boards, it’s for students as
well. There is a fine line between putting too much pressure on kids and
not enough. She suggested we need to continue what works and
discontinue what’s not working.

EXCUSED:

Remediation: Funding remediation was another top priority because the
success of ISAT hinges on remediation. Teachers and resources are needed
to ensure remediation is accomplished. It was suggested that funds need to be
moved from the Office of the State Board to the State Department of
Education for remediation. Also mentioned was the fact that remediation can
be funded through NCLB.

Salary Based Apportionment: It was suggested that the Superintendent’s $8
million recommendation be used for Salary Based Apportionment which would
leave about $2 million (based on the Governor’s recommendation) to be
targeted for technology. There was a concern voiced that the Governor’s $10
million recommendation for discretionary funds not be considered unallocated
funds.

Other Input Received: Several members brought forth input including (1) be
cautious this year and provide as much discretionary funding as possible; (2)
support a level budget; (3) examine how to fund charter schools; (4) fund the
mandated $25,000 beginning salary and teacher mentoring; (5) do not put
school districts in a position that they have to request property tax increases.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Mohan explained that last year Leadership was interested in looking
at public transportation and rather than do a quick report on just three
districts, it was decided to do a more comprehensive audit using 14
districts based on size and comparability to other districts. Throughout
this process, the State Department of Education (SDE), the Office the
State Board of Education (OSBE), districts and the other stakeholders
were kept apprised throughout the study.

It was found that between 1992 and 2002 transportation costs increased
more than other indicators, i.e. daily ridership, number of buses, and
miles driven. Also pupil transportation costs were higher than most state
agency budgets. Fourteen districts, representing 43% of all districts,
were chosen for this study.

Regarding state oversight, it was found that the SDE’s role is unclear.
The SDE is required in statute to do spot (bus) inspections, bus driver
training, and determine reimbursable costs. The requirements are
unclear, and the Department provides limited oversight.

Findings pertaining to district administration of transportation services
revealed how district decisions impact state costs, and that more efforts
are needed to improve fiscal accountability. One example was that
districts seldom pursue Medicaid reimbursements and it is
recommended they work with the Department of Health and Welfare to
do so. It was also noted that Medicaid reimbursements are not always
reported. Several districts have taken cost-saving measures by
consolidating and reducing bus routes, reducing non-bus driver staff,
reducing or limiting field and activity trips, maximizing use of full-time
drivers and reducing number of drivers who receive benefits.

Twenty-two districts contract their bus services, and it was
recommended that they be required to use a model contract, and that
bid review guidelines be developed by the Department. Districts do not
have bus replacement plans, and it was recommended that the
Department should develop a model bus replacement plan based on
mileage, age and use criteria.

The funding cap put in place last session does control costs because it
limits reimbursements to 110% of statewide average cost/mile or
cost/student (rider). Only those districts above both averages are
capped, and the cap decreases in FY06 and FY07. Districts can apply
for a waiver or loan. It is recommended that the Department of
Education should establish, in rule, a method that increases and
standardizes the days/ways districts count riders.

Mr. Headlee demonstrated how the online Office of Performance
Evaluations funding cap model can be used to review and calculate
district funding deductions and savings to the state, view funding at
different cap percentages, review how close a district is to the cap, and
view different scenarios of cost increases or decreases. Feedback on
this model has been positive.

The Office of Performance Evaluations concluded that (1) there has
been a limited focus on economical transportation, and district decisions
cost dollars; (2) the Department’s oversight role is unclear; (3) if the
OSBE intends for more oversight, current staffing is inadequate and
needs to be addressed; (4) with the funding cap in place, accuracy of
data is more important than ever; and (5) cap will save the state money.

In response to committee questions and concerns, Mr. Headlee clarified
that (1) districts generally apply the “safety busing” requirements, but
districts are not counting students in the same manner; (2) increasing
ridership is not valid or ethical and ridership should show sustained
increases; (3) two approaches were recommended for standardizing
ridership counts; (4) extending bus contracts could result in savings to
districts, but there is no guarantee; and (5) there is a waiver process in
place to allow districts with unusual circumstances to obtain a waiver to
the funding cap.

Charts depicting statewide staffing growth and staffing growth by
position category from FY 1999-2003 indicated that growth for
administrative positions exceeded that of teachers and all other staff,
and district business support was much higher than district
administrators, school administrators and school support staff.
Enrollment did affect staffing levels, and salaries for administrators at
schools with 15,000 or more students were higher than those schools
with fewer than 500 students. The study found that the Department of
Education annual reports do not provide adequate staffing information,
and it was recommended that SDE improve data reporting about
administrative staffing.

It was clarified that this report considers clerical staff and attendance
clerks as school support staff. District office staff and business
managers are considered business support staff, and counselors are
not considered part of administrative staff. The increase in staff could
not be directly linked to additional state or federal mandates. The full
report provides a breakdown of new positions, and 86 were new
Information Technology staff and 50 were business managers.

Recommendations made to the SDE were (1) take steps to improve
accuracy and uniformity of fiscal data reported by school districts; (2)
strengthen oversight of financial audits to ensure they include a review
of data districts submit to the state; and (3) improve statewide reporting
of district financial information and make information available on its
website.

Mr. Shoop also reported that $282 million was spent on health benefits
in FY 2002, and districts health insurance costs increased between 8%
and 40% while state employees health insurance plan increased 17%.
District health plans vary in type, cost, and benefits. It was determined
that statewide pooling may help control costs, and it was recommended
that the Legislature consider authorizing an in-depth study of potential
cost savings of a statewide health insurance plan for districts.

EXCUSED:

The Division’s budget is divided into four major areas into which dollars
are allocated.

State Leadership and Technical Assistance

Today’s competitive environment demands quality programs, and to that
end the Division is working on several major initiatives to help the
programs and teachers meet those challenges: (1) rigorous technical
programs; (2) integration of academic achievement standards; and (3)
articulation of high school and college curricula. To ensure PTE courses
contribute to student success on the ISAT, a project was implemented to
align all of the PTE curricula with the achievement standards. About 80%
of the curriculum is aligned with the standards.

General Programs

General programs include secondary program support, guidance and
curriculum, workforce training and teacher education. According to Joyce
Gioia, a business forecaster, “the majority of rapidly growing occupational
areas are suited to vocational and technical education programs.”
Unfortunately, there still exists a traditional, and a not very accurate,
image of PTE. Preparation for 70% of the jobs fit PTE. To demonstrate
how the vocational curricula has changed, Dr. Rush described some of
the programs/projects Idaho PTE students have been involved with as the
Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Competition placed 7^th; stream
restoration in cooperation with Idaho ranchers and Fish and Game;
underwater mapping in conjunction with INEEL; study of goats eating
Leafy Spurge; and a research project on controlling dairy odors.

Dr. Rush said he is often asked “how the current focus on academic
performance is affecting PTE programs?” He said it has had some
negative impact because teachers are being moved to teach remedial
courses, students are being put into remedial courses, and dropouts are
occuring. He quoted Paul Barton who said “These efforts to raise the
achievement and introduce more rigor will not reach the 25-30% who drop
out. In addition to academic rigor, we need to explore options that
broaden the appeal to graduate and get the diploma.” Dr. Rush said we
know PTE (1) keeps youth in school; (2) makes it is possible to “major” in
PTE and academics; (3) is an economic value to the individual and the
community; and (4) does not limit postsecondary education.

The past five years, 223 new programs have been implemented with a net
increase of 86. Secondary PTE enrollment has increased 17 percent in
the last five years, and 78% in the past 10 years. This growth is not a
result of increased student populations.

General program dollars support several types of programs. Professional-Technical schools were created through 1998 legislation. They provide
high-end, state-of-the-art technical programs. Idaho now has 11 such
schools and 117 programs. High school technical programs lead to an
AAS degree, and since 1999, enrollment has grown by over 300%. This
past year 2,000 tech prep students graduated from high school. Distance
learning projects provide rural students with an opportunity to participate
in health professions education. The Idaho Career Information System is
one of the premier career information systems in the United States and it
is used by 94% of the school districts, all job service and vocational
rehabilitation offices, 23 college and university locations and the
correctional facilities. Workforce training programs are non-credit
programs targeted to adults in the workplace who need to upgrade or
learn new skills.

Postsecondary Programs

This past year, in spite of a significant decrease in funding, full-time
student enrollment increased 7% in Idaho’s technical colleges. Positive
placement was 95%. Most programs have some sort of business and
industry certification that enhances the portability of credits.

Underprepared Adults/Displaced Homemakers

The fourth major program area for funding is the underprepared
adults/displaced homemakers. It is through these funds, primarily federal
and dedicated, that technical colleges provide an array of educational
opportunities that enable people, who would not otherwise make it, to
have a successful shot at succeeding in our educational system. The
Centers for New Directions are a key part of these services.

Dr. Rush provided the following comments in response to questions:

(1) PTE students can’t survive without academic skills; the reading level
for an auto tech is 14^th grade. Just passing the ISAT test is not enough,
and students need to learn skills in an applied setting. He is a strong
supporter of high academics.

(2) GED programs have shown a high growth for those under 20.

(3) Idaho has to have adequate capacity for professional technical. It is
common for students to wait as long as 18 months to get into some
programs, i.e. nursing.

(4) The ability to transfer credits is better, but still a problem.

Dr. Rush outlined cost-saving measures that have been taken due to
declining PTE budgets.

• Reduced administrative staff (7.5% fewer than 1996; 37% fewer
  since 1980)
• Increased administrative responsibility by 540%
• Dropped state leadership cost from 6.5% in 1996 to 4.9% in 2004
• Reduced secondary added cost support by 8.4%
• Postponed implementation of new added cost formula
• Shifted money from administration to faculty
• Eliminated 31 FTP from FY02
• Increased part-time enrollment; charged students
• Increased teaching loads
• Hired part-time faculty
• Used distance learning
• Reduced access
• Postponed instructional equipment purchases

Another way to look at the impact is to look at the amount spent per
student. Cost per student dropped from a high in 2001 of $8,051 to
$6,923 in 2003, over $1,000 per student. Capacity building money for
technical college enrollment has been well spent. Cost per additional FTE
is $5,818 compared to $7,000 cost per student systemwide. Colleges
experienced a 9% reduction in 2003 or 54% of the capacity building
funds. Instructional equipment has taken the biggest hit from 9.1% of the
budget in 1991 to 2.8% in 2004.

The FY2005 budget contains no new above MCO requests, but there are
some requests to address maintenance needs and increased enrollment.
The combined Professional-Technical budget request is for $573,700 of
which 94% goes to the postsecondary system. A request for $535,100 to
cover operating expenses and capital outlay is highly understated
because it is based on the significantly reduced CO base; a base which
was eliminated. The CO base is less than 3%. Non-standard adjustments
for enrollment were $334,900 for secondary workload adjustment,
$362,400 for professional-technical schools, $899,300 for college
capacity building and $48,800 for EITC library and utility costs. The final
MCO request is te Governor’s recommendation for salary which still
leaves the Idaho average about 10% below other states. He emphasized
how critical funding for equipment and professional-technical school rollup
is to ensure 735 students have slots.

Dr. Rush closed by stating that the lump sum appropriation for the
technical colleges and the carry-over authority have been critical to the
system’s ability to effectively manage the budget.

This program’s mission is to help participants become economically and
personally self-sufficient. Results are measured by training and
employment. The centers served over 1800 individuals of which 87%
were female and 13% were male. Seventy-one percent had a positive
outcome (Attachment 1). Ms. Silver explained that the data provided in
Attachment 1 only counts the individuals for whom a center counselor
conducted an intake interview, provided one or more services, and
followed-up. Only individuals who entered school or found jobs in this
fiscal year were counted in the return on investment figures provided.

Ms. Silver provided the Fiscal Year 2003 Annual report for the Idaho
Displaced Homemaker Programs. This report is available at the Idaho
Division of Professional-Technical Education Office. This report provides
highlights of the Center activities, employment and educational outcomes,
stories of successful clients in each region, and characteristics of the
population served. It was noted that 90% of the participants in this
program have children, 3,193 children to be exact. Participants are helped
with parenting skills and learn to balance work and family. Center
coordinators supplement state funding with other grants and technical
college support to expand services, and they work with social service
agencies.

EXCUSED:

There is an overriding need for a systematic and consistent policy
approach for the creation of virtual schools. Twelve key considerations
when designing, developing, and implementing virtual learning policy are
funding, accreditation, credit, course development, standards, instructor
skill sets/professional development, consistent schedules, access,
privacy, focus, integration and legislation.

Florida is seen as the leader in virtual schooling. The content and
assessments used in its courses are aligned with state standards, and all
teachers have a Florida certification in the subjects they teach. Florida
has set a ceiling on the number of students and targets the low
performing students. The legislature has funded the school since 1997,
but has given direction for them to become self-sufficient. Texas has
three pilot programs, and they fund each one differently from just
materials to full ADA. They will not expand these programs until they are
proven effective.

The study concluded that the main issues related to virtual learning are
(1) quality and accountability; (2) access and equity; and (3) funding.
Oversight in the majority of states lies with the State Department of
Education, but other governing bodies may be a university, the Governor
or the Legislature. The opportunities and challenges are numerous for
virtual schools. There is a strong emphasis on virtual learning in states
with large rural populations.

Dr. Davis provided the following research based answers to questions:

Funding – Funding for virtual schools is less per pupil. In Florida it is
$1300 less per pupil, and in Texas it ranges from $1,000 per pupil to full
ADA for one of the pilot projects. From a policy standpoint, an equitable
way to fund and get results might be to set a value for the system based
on the results. The study did not look at the internal operations regarding
state and federal funding.

Teachers – Certification and accountability were looked at in the study.
Teachers must use tools, techniques and strategies to engage students
through the computer. Virtual learning requires followup and monitoring,
parental cooperation, and an honesty policy.

Test Score Comparisons – Comparison of virtual school test scores
versus public school test scores was not part of the study. Various
universities provide this type of analysis, i.e Florida State. Virtual schools
should use standards based curriculum and be just as accountable as
any other public school.