a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District

Home 2008 2007 2005 2006

EVIE'S BOARD NOTES – OCTOBER 2005

SBE Work Session (Wednesday, October 5, 2005):

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

We got updated reports from both the Committee of Practitioners (COP) and the HR-1 Hub Committee. The Co-Chair of COP reported on the committee’s recent work session, at which they came up with areas to consider addressing in the state’s plan, such as changing the percentage in Safe Harbor, using multiple measurements for AYP, and changing the order of when to provide School Choice and Supplemental Services. She also mentioned that the COP members believe NCLB sets schools up for failure by requiring 100% proficiency. SBE members Suckla and DeHoff expressed indignation about this “negative attitude,” but I pointed out that our Board has unanimously expressed the same concern. The report on the recent Hub Committee meeting informed us that representatives of the major educational organizations made suggestions for changing the state plan in four major areas: AYP, School Choice and Supplemental Services, support for struggling schools, and Highly Qualified Teachers.

CSAP

The Daniels Fund gave CDE a grant so we could give awards to schools that showed significant achievement on CSAP. There were 450 schools receiving awards in one of two categories: (1) making 20% or more gains over the last 3 years in the number of students scoring Proficient or Advanced, and (2) having 90% or more students scoring Proficient or Advanced. The results in the first category included many schools with a high percentage of students on free/reduced lunch, such as Day Elementary in Westminster District 50 with 88% on FRL. However, in the second category, nearly all had below 10% on FRL, and the highest level was 24%.

ACT

Whereas in previous years there were only one or two students (or none) who got a perfect score of 36 on the ACT, this year there were 17, of which 4 were from Fairview High School in Boulder Valley. * GRADUATION AND DROPOUT RATES – We received a report from the public input sessions on the proposals for calculating graduation and dropout rates, and we made decisions based on those for staff to put into a draft for the rules. The hearing on the proposed rules will be held at the next SBE meeting on November 10. (For details about the input and our decisions, see my notes on the Work Session in the Meeting Reports section on my web site)

SBE Regular Meeting (Thursday, October 6, 2005)

CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION

We approved the use of Powerball “spillover” funds amounting to nearly $1.7 million for capital construction projects on the list for the Giardino lawsuit settlement money. We funded projects like roof replacements, fire alarm upgrades, and boiler replacements. [Referendum D, if it passes, will fund the entire amount still due on the Giardino settlement, but since the settlement doesn’t come close to the amount needed, it is fortunate that we can use the Powerball spillover money for projects on the list.]

RULES FOR THE EDUCATOR LICENSING ACT

We conducted a hearing on proposed revisions to the Educator Licensing Act. Statutory amendments require us to change the terminology of “provisional” license to “initial” license, and “temporary” authorization to “interim” authorization. These also put us in compliance with NCLB.

EXCLUSIVE CHARTERING AUTHORITY

We made changes to the SBE’s procedures for granting exclusive chartering authority to school districts and for holding hearings on challenges to that authority. SBE member Peggy Littleton wanted us to require all school districts to reapply for the authority every year and submit supporting documentation. Staff felt this would be a large burden of paperwork. After extensive discussion, we decided to allow districts to continue having the authority, and only districts with 3,000 students or more will have to submit documentation annually if their authority was granted based on having no discernible history with charter schools or having the right percentage of at-risk students in their charter schools. Challenges to a district’s authority may be brought only by concerned parties, and the burden of proof will be on those parties.

UPCOMING EVENTS

Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved