a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
Schedule for conversion to charter schools: There is lack of clarity in the law as to when the actual conversion has to take place. The first year that counted toward this was 2002-2003, based on the 2002 CSAP administration. The third year for not making improvement will be 2004-2005, based on the 2004 CSAP tests this coming spring. SBE must notify districts by Jan 15, 2006, as to the schools that require conversion and the calendar year in which the conversion is to take place. There are 84 unsatisfactory schools that could potentially need to be converted, but they must continue to be unsatisfactory for 3 years, so it might not be very many schools.
Voucher bill implementation: Discussion about the timeline - October 1 is the deadline for nonpublic schools to apply. Discussed the issue of notification of parents in school districts. The advisory committee is approving all documents before they go out. FAQs are being prepared for parents, districts, and nonpublic schools. SBE needs to determine our process for appeals. We will discuss it at the next meeting. I mentioned the issue brought up about notification of parents of eligible children, which wasn’t fully resolved. Another troublesome issue was whether nonpublic schools can use entry tests for students that apply. The advisory committee had decided that putting up barriers is not within the spirit of the law, since it is supposed to serve low-performing students. Another issue is special education students – they can’t be denied admission, but the nonpublic school is not required to provide services, although a contract between the parent and the school is required by the statute to deal with issues of special needs – this may lead to the necessity of legal opinions.
Accreditation: The CSAP weighted score is an important element of the accreditation determination. We will be aligning the weighted index score with the SAR weighted score; some had been different, and we’re working to make them the same. Thus, the timeline for completion of accreditation reports will be mid-October. The Data Warehouse will recalculate the 2002 scores so they’ll be consistent for value-added growth determination. The SARs were originally were going to be done in September.
NCLB: Hub Committee meeting for September has been canceled. Will meet next on October 15. Estimate is that 46% of Colorado schools (about 817 schools) will not make AYP, which is better than what is expected nationally. The requirements to make AYP are very steep. CDE developed a timeline to finalize all AYP determinations by December; USDOE said it must be done prior to the school year, but they gave us until September 15. CDE scurried to move the timeline up. First, we focused on the 86 Title I schools (in 27 districts) that were on first-year School Improvement, to see if they need to go on Corrective Action. All superintendents are being notified. Current estimation is that 12 made AYP, meaning that 72 will be put on Corrective Action. Have gone through an RFP process for providers of supplementary services; about 25 new providers have applied. Will take applications twice a year.
Moloney has spoken with state education chiefs in other states to see how they have done. Florida has only 10% schools making AYP, primarily because of the participation rate. On the other hand, 92% of schools in Minnesota made AYP, primarily because they don’t have state assessments at the secondary level yet. There is an extraordinary array of results nationwide, based on how far along they are in incorporating standards and assessments. Orr asked if there is any way that we can get the federal government to make any changes. Munn pointed out that there is an election coming. Moloney said that there is growing realization in Congress about the realities of the law. Orr suggested that we write a letter to our Congressional delegation; I mentioned that NASBE is encouraging us to do that. “This Board is supportive of reform, but highly skeptical to ideas that would be unproductive.”
I asked about District Accountability Committees being invited to Title I/NCLB conferences. The Large District Accountability Committee would like to encourage their participation in the conferences to learn more about AYP and provide them with training. DeHoff asked if this is a district responsibility. Suckla suggested that districts on accreditation watch especially should have training. I pointed out about the loss of institutional memory in districts for the work of accountability committees and prevention of problems. Suckla suggested that CASB might want to include this in their regional training. Jane Urschel from CASB agreed that there is a loss of institutional memory, but CASB is the institutional memory for school board members. Suckla pointed out that with budget problems, districts can’t afford to send people to statewide conferences, so regional trainings would be helpful.
CDE is discussing with OSPB what the Governor is willing to include in his budget request. We can ask for things outside of that, as well. OSPB will allow no salary increases for the second year. They are looking to have any additional money pay for health benefits (which have an increased cost). The Legislature’s Interim Committee on controlling costs will have CDE participation (Karen Stroup). Staff is constantly being asked to do more and faster. Of the 280 CDE staff, only 62.5 state-funded. Munn said that we need to demonstrate that we’re being responsible stewards of the money, and suggested that we might ask for more money for staff rather than simply accept cuts and freezes. DeHoff said that maybe we should report to the Legislature what CDE has stopped doing or what sacrifices we’ve made to endure the budget cuts.
There is a conflict of funding-eligible students based on School Finance Act – which requires students to be age 6 by October 1 – and the voucher law – which requires students to be age 6 by January 1. There needs to be a law change to resolve this contradiction.
This year, the Powerball spillover funds were not legislated to be part of the appropriation for the Giardino settlement; therefore, the Legislature gave $10 million for the settlement money rather than the $20 million it should have been. However, despite their anticipation that there would not be Powerball spillover money for capital construction, there was, in the amount of $3.6 million. This money must go into the Capital Construction Contingency Reserve Fund, but the SBE doesn’t have to spend the money on capital construction requests from the settlement (we could save it for other emergency requests). The Capital Construction Advisory Committee has recommended that we use the money for 9 emergency requests from the settlement. If we leave no additional money in the Contingency Reserve, we would have to ask for supplemental money.
CTB/McGraw Hill has some concerns about the number of test items that they have to release, because of the increasing number of test items that are Colorado-only, as well as the home-schooled students taking the tests, cyberschool students, and eventually voucher students.
We have had huge response throughout the state regarding professional development in English Language Acquisition and the work of Linda Franco. She has a background in literacy as it applies to language acquisition for second-language learners. Did 6 sessions on weekends. The theory behind the process is what is special – giving teachers the tools to deliver instruction. The major education reform bills – SB 186 and NCLB – as well as SB 109 affected ELA tremendously. The vision is to have children enter the workforce and institutions of higher education ready to succeed, regardless of what countries they are from. Assessment is the largest piece that we currently need to work on. The state English Language Proficiency Act had allowed 25 different assessments for language proficiency. SB 109 requires one assessment of language proficiency, and NCLB requires one standards-based language proficiency assessment, with a report by levels of proficiency, percentages of students at each level, and percentages of students who progress to the next level of proficiency.
Flo Lenhart, of ELA Unit at CDE, put together the required advisory committee to develop the rules for the assessment of students whose dominant language is not English. The rules follow NCLB to the letter, using the Woodcock Munoz, LAS, and IPT as screening tests that are required within 30 days of the student’s entrance into the school. The new assessment is aligned with the state’s Language Arts content standards and is used for accountability. We currently have 34,000 students who are not proficient in English, of which currently figures show that only 0.18% (300) are in the “pre-emergent” part of the NEP category (speak absolutely no English), but it is probably more like 7%. The advisory committee is also dealing with issues like assessments in the content areas and the appropriate accommodations to give ELL students on CSAP.
NCLB requires ELL students to take CSAP in English after they have been in the country for 3 years. All students must be assessed to determine whether they are NEP (not English proficient), LEP (limited English proficiency), or FEP (fluent English proficiency) based on the ELA assessment. Also, 95% of ELL students must take CSAP for AYP determinations, but CDE would like this to apply only to LEP and FEP students, counting the NEP students who took the language proficiency assessment. We hope to create an alternative assessment (similar to CSAP-A) for NEP students in the content areas.
The two co-chairs of the Colorado Special Education Advisory Committee – Ed Steinberg, Special Education Director in Cherry Creek, and Stephanie Lynch, parent of a child with disabilities from Boulder – came to speak with us. They thanked us for developing such a thoughtful strategic plan. CSEAC has a different mission from the SBE, but still can support the SBE’s goals well. CSEAC is mandated by IDEA; it consists of parents, special educators, and other stakeholders in special education. CSEAC’s past accomplishments include position papers on (1) literacy and early intervention for students with learning disabilities and (2) linking general education and special education. Ongoing activities include monitoring and advising on the state’s Special Education State Improvement Plan, which has 7 key outcomes: appropriate identification, active family involvement, meaningful participation, significant achievement, successful transitions, qualified personnel, and effective monitoring. We have been focusing on school-wide positive behavior supports. Also, CSEAC watches IDEA, NCLB, and any funding issues on a legislative level. Since IDEA’s reauthorization is incomplete, they are still watching it closely. IDEA has brought special education into a better realm of collaboration with regular education, and CSEAC is very pleased. CSEAC’s position paper on literacy emphasized that many students identified with learning disabilities don’t have a neurological disorder (i.e., dyslexia) but didn’t have good early reading instruction, which fits well with NCLB – perhaps as many as 90% estimated by special education staff anecdotally. This might not include Attention Deficit Disorder and ADHD. Results of CSAP testing have shown that students with disabilities are able to achieve, as long as they have appropriate accommodations. In the last year, CSEAC has produced a position paper on the recruitment and retention of special educators. The paper identifies the challenges and makes recommendations. Some of the recommendations are to increase distance-learning opportunities, encourage collaborative partnerships between teacher training programs and school districts, and develop innovative solutions around paperwork reduction. Not only have many regular educators had little training in dealing with special education students, but also many special educators have had little training in teaching reading. Districts are incurring large expenses to give teachers these skills. Even new, recently trained special education teachers don’t have adequate skills. In the future, CSEAC will be doing a position paper on post-secondary outcomes for special education students.
CSEAC opposed the first version of the Paperwork Reduction Act, because the “real issue that must be addressed is the proper management” of critical information, not “to eliminate the paperwork/record keeping” that ensues from the information necessary for the IEP. From this developed a task force to look at the IEP (a group of educators and parents which will meet on October 16). The issue is not just the length of the IEP, but holding efficient meetings.
One of the reasons that we don’t have persistently dangerous schools – which highlights the good work being done in schools that is making a difference – is the Positive Behavior Supports Initiative, one program that is being used in the state. It is a collaborative effort of both the Prevention Initiatives Unit and the Exceptional Students Services Unit at CDE. It is based on research from the University of Oregon and funded by NCLB and other funds for safe schools. We watched other states and learned from what they did. The first year (2002-2003) there were pilot sites for the program in Harrison (Colorado Springs) and Adams 14 (Commerce City) school districts. They both had low academic performance and high suspension and expulsion rates. Have added several other school districts since that time, trying it out in rural schools and charter schools as well. About 1-5% of students need intensive, individual interventions. About 5-7% of students are “on the borderline” and at high risk for becoming behavior problems. The program looks at interventions and supports that can be done throughout the school, not just in classrooms. The coaching component is very critical, because it is a team-based implementation by the staff at the school. The program clarifies behavior expectations and rules for the school. It rewards successes, deals with problems in a consistent way, and uses data to make adjustments in the strategies (e.g., if there are fights on the playground, implement strategies to deal with playground behavior). The CSAP scores have improved in the pilot schools, not because of a direct connection, but because better behavior allows teachers to teach more effectively (safe and civil learning environment).
There are two categories of the rules for Educator Licensing that are being addressed – those that have been in place and needed updating, and rules in new areas. The major rule changes were in the following: Alternatively Licensed Teachers; Authorizations for Adjunct, Intern, Emergency, Career and Technical Education, Temporary, Temporary Teaching Eligibility, Educational Interpreter, and JROTC; Special Education Generalist; Agriculture and Renewable Natural Resources Education; Physical Education; School Psychologist; Alternative Teacher programs; and Instructional Technology Teacher and Instructional Technology Specialist – which have been changed from Education Technology to Instructional Technology.
Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved