a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
BACA: [Absent.]
DEHOFF: Welcomed Peggy Littleton. Sure she will bring wonderful insights and wisdom. Likes what Hudak read in the inspiration about Lincoln not having a policy. Highlight of January was Stock Show; daughter was in competition. Was also at NASBE on the Closing the Achievement Gap Study Grow. Author of No Excuses is chair of the Study Group. Trying to arrange a way for our CTAG Coalition to make a presentaiton; its unique in the nation. Went to Walton Family Playhouse to see Nautilus: Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea; it was a marvelous evening. It was a fundraiser; met the author, composer, and actors. Must differ with one comment Hudak read from COPER, saying “if you’re advocating, you’re not engaging.” Believes that we’re all advocates for children.
HUDAK: Welcomed Peggy Littleton to the Board. Attended a performance at the Boulder Valley School District by students with severe disabilities, utilizing assistive technology to say their parts in the play. Attended a conversation on community engagement (sponsored by COPER and Front Range BOCES). Some very good points were made: (1) Collaborative civic engagement – the more collaborative a community, the more likely to have good government, healthy community, and quality schools. (2) Engagement isn’t a method – it’s a philosophy. (3) If you’re advocating, you’re not engaging. (4) If you want to change things, you must engage those you wish to change. (5) We compartmentalize groups in our society; we assume that the “camps” are monolithic, but we can find allies within them. (6) We have a cultural belief that independence is best, and we fear that interdependence is dependence. (7) We don’t need charismatic leaders; we need people who will take responsibility, people who will reflect rather than represent. (8) Engagement means the outcome is open, not pre-determined. (9) Shift focus from what we want to how we bring people together. (10) Watch out for CAVE people (Citizens Against Virtually Everything). (11) Chinese proverb: It’s not enough to build a bridge; you must get people to cross it. I also attended meetings of the Colorado School Finance Project, a meeting about Alternative Licensure, the CASE conference, a NASBE meeting, the National Board Certified Teachers luncheon, the HR-1 Hub Committee, the SBE Retreat, the quarterly meeting of the State Advisory Committee for Gifted and Talented Education, and meetings of the Large District Accountability Committee and CDE to plan training(s) for accountability committees.
LITTLETON: Honored to be able to work with such fine people who are so concerned about children. Hopefully will bring a different perspective because she works in the field of education in Colorado and several other states. Has attended the CCIRA (Colorado Council of the International Reading Association) conference. Going to the Courage to Risk conference in Colorado Springs.
MUNN: Welcomed Peggy Littleton. Hopes to work with her and not too often against her. Had knee surgery so didn’t do much, but did attend the NASBE Board meeting. Attended the meeting of the Achievement Gap Commission; there is a lot of work that needs to be done. We need to remember that the Board has a leadership role.
ORR: [Absent.]
POLIS: Sends best wishes for recovery to Christine Baca, who has lost her voice again. Had Board Retreat this last weekend. Met with students from Fountain-Fort Carson HS. Were impressed by the classes they took. On Saturday we went through our Board’s Strategic Plan, with the help of the Executive Director of NASBE. We went through a Board self-evaluation, tweaked our Strategic Plan, and reviewed the history of how the SBE created the content standards.
SUCKLA: Welcomed Peggy Littleton. Look forward to working with her for many years. We are willing to help her in any way.
COMMISSIONER MOLONEY: Yesterday the SBE met with the Governor to discuss current educational policy. One thing that speaks very well of all concerned was the spirit of cooperation. Yesterday the Governor’s new Educational Policy staff member, Cameron Lynch, visited with the Board.
Approved the request from St. Vrain Valley School District for a waiver of statute 22-32-117 (2) (b) (II). [The waived statute says: “A board may not require a pupil who has not completed the 12th grade to pay ... any fees for any course of study, instruction, or class that satisfies the requirements of or transfers the skill, knowledge, or information necessary to meet the requirements of any course taken for credit, promotion, or graduation.” Skyline High School, located in the St. Vrain Valley School District, has developed a proposal by which certain student fees would be charged for retaking required classes in grades 9-12. The proposal was approved by the district’s board of education. The waiver will continue in effect indefinitely or until the State Board receives evidence that constitutes good just cause for revocation. A similar retake fee program has been in effect in two high schools in the Thompson Valley School District, where Dr. Randy Zila was employed prior to becoming St. Vrain’s superintendent.]
(1) EMERGENCY EDUCATOR AUTHORIZATIONS
Approved emergency Type III educator authorizations for 26 initially and 18 renewals.
[Local districts may request Type III Emergency Authorization to employ non-licensed teachers, principals, administrators, or special services providers if they agree to provide an induction program. The SBE’s approval is based on consideration of whether the district has demonstrated a shortage of licensed personnel and the employment of non-licensed personnel is essential to preserving the instructional program and to the well-being of the children enrolled.]
(2) DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
(These remain confidential until action is taken by the Board.)
Accepted and approved the terms and conditions of the settlement agreements for one substitute teacher.
Dismissed the charges and approved the issuance of a license for one provisionally licensed teacher and one substitute teacher.
Instructed the department staff and the attorney general’s office to prepare the documents requesting a formal hearing to revoke the provisional license of one teacher.
(3) TEACHER INDUCTION PROGRAM
Approved the Teacher Induction Program for Seven Oaks Academy of Longmont.
[Colorado school districts wishing to hire provisionally licensed educators are required to have induction programs approved by the SBE. Induction programs include mentors for new teachers and ongoing professional development.]
(4) PRINCIPAL AND ADMINISTRATOR INDUCTION PROGRAM
Approved the Principal and Administrator Induction Program for the Norwood School District.
[Colorado school districts wishing to hire provisionally licensed educators are required to have induction programs approved by the SBE. Induction programs include mentors for new teachers and ongoing professional development.]
Approved charter school waiver requests from February 12, 2004, to March 11, 2004, for Vista Charter School in the Montrose County School District.
Approved payments of $218,726,776.49 under the Public School Finance Act for state share of total program for the period of February 2004 through May 2004. [Local districts are entitled to receive monthly payments from the state by the 25th of each month, under provisions of the Public School Finance Act of 1994, as amended. The amounts of the monthly payments to districts for the period of February through May of 2004 will not change, since relevant data on which the payments are based do not change. By approving these fixed monthly amounts, the Board can provide a degree of certainty to districts during their planning and budgeting efforts. These payments incorporate final specific ownership tax revenues.]
Board members questioned the reason for certain terminology being eliminated, such as “syntax” and “emergent reader”; the reason explained by Lynn Bamberry of CDE is that these terms are no longer used in the field.
Motion passed unanimously to continue the oral portion of the hearing.
Conducted a Board-only discussion to consider amendments to the rules for the Administration of the Educator Licensing Act. [The Board has conducted a hearing on these rules, and at the last meeting, passed a motion to conduct a Board-only discussion on the rules.] [The enactment of HB 99-1039 and 03-1114 necessitate amendments to the Educator Licensing Act. The amendments relate to requirements for educator submission of fingerprints, requirements for school district reporting of educator misconduct, grounds and procedures concerning the denial, annulment, suspension, or revocation of educator licenses, and performance-based standards for Colorado teachers and principals. Additionally, a recent review of current rules concerning license and endorsement standards indicated several sections that are in conflict with state statutes.]
Moloney mentioned two issues about which concern has been raised. One is the participation of SBE/CDE with CCHE in the review of teacher preparation programs. He pointed out that SB 99-154 changed the manner in which this is done; it gave extensive power to both SBE and CCHE to review the programs. Every teacher preparation institution underwent an extensive review to see if they made necessary alternations to comply with the new teacher preparation standards. The first cycle of review following that initial approval is ongoing now. One of the reviews was scheduled on a date that the SBE was meeting, and Dorothy Gotlieb (head of the Office of Professional Services and Educator Licensure) was needed to be here (thus was unable to attend).
The other area of concern is in a particular sentence in the rules regarding assessment: “The CDE Office of Professional Services will evaluate all new and renewing teacher preparation programs for consistency with SBE teacher preparation content standards, including the assessment of the content of those programs, based on 22-2-109, and recommend to CCHE approval or disapproval of such programs.” Gotlieb believes that this rule is adequate, since all rules are subject to review by Legislative Legal Services, and if there is anything incompatible with the law, we will be told. Gotlieb pointed out that CCHE is unable to approve a teacher preparation program without CDE’s approval that it meets the content standards and teacher preparation standards. There is a duplication of semantics – e.g., “content” and “standards” mean different things to the two entities. “Content” to CCHE is program implementation. We check on what is taught; they check on how the services are delivered. We are responsible for seeing that our standards are carried out. Gotlieb also pointed out that the SBE determines what assessments are given to determine if teachers have adequate content knowledge (by the PLACE or Praxis exam); CCHE can determine the timing of those tests. However, by CCHE’s decision of the timing for the test, it prevents the use of one of the tests that the SBE allows. By CCHE saying that they will only allow Praxis, they disallow a test that is based on our standards and doesn’t include 4 of the areas of endorsement. DeHoff pointed out that the SBE determines the manner in which teacher proficiency is measured.
DeHoff pointed out that the Educator Professional Standards Board is not mentioned in our rules but is still in statute. Gotlieb confirmed that we left it out because of a bill that is passing the General Assembly eliminating that board. DeHoff asked if Alternative Licensure programs are under the laws for review. Gotlieb said that under CDE’s new policy, all Aternative Licensure programs will be reviewed.
Polis asked Gotlieb to describe what a site visit to a teacher preparation program looks like. She said that NCATE, CCHE, and CDE examine the courses given at the institution and compare them with the standards, including the following: which coursework covers the required content and pedagogy, what assignments are given to convey specific knowledge, and how students’ knowledge and performance are measured. It involves analysis of paperwork (such as catalogs and curriculum), as well as interviews with staff.
Motion to approve the rules as amended passed unanimously.
Conducted a hearing to consider permanent rules for the Administration of the School Improvement Plan and Grant Program. [At the October 9, 2003, meeting of the SBE, the rules for the Administration of the School Improvement Plan and Grant Program were repealed in their entirety, whereas only the portion relating to the school improvement grant bonuses needed to be repealed. Staff suggested readopting the entire rule and repealing only the obsolete paragraph. The SBE adopted emergency rules as such in December, and it now needs to adopt permanent rules.]
Gary Sibigtroth, Assistant Commissioner, said that the rules for the School Improvement Plan can be used with Accreditation, NCLB, and the part of SB 00-186 requiring the conversion of Unsatisfactory schools to charter schools. We will need to add new rules on this last topic. The part of these rules relating to the Grant Program are being deleted, since the General Assembly deleted that portion of the law. Moloney pointed out that if SB 83 passes, a number of schools will be eliminated from the list of Unsatisfactory schools that will need to be converted.
Munn po the rules related to school improvement plans for Accreditation and for NCLB don’t seem to fit. Sibigtroth said that we can add language to do that, which is one reason that he is recommending that we continue the hearing to another month. DeHoff suggested that we also consider some of the aspects of the CTAG legislation – specifically, schools with a significant achievement gap. Moloney said that we have the authority to create rules as we see fit. The rules for Accreditation may be more appropriate for that.
Motion passed unanimously to continue the oral portion of the hearing.
Colorado School Finance Project, presented by Tracie Rainey, Executive Director:
School reform legislation in the 1990s has had a significant effect on school finance. There have been studies done in about 35 other states on the adequacy of state funding for public schools. Only a few states did the studies the way Colorado did, using two approaches, the “professional judgment” and “successful schools” models. Question often asked is if Amendment 23 provides adequate funding. Not really, said Rainey, since its goal is only to restore funding to 1989 levels, which was previous to all the state’s school reform programs. She presented a graph showing projections for the academic expectations under NCLB and the finances to fund it, compared with the funding expected by Amendment 23. It becomes increasingly more expensive, because of the groups of students whose proficiency needs to be raised as NCLB’s goals increase towards 100% proficiency. She presented a breakdown for every school district of adequacy when adjusted by cost of living to current spending.
DeHoff questioned some of the assumptions of determining adequacy, doing it on a statewide basis, and assuming that it must be done under the current system. Littleton concurred with DeHoff’s concerns; in looking at Cherry Creek versus Aurora, the disparity of the numbers of at-risk students. She said that NCLB money is supposed to focus on prevention of the achievement gap. Rainey said that it doesn’t consider how the money is spent and delivery of instruction. It is based on district size and populations. Munn responded that the study took in an assessment of what it would cost if we continue to doing the same things. He pointed out that the success in the Fountain-Fort Carson district demonstrates that when you combine additional resources (they got a lot of federal funds) coupled with the right attitude, high achievement can be reached. I asked about the School Finance Project’s findings regarding district size. Very small districts and very large districts can have particular problems if they have large numbers of certain at-risk populations.
The Board will consider an amended version of the Resolution on Student Engagement previously adopted on May 10, 2001.
The Board will consider a resolution supporting full funding for IDEA.
RICHARD GARCIA (Director of the Statewide Parent Coalition): Not here as a member of CCHE (of which he is a Commissioner), but suggests that we consider meeting with them. Is here representing the Statewide Parent Coalition. It has been doing a lot of work around the state. One project is part of the Teacher Development Grant. The SPC is working with 7 schools to improve parent involvement by helping teacher, and principals work better with parents. Pointed out that teachers are not required to take a specific class on parent involvement; there used to be one. The SPC has been looking at bringing this issue to the forefront. Teachers are a vital element in encouraging parents. He invited us to attend the annual SPC conference in Keystone on Memorial Day weekend. Later this month, they are bringing together people from the 7 schools to share what they are planning. Will look at the parent involvement policies required by NCLB.
DR. COPPER STOLL (Director of CAMLE, Colorado Association of Middle Level): She is a middle school principal in Cherry Creek. Is very pleased with CDE’s response to the concerns brought to us by her the last time. Will be coming back in March to let us know which are middle “schools to watch.” There is confusion in published materials about highly qualified teachers in middle school, between elementary endorsement versus subject area endorsement. Found 3 different explanations on CDE’s web page in different areas. Elementary endorsement goes through age 12, which is 7th grade. To prevent future confusion, asking CDE to fix up the conflicting information.
DAVID CARLSON (7th Grade Science Teacher at West Middle School): Is one of those teachers impacted by the NCLB criteria for “highly qualified teachers.” His school has received the John Irwin Award for Excellence. His endorsement is in elementary education. Doesn’t feel that taking another course on physics will help him do a better job with 7th grade students. Believes that he is highly qualified in the real sense because he can help early adolescents learn. The curriculum he teaches he knows quite well. He is Cherry Creek’s Teacher of the Year this year. Believes that elementary-endorsed 7th grade teachers should be highly qualified as well as 6th grade science teachers.
Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved