a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
SUCKLA: Is glad to be on the West Slope in Rifle for this Board meeting. Will give her report tomorrow.
MIDDLETON: Was appointed as the SBE member on the School Finance Interim Committee Task Force. The Interim Committee has met twice so far and the Task Force met once. All that has been discussed is background information on school finance and how the funding formula was devised and amended over time. Not sure if the Task Force is going to recommend changing the formula. The formula is not bad; the problem is that there is not enough money behind it. Asked staff at CDE to bring information to the Task Force on how funding works, so they would have correct, realistic information. [DeHoff interrupted at this point and expressed disappointment about her not giving the other Board members copies of the committee’s agenda or the handouts given at meetings and about her not keeping us more “in the loop.” Middleton said that she hasn’t gotten anything electronically. DeHoff said that he has! Middleton said that her intention was to update us at every Board meeting about what was going on, and she was surprised that he received information over e-mail when she herself had not.] [Then Moloney criticized Middleton for asking staff to produce a large amount of information that would take many people a lot of time. She said that she hadn’t asked for more than a few links to locations on the CDE website where information was available, and she had also asked for a staff person to attend the Task Force, since the person assigned to the committee was unable to attend the last meeting.]
DEHOFF: Attended the CDE training for new superintendents; it was excellent. It covered all anyone would want to know about school finance and who does what at CDE. Went to the press conference last week releasing the CSAP results. Attended the CASE conference and got to speak with many administrators. Went to the CASE workshop about closing the achievement gap, which made the point that there isn’t just one gap – there is a race gap, an income gap, and a mobility gap. Also went to a workshop entitled “Is College for Everyone?” Former SBE member Gully Stanford, who now works for CCHE, was also at that workshop. The implication made by the presenter was that not everyone needs to be prepared to attend college, which was disturbing.
MUNN: Is continuing to do a “tour” of educational groups to talk about closing the achievement gap. Has discussed the SBE’s decision on defining a “significant achievement gap” with CASE and CASB. Has also been involved in discussions with DPS about the issue of districts funding college courses for high school students, because of the controversy surrounding Lincoln High School in the Sheridan School District [allowing students to attend a 5th year of high school and concurrently be enrolled in community college].
ORR: Attended the CLASS conference; it was great for providing an education about school trust lands and receiving updates on the issue. It was held in Colorado, and he was asked to give a keynote address when Don Ament had to cancel. For his speech he calculated the total number of students in all the states with trust lands. Has applied to be on the State Land Board, as has Pam Suckla. Was glad to be able to fill in for Suckla at the press conference on CSAP last week; since his second term on the SBE is almost up, that might have been his last CSAP press conference. In his address there he gave the big picture, using the example of the Wright brothers, who didn’t give in to their father’s belief that it was impossible for a craft to be built that could fly. Dreams of the day when all students are proficient on CSAP, just as the Wright brothers dreamed of flying. Recently attended a community fiesta, where Don Perl, the person who led the anti-CSAP campaign, had a booth. They had a long “discussion” about CSAP.
HUDAK: I also attended the CASE conference last week. The perception there was that CSAP is fully accepted. [Orr found that surprising, since in his district, in the Greeley area, there are many who persist in complaining about it.] I also attended the CLASS conference and found it to be very educational. I pointed out that CLASS was created by PTA members from Utah, and I noted that there was high attendance at the conference of PTA members from the Western states. I didn’t go to the new superintendents’ training, but I did attend the dinner with them. I learned there that none of the 12 school districts in the 2nd CD have a new superintendent; it is nice to not have any turnover in the district this year.
POLIS: Nothing to report.
[LITTLETON was absent.]
Suckla thanked the other 7 SBE members for showing up at the press conference last week and Polis and Orr for speaking there. Jo O’Brien, Assistant Commissioner for Learning and Results, said she hears a lot about kids opting out of taking CSAP, but this is not backed up by the facts, which show participation rates of 98%-99% of 3rd - 6th graders and 96%-98% of 7th - 10th graders. The state’s average participation rate is over 97% on CSAP and nearly 96% on the ACT. Beth Celva, head of the Assessment Unit, said that audits are done when CSAP is scored, and they look at the responses that are clearly inappropriate – the numbers have been decreasing over the past years, and last year there were only 50 in the entire state. More commonly, students write “I don’t know” or write essays complaining about how accountable they are being held. Reading results have been fairly flat over the past several years, at about 65% proficiency. Whether we look at it longitudinally or at any one grade year after year, it remains the same. The Writing results show that overall, there has been steady, but slow, improvement over time, especially in the middle grades and high school. There is only one “lonely” Science test; the results of that have been flat over the past several years. The ACT results have shown some small gains. Math has shown some good results and some not so good. The gender gap in Math is minimal and is the smallest of the states. All ethnic groups showed gains. There were good results for the new 3rd and 4th grade Math tests, which had the highest levels of proficiency of all the grades. The bad news is that the percentages of students who are proficient go down steadily from 3rd through 10th grade; however, the amount of the drop is decreasing. O’Brien attributes the Year of Math, specifically the reintroduction of the Math Frameworks, for the increases. There was also a discussion about the connection of math instruction with higher education. The recognition of math-successful schools was good, since some schools that were never highlighted before got credit for good work. Because of the individual student identification numbers, we can now track individual students’ progress over time. In looking at the last 3 years of data for which we have had the ID numbers, we found that 75% of students who were Unsatisfactory in 5th grade (about 5,000 statewide) are still Unsatisfactory in 7th grade. But 23% moved to Partially Proficient, only 0.2% moved to Proficient, and none moved to Advanced. However, of the students who scored Proficient in 5th grade (about 18,000 students), 52% remained Proficient in 7th grade, 34% dropped to Partially Proficient, and 12% moved to Advanced. O’Brien said that we have “momentum” because we can track students year to year in reading, writing, and math, with SASIDs. The “Year of” series has gotten off to a strong start. The CEDAR/COGNOS system will build capacity to look at data.
CDE has formulated a timeline for NCLB to determine revisions of our state plan. An analysis was done of how our state compares with NCLB results across the country. Our success rate with AYP is #3 in the nation, behind North Carolina and Texas. Moloney said that he shared with Secretary Spellings our state’s proposal to identify AYP success by percentage of targets met, rather than all-or-nothing. I asked if he is suggesting that we propose to change our plan to incorporate this. Moloney said that it is possible. Moloney said that the Hub Committee will be essential in working with us as we devise the revised state plan. He pointed out that Dorothy Gotlieb will take over Roscoe Davidson’s job as chair of the Hub Committee, and that it will meet next on September 28. Senator Windels and Representative Merrifield have asked the Board to make a presentation to the Joint House and Senate Education Committees when the session begins as to what we want to submit as our revised plan. Suckla suggested that we ensure that meetings of all the advisory committees be made known to the public so that the other educational stakeholders are able to attend. I recommended that we put them on our SBE homepage. The AYP calculations are being done at this time. The USDE is pressuring us to have them done by the beginning of the school year and have threatened to fine us if they are not done on time. However, some of our schools have already begun their school year. CDE is hoping to have them done within the next couple of weeks.
New Castle, Silt, and Rifle are in the Garfield RE-2 School District. They are participating in the Civic Mission of Schools pilot program. The district got a new superintendent in 2001 after the one they had for many years retired. They were very fortunate to have Gary Pack, who was named a Distinguished Educator in Kentucky and worked on the High School Restructuring Task Force there. The School Board members are very dedicated and a couple of them were in attendance. The district has about 4000 students, putting it in the top third largest in the state. The district’s population is exploding with the development of the natural gas industry in the area. They expect oil shale to be upcoming also. Property values and the cost of living are rising rapidly in the district. There has been a recent influx of Latino students, working mostly in the construction industry and somewhat in the resorts. The community is mostly working class, not just the Latino population. When the new superintendent came in, the district embarked on a school reform plan, focusing on standards, frameworks for improvements (largely in regard to evaluation and the school improvement process), training for the staff (which the school board members attend as well), research-based practice, strong public engagement, recruitment of very high-quality staff, and up-to-date technology. They are strongly committed to their vision and mission; these are not just pieces of paper posted on a wall (their vision is to “encourage, nurture, and challenge every student, every day”). Recently the district passed a bond program and a mill levy, allowing them to build and improve their schools; these were “sold” to the community on the basis of improving the learning environments. They built some new schools, reconfigured the grades in the various schools, reduced class sizes, and thus recently hired 80 new teachers. After the SBE Work Session today, we will be visiting the new high school, Coal Ridge High School, that will be opening this fall.
Paula Stephenson, president of Rural Schools Caucus, which has 90 school districts as members, spoke to us. It isn’t that easy to define “rural.” They are talking about small and medium-sized districts in rural areas of the state. Declining enrollment is the biggest issue, because of the economy. They have a small concern about charter schools and online schools drawing away enrollment, but primarily it is the lack of jobs. Another big issue is the cost of providing special education, especially if they get one or two students with very high needs. Another funding issue is transportation; it isn’t equitable for rural districts that transport students long distances (e.g., Rangeview, which transports some kids 60 miles each way) over roads that are often not paved. Having highly qualified teachers is another issue, to attract or retain teachers. Some small districts are considering opting out of NCLB because of that issue. Representatives of the Meeker School District came to add their perspective. They don’t have the economies of scale; for example, getting a teacher for foreign language when there are only enough students for one class. They considered online courses, but they believe that having a teacher in person with the students is better. Students must have foreign language to attend college. They want students to have music and art, but those are programs that are hard to staff with a job that someone would be willing to take. They asked if we can truly say that we’re delivering a uniform education throughout the state when rural districts have these problems. Polis asked if consolidating school districts would be a solution; they said it wouldn’t be because these small districts, population-wise, are huge in terms of the land area they cover. Also, there is a sense of community among the small districts, and consolidating them would not fit in with their sense of community. There was a long discussion about the Highly Qualified Teacher provision of NCLB. The principal of a school in Meeker said that they advertised a special education teaching position and had no response for two years. If they hire a recent college graduate, the person would have to pay out of his or her own pocket, being on the bottom of the pay scale, to get the courses to gain HQT status. It is hard to attract people to Meeker, which has few entertainment opportunities, high costs (e.g., gas is $2.50/gal there), and long distances to travel for regular services.
Don Stratman, new Executive Director of the BOCES Association, and Ed VanderTook, director of the Mountain BOCES, spoke to us next. Stratman introduced himself. For the past 18 years, has observed people performing education miracles. He has been a teacher, principal, and superintendent. He is concerned about the use of resources; we need to use them wisely and form partnerships. At our July meeting we approved LEA status for BOCES; he thanked us for it. Their intention is to work with CASE, CASB, CEA, and SBE to implement this. They are looking into grant applications from CDE in order to provide opportunities for districts to maximize resources and form partnerships to do things that are difficult. There are several different types of BOCES. One is for special education, one is for single purposes (e.g. at-risk management or staff development), and one is for many purposes. There are 21 BOCES working with 168 school districts. They are locally governed and are really an extension of member school districts. The purposes of BOCES include fostering shared services, providing shared services, and encouraging cooperation among districts. They will share recommendations when the work on a piece about how BOCES can help improve student achievement is complete. They are working on strengthening BOCES leadership, to engage in training activities to help districts recruit staff. They would like restoration of the $10,000 per BOCES that the Legislature used to allocate and asked the SBE to advocate for that on our legislative agenda. VanderTook said that although his BOCES has less than the statewide average of special education students, they have had an increase in high-needs students such as those with autism. Students with emotional/behavioral problems have increased as well. The Maintain BOCES spends two-thirds of its budget on special education. They are heavily involved in the data-mining project. They operate a telecommunications system, provide a school media program, and provide an alternative teacher license program, which has 13 signed up for this year. Personnel issues are the biggest issue they face. They are short many specialists, such as speech therapists. They provide a day treatment program. Resources equal people, time, and money. There is still a technological divide; in the mountains, it is very expensive to lay lines for the Internet. BOCES have been level-funded for the Exceptional Students Education Act.
Commissioner Moloney said that we have sought help from the Governor and groups like the Colorado Children’s Campaign in our work to determine how to calculate the graduation and dropout rates that is statutorily required of the SBE by November. Alex Medler, an expert on the topic from CCC, said that people throughout the country are clamoring for a consistent way to calculate graduation and dropout rates. He says that it’s not for the purpose of making public education look bad, but to determine areas in need of improvement. Colorado’s graduation rate is 69-72% by some measures; CCC calculates it as 62%. Medler believes that the CCC’s estimate is close to accurate. He suggested that we use a method like the Urban Institute does, which includes population shifts. He suggested that GEDs should count as dropouts. He pointed out that transfers are removed from the calculations. The CCC can help get us in touch with the national experts on this topic. The National Governors Association is working on this issue and has made recommendations. Moloney said that we would like the decision we make to be not just a CDE method, but one that reflects all of Colorado. Since our last SBE meeting, CDE staff has had discussions from the people who do data collection in school districts. The biggest problem for making accurate calculations is students who say that they are transferring to another district. If it is within the state of Colorado, we can use the SASID to verify this. However, if it is out of state, we have no way to ensure that the student truly transferred. Middleton said that it helps that this is something that the education community is looking at nationwide. The NGA’s formula shows very similar numbers to ours, except for the issue of students who repeat a grade in high school. Byron Pendley said that the new law requires us to use the results in Accreditation, but there is a lot of flexibility. Polis said that this is an opportunity to educate the community on the issue, and we will need to communicate well to people what this is for and what it means. DeHoff agreed that if everyone understands what data is going into the calculation and what we’re using it for, people should be all right with it. I spoke strongly in favor of counting students who get a GED as graduates, although I would agree that they might count as dropouts. I said that we might draw the line at people who get their GED before age 21, since the state constitution requires our supervision only of children ages 6 through 21. Middleton said that her big concern is for us to ensure that we give the public adequate opportunity to give us input on this issue. We will adopt emergency rules in November, and at that time we will have a public hearing for the permanent rules. Middleton would like a public hearing sooner than that. Medler said that we have to define 4 rates: graduation, dropout, completion, and mobility. Each of them will describe different things, which is a big opportunity. Stroup pointed out that the bill requires us to “consider” students getting a GED and students on IEPs. It was confirmed very strongly that CDE is taking input from everyone who is interested.
CDE is working on our budget proposal, which is “very interesting” to do at this time, since the School Finance Interim Committee is meeting and Referenda C and D are on the November ballot. If the Referenda don’t pass, the state will have a deficit of $300 million, and all departments will have only 15 days to revise their budget. The rumor mill is saying that if C and D don’t pass and the state has such as large deficit, the state won’t be able to fund schools fully, despite Amendment 23. We will tell OSPB that our top priority is continued funding for everything that we have previously funded. The problem in doing so is that student enrollment growth and inflation (and other regular increases in the same line items) will cost $158.4 million more. There has been concern raised in the press about the cost of the new English Language Assessment required by NCLB. Districts have been bearing the cost of administering the current ELAs, so if the new test is comparable in cost, it won’t make much difference. But because the state (on behalf of the federal government) is requiring all districts to use the one test, taking away districts’ ability to choose which of three tests to use, they are asking if the state could pick up the cost. Stroup said we could do that by reallocating the categorical funding; the total cost is about $1.8 million. Munn said he thinks it’s a bad precedent to support “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” He favors asking for new money to pay for it. DeHoff said it’s safer for everyone if we come up with a long-range plan, rather than a one-time fix that might not be approved in future years. Orr suggested that we “go for the gold” and ask for new money to pay for it; he said it’s worth a try, and we can always go to Plan B if they refuse to agree. DeHoff said this might take away our credibility to ask for new money for new programs, such as expanding full-day kindergarten. I suggested that we pay only the difference between what the districts are paying now and the cost of the new test. We have to make a decision immediately, because OSPB needs our decision items. We decided to “sleep on it” and decide tomorrow, since there did not seem to be consensus. We also need $2.5 million additional to pay for CSAP, because the federal money being used to fund CSAP is likely to be discontinued. We need 3 new staff people in auditing and in the School Finance Unit, but Stroup said that the cost won’t have to come out of General Fund money because there is funding in the School Finance Act to cover them (still it requires approval). We are asking for $91 million to catch us up with the commitment in statute for the Giardino lawsuit settlement. We are also asking for additional money for libraries and BOCES.
Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved