a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
A. CHARTER SCHOOL APPEAL ON JANUARY 11, 2006 Found that the decision of the Jefferson County School District in denying the application of the Teddy Roosevelt Academy Charter School was contrary to the best interests of the pupils, district, or community. (Vote was 4:3; Hudak, Middleton, and Munn dissented. Polis “voluntarily” recused himself to avoid any appearance of impropriety, since his charter school, the New American School, was recently approved by the district.)
B. CHARTER SCHOOL APPEAL ON JANUARY 11, 2006 Found that the decision of the Jefferson County School District in denying the application of the Madison Charter High School was contrary to the best interests of the pupils, district, or community. (Vote was 5:2; Hudak and Middleton dissented. Polis “voluntarily” recused himself to avoid any appearance of impropriety, since his charter school, the New American School, was recently approved by the district.)
(Suckla asked us to keep these short because we have a long agenda and need to go to the Governor’s State of the State Address during the meeting.)
DEHOFF: This year is the 100th anniversary of the Stock Show.
HUDAK: When we met with the legislative Committee on Legal Services on Monday and they unanimously negated the rules we passed on the Exceptional Children’s Education Act, there were some noteable quotes by special education directors: “This is a difficult issue in the field, when we don’t have enough money.” – Mary Sires. “These rules made it so we were all speaking common language. I think it has encouraged school choice for students with disabilities.” – Linda Murray. “It fosters a cooperative relationship between districts.” – Troy Lang. I will be going to the next meeting of the Eligible Facilities Advisory Committee, and I will be on two panels at the CASE Winter Conference.
LITTLETON: Will be on the Early Childhood Study Group in NASBE, which is meeting next week. Recommends that we watch 20-20 tomorrow night, when there will be a report “Are American Kids Stupid?”
MIDDLETON: Had a special education community forum in Aurora with Rep. Morgan Carroll. Will be on the NASBE Study Group on Civics next week.
MUNN: Will be attending the first meeting of the CU Blue Ribbon Committee on Diversity. Sits on the Denver Foundation Grants Committee that gives education grants and which will have its first meeting coming up. Will be speaking in Aurora at Ponderosa High School, where his niece attends.
POLIS: Has been the Board’s liaison to the Gifted and Talented Advisory Committee. Is chairing the NASBE study committee on Financial Education. Spoke at a Lakewood town meeting this past weekend with several Jeffco legislators – it was a very savy audience; Next week will do an education panel with Hudak in Vail. Had meetings with the Piton Foundation and Colorado Children’s Campaign about after-school programs and early childhood.
SCHAFFER: [No report.]
SUCKLA: The 3rd CD is a huge district, and we seldom get visitors from there on this side of the mountain, but today we have the superintendent from Montezuma-Cortez School District. The district is proud of him. It’s her own school district. Welcomed Jim Wilson, president of CASE.
COMMISSIONER MOLONEY: Distributed to Board members a CD of the Town Meeting on Education in Greeley, starring Clair Orr; this will be used as a training tape. We had at Schaffer’s swearing in yesterday more members of the General Assembly than we’ve ever seen here; it’s a tribute to bi-partisanship. Also, we discussed NCLB, work that is the most important we can do. Progress often upsets people. For example, look at the Revolutionary War and the Civil Rights Movement. We must never lose our willingness to upset people. NCLB is deeply flawed legislation, but it is the ideal of it that is important. “The soft bigotry of low expections” is an invisible enemy; we will be up to the challenge.
Adopted the amended Board Meeting Dates for 2006. The March meeting was changed to March 8-9 (from March1-2, since the NASBE Legislative Conference is the third week, rather than the second week as it has usually been).
Scheduled a hearing on the rules for the Administration of the Colorado School Children’s Asthma and Anaphylaxis Act for the March 9, 2006, Board meeting. [The Colorado General Assembly passed into law SB 156 which establishes the Colorado Schoolchildren's Asthma and Anaphylaxis Health Management Act, which requires the department to promulgate rules for the administration of a treatment plan that will allow qualified students to administer their own medication. In the past some schools have restricted students from doing this. The Colorado General Assembly has determined that it is in the best interests of student safety to create situations where it is acceptable for the student to take responsibility for the administration of their won medication. The SBE already passed rules for the implementation of this Act, but they were deemed insufficient by Legislative Legal Services.]
Approved the expenditure of $54,377 from the Mary Jones Trust Fund. [The Mary Jones Trust Fund was created in 1981 when a donation of $91,000 was made to the Colorado Talking Book Library. Since that time, the fund has increased to $1,141,697. The intended use of the Trust is to support projects that have an impact on a large number of library patrons. CTBL is requesting that funds from the trust be used for operational expenses. This expenditure is monitored by the CDE Chief of Staff. All requests for expenditures must be made to the CDE Chief of Staff in writing by the director of CTBL and must be approved before any funds are expended. There is a balance of $1,141,697 in the Fund as of December 2005. CTBL is requesting $4000 for the period of 7-1-05 to 6-30-06, since the salary cost is actually $48,497 and only $45,000 was requested and approved. In addition, CTBL is requesting $50,377 for the period of 7-1-06 to 6-30-07, which is the position cost, not just the salary cost..]
(1) 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 licensed teacher. * Instruct department staff to issue a notice of denial and appeal rights to an applicant for substitute authorization. * Instructed department staff to issue a notice of denial and appeal rights to the applicant for substitute authorization, and instructed department staff and the state attorney general's office to prepare the documents necessary to request a formal hearing for the revocation of the holder's current authorization.
(2) EDUCATOR PREPARATION PROGRAMS
Approved the content of the proposed endorsement preparation programs in Educational Leadership-Principal program at Regis University. [Course materials were submitted by Regis and reviewed by applicable CDE staff. The courses appear to be developed as based on and are reflective of the reflective of the required content for meeting licensure requirements for this endorsement area. Comments and suggestions, offered by staff, have been shared with Regis. The college has been working to align its program with the SBE teacher performance-based preparation standards.]
Re-authorized the licensure/endorsement preparation program content at the Fort Lewis College. [CDE and CCHE have been working together on, and have mutually agreed to, the process by which the re-approvals of License/Endorsement programs will be conducted. Ft. Lewis College, Durango, Colorado is requesting re-authorization of its teacher education programs. A Ft. Lewis College site visit was conducted in April 19-20, 2005, and Ft. Lewis College has met the requirements for authorization, which has led to CDE’s request for the SBE’s approval of the re-authorization of the Ft. Lewis College educator preparation program.]
Approved charter school waiver requests from January 12, 2006, to June 30, 2009, for Lotus School of Excellence Charter School in the Aurora (Adams-Arapahoe) School District.
Approved payments of $239,180,011.94 under the Public School Finance Act for state share of total program for January 2006. [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.]
Discussed adopting the resolution concerning Online Education, resolving “that the Colorado State Board of Education supports the following principles regarding online schools in the state:
Polis said that he thinks this is an important first step, but we should do more. Schaffer said he doubts he will support the resolution. He said it is right for the Board to be concerned about online education, but he is not sure it warrants a resolution by the Board. He asked if there is an organization of some sort that approached the SBE to provide more oversight of online schools. He asked why there is concern on this issue. He said that the statements covered in the resolution are already addressed in state law. Also, he said that there are processes taking place currently to audit online education in the state, and he wonders if a resolution of this kind might be more appropriate after that takes place. Finally, he expressed concern about assuming that all state and federal laws should be applicable to this type of revolutionary form of education; he said that it is not his intention.
DeHoff said that this resolution is an attempt to head off attempts to over-regulate online education. There are two sides, some that want more regulation, and some that want none. The Cyberschools Association wants some clarity from the Board. The SBE has the authority we need to ensure that quality exists, through Accreditation of the school district. We have in fact put one district (Branson) on Accreditation Watch because of low CSAP participation. It is a reminder to online schools that they must meet certain quality standards and to assure the broader public that we are watching the quality. The advantage of a resolution is that it’s a position statement, not rules that put requirements on districts. Polis added that legislators frequently ask us what we’re doing in regard to online schools, and it is a perennial issue in the Legislature. He said that this “shows the sense of our Board.” Middleton pointed out that we have been trying to get funding back into the budget for supplementary online programs. She said that this field has developed rapidly, and it is hard for small districts to have adequate resources. I pointed out that in this year’s SBE legislative priorities, as well as last year’s, there was an inclusion of increased access to online, which was put in with the promise that the SBE would work on rules to ensure quality in online programs; I reviewed the history of the work in CDE that has been done on it by Deputy Commissioners Davidson and Gotlieb. Commissioner Moloney confirmed what I said, adding that what Gotlieb wrote were administrative procedures that CDE will utilize in administering Accreditation.
Suckla pointed out that our practice on the Board is to approve resolutions only if there is unanimity on them. Schaffer said that nothing he heard has changed his opposition to this, and what I said in particular confirmed his opposition. He said he is not willing to have the state to impose its will on these programs or what parents “purchase” for their children. I pointed out that these are public schools, and thus parents do not purchase online programs in public schools; he responded that the purchase takes place with taxpayer dollars. Polis suggested that the timing is important because the legislative session started this week, but he is willing to postpone it a month. The consensus was to postpone it until next month.
Approved emergency Type III educator authorizations for 23 initially and 1 renewal renewals (only DeHoff dissented, continuing to show his opposition to granting any emergency authorizations). [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.]
Adopted the Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, in the case of a substitute teacher applying for emergency authorization, to deny the Emergency Authorization application; requested that the conflicts counsel for the Board prepare the proposed order in accordance with the Board’s decision; and assigned the Commissioner to sign the order for the Board.
Approved charter school waiver requests from January 12, 2006, to June 30, 2008, for the New America Charter School in the Aurora (Adams-Arapahoe) School District. (Polis recused himself from the vote, since he is on the board of the New America School.)
Conducted a hearing on the rules for the Administration of Closing the Achievement Gap. [The new rules say only the following: “Eligibility for participation in the voluntary program referenced in 22-7-611, C.R.S., shall be limited to schools with an achievement gap meeting the following criteria: school at which current and prior year reading gap is larger than the state average gap, and school at which current and prior year math gap is larger than the state average gap.”]
JONATHAN DINGS (Assessment Director for Boulder Valley): Suggested that we tighten the method for computing the gap based only on students who are included in the SARs. Concerned about schools with large infux of students with little or no English, because even with the most exemplary instruction, they are unable to perform adequately on CSAP.
Moloney explained that the rules proposed are “mercifully short” and ensure that there are no sanctions; they have been approved informally by our legal counsel. Munn said that he and DeHoff have some small amendments to propose. He said that while this small program has a narrow scope, it at least says what we mean by an achievement gap and shows our intent to work on closing the gap. He said we should be clear that we should “be about that business.” We have asked “our friends across the street” for some “help” in that process. He said that this is the bare minimum of what is required by statute. He acknowledged that this is just a starting point; we need to instruct staff on working with schools with a gap and working with the Legislature for funding.
DeHoff moved an addition, statutuory language from 22-7-604(5): “or has received an annual performance rating of ‘Unsatisfactory.’” I asked if we should have an official definition of “achievement gap,” understanding that it is a sensitive issue. Munn said that our informal definition in our “white paper” has been publicly disseminated. Middleton said that our department will work with the policy we established with our working definition. Munn pointed out that this gives us the flexibility to make changes if we see that some are needed. I asked if our working definition exempts students who are exempted from the SAR ratings or AYP. The answer is no.
The rules, as amended, were passed unanimously.
Adopted the rules for the Administration of Colorado Data Reporting for School Accreditation. [SB 05-91 required that the Board promulgate rules establishing statewide formulas for calculating (a) continuing education rates; (b) dropout rates; (c) graduation rates; (d) mobility rates; and (e) promotion rates. The Rules for the Administration of Colorado Data Reporting for School Accreditation provide formulas for calculating the aforementioned rates as well as provide specificity for nuances which have created inconsistent data reporting across Colorado school districts in the past. The hearing was conducted for the last three months, with the Board receiving a great deal of input from various stakeholders, not all of whom agreed on certain issues.]
Polis moved his proposed amendments, which are basically these two: change “adequate documentation of transfers” to allow only a request for records, and remove GED transfers from the dropout rate.
The first proposed amendment is to use a request for records as the only allowable documentation of transfers. Concern has been expressed about adequate documentation, because there are many cases where no records are requested. After extensive discussion about the proposed amendment, we initially agreed to add, after “request for records,” the following: “or notification of enrollment in a private school, home-based education program, or out-of-state/country educational entity.” However, Suckla proposed that we instead go back to the original language of the proposed rules, which allows “written notification of withdrawal” for documentation of a transfer. Schaffer said that we should have the most rigorous process of documentation, not one subject to parental claims of transfer rather than something that can be clearly documented. He doesn’t think it is too much to ask that districts follow up on students who leave. [He was disagreeing with the “written notification of withdrawal.”] The vote was 3:2 to take out “written notification of withdrawal” (Hudak and Suckla dissented; Littleton and Munn had left by this time, as it was 2 p.m., and DeHoff was temporarily out of the room. Then we went back and unanimously decided to add, after “request for records,” the following: “or notification of enrollment in a private school, home-based education program, or out-of-state/country educational entity.”
DeHoff asked what a “registered home-based education program” is in 1.01(8), saying that there is no registration specified in statute for home-based education programs. We all agreed to strike “registered.”
Suckla wanted to remove the paragraph stating the following: “A ‘transfer’ is, for the purposes of the graduation rate and the completer rate, a student who enrolls in another school that awards diplomas or a home-based education program (home school). It does not include students who enroll in a GED program. For the purposes of the dropout rate, a ‘transfer’ is a student who enrolls in another school that awards a diploma, or who enrolls in a GED program, or who enrolls in a home-based education program (home school).” Suckla was the only one who wanted to strike it, so it wasn’t stricken.
Suckla said that we had fought a hard battle on this issue. She pointed out that we had asked a committee composed of people from across the state to give us input, and our final decisions “ripped apart” what those people recommended. She fears that people will not want to serve on committees if that’s what the result is going to be from their input. Therefore, in the final vote on adoption of the rules, she voted no. DeHoff said that we honored some of the input we got, such as counting GEDs as transfers and allowing some additional documentation.
The HB 1246 Study Committee, as provided in statute, was appointed in August 2005 by the State Board of Education and the Governor, to study the issues related to a small nu.ber of Students with Disabilities who have low performance on the CSAP but are not eligible to take the CSAP Alternate. These "Students in the Gap" consistently perform in the unsatisfactory category of the CSAP and fail to make longitudinal progress from year to year. The committee met bi-monthly beginning in August, and has developed a written report to present to the Board.
The Board will be asked to approve the contract for the CELA (Colorado English Language Assessment) in February.
PAUL RICHARDSON: Has been studying the education system for years and recently read The World Is Flat, which scared him. Thinks we need to fix the system of teaching math and science. Presented us with a written copy of a presentation entitled “The Rising Global Meritocracy: The Implications for America.” Has written a book, The Unwritten Code of Conduct for Educators. Also submitted proposed changes to the Board’s mission and goals.
Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved