a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
Found that the decision of the Hanover School District in denying the application of the Rolling Hills Academy Charter School for the second time was not contrary to the best interests of the pupils, district, or community. The vote on the motion to remand was 4:4 (Hudak, Middleton, Munn, and Polis dissented), and because it requires an affirmative vote to remand, the motion died.
The appeal was dismissed.
Held hearings to determine if the following districts should be granted exclusive chartering authority, and decided as indicated. (DeHoff recused himself, since he is the Executive Director of the Charter School Institute.)
CDE staff recommended denial based on 22-30.5-504 (because the district had a “moratorium” – a limit on the number of charter schools – prior to August 2004).
TOM CRABB (lawyer for the district): The only grounds that CDE staff recommended for denial of exclusive chartering authority is that the district had a moratorium on charter schools within the previous 4 years. However, the district did not have a practice of refusing to accept applications, which is part of the definition of a moratorium. In fact, the district had a policy stating that they would welcome innovative applications. The district has never refused a charter application. Poudre is one of the most active supporters of choice in the state; approximately one-third of the students have exercised choice. The district has 3 charter schools and numerous other schools of choice, including Core Knowledge, bilingual, experiential lab school, IB, and high school for at-risk students. As soon as the law changed prohibiting districts from limiting the number of charter schools, the district changed its previous policy of restricting to 3 the number of charter schools. The State Board has allowed similar districts to be granted exclusive chartering authority, and it would be an “abuse of discretion” not to grant it to Poudre. The vote a year and a half ago that CDE staff claimed to be the Board’s denial of the authority to Poudre was actually a tie vote. The district has a sworn affidavit from Jim Sarchet, Assistant Superintendent, that the district was willing to accept applications, and this was not rebutted. Schaffer pointed out that the Poudre board denied an applicant for a charter school back in 1995 or 1996. Ross Cuniff, from the Poudre School Board, said that it was when entirely different people were on the school board and in the district administration. Schaffer asked if the district considered an application of a charter school that applied recently; Crabb said that the application of the school in question had been submitted two months after the deadline, and Cuniff said that there was no second to the motion to consider it on his school board.
ERIC HALL (Colorado League of Charter Schools): The League of Charter Schools asserts that the district had a moratorium. The SBE is required by statute to consider that they had a moratorium. The district’s argument that they didn’t have a moratorium is “like saying that a policeman shouldn’t give a ticket to one speeder because other speeders didn’t get a ticket.” Just because the district had a policy to reconsider the cap of 3 charter schools in the case that they received an innovative application doesn’t mean they didn’t have a cap. Even if they would consider some kinds of charter schools, it still means that they wouldn’t consider some other kinds. Schaffer moved, and Littleton seconded, to deny exclusive chartering authority to Poudre. He said that in the mid-1990s, the district actually sued parents who brought an application for a charter school. He said that the district has only 3 charter schools. I said that there is no evidence that the district has a policy of “refusal” to authorize charter schools, and it certainly has no “practice of refusing to accept or review” applications. Munn said that the existence of a policy that they want only 3 charter schools would be a disincentive, but the law clearly states that it must have both a policy and practice. The vote was 4:3 to deny exclusive chartering authority (Hudak, Middleton, and Munn dissented).
CDE staff recommended denial based on 22-30.5-504(9)(a) (because there was no documentation that the number of charter school students in the district exceeds the statewide average by 3 percentage points, and because the school board passed the resolution to request continued exclusive authority two weeks late). The district’s representative said that the district submitted written documentation pertinent to this hearing late (it was due more than 10 days prior to the hearing), when it realized that CDE staff recommended denial of the exclusive chartering authority. Tony Dyl, Assistant Attorney General, asked if anyone had an objection to accepting that documentation at this time. Littleton said that she objected. Polis asked when the denial was posted on our website; the answer was a week ago. Munn moved to accept the documentation, and I seconded. The vote was 4:3 to accept it (Littleton, Schaffer, and Suckla dissented).
BRUCE BRODERIUS (President of School Board) : The district has been able to confirm that it has complied with all aspects of the charter school law. Furthermore, the district’s exclusive authority, according to statute, “will continue in effect so long as the school district continues to comply with the provisions.” The district interpreted this to mean that it does not need to reapply each year. They have provided information affirming that they have the appropriate percentage of students in charter schools. The district has never had a second appeal that was adverse to the original ruling of the State Board. Middleton pointed out that if the district had realized that its continued eligibility for exclusive chartering authority was in jeopardy, it would have turned in on time the materials establishing that it has sufficient students enrolled in charter schools to meet the criteria. She doesn’t think we should base our decision on a “paper deadline.” She stressed that the policy and law were written for districts that were unfriendly to charter schools, which this district is not. She doesn’t think we should deny them based on an administrative issue rather than a substantive one. Munn moved to allow Greeley to retain its exclusive chartering authority, and Polis seconded. He said that it appears to be mandatory under the law. Schaffer said he sees it as the opposite, since the staff had not been able to go over the information to confirm that. Munn said that we might not have had a lot of time to confirm the documentation, but the district appears to exceed the statewide average of percentage of students in charter schools by 6%. Dyl explained that since they are applying under 22-30.5-504(9)(a), the documentation applies. The vote was 5:2 to grant exclusive chartering authority (Littleton and Schaffer dissented).
Staff recommended approval based on 22-30.5-504. Dan Johnson and Becky Jay from the school board pointed out that the district accepted the New Vision Charter School remanded to it by the SBE. Schaffer asked why it wants exclusive chartering authority. The district representatives explained that they would like to retain their full local control. The vote was unanimous to grant exclusive chartering authority.
Staff recommended approval based on 22-30.5-504. Nancy Burgess, Executive Director of Finance for Thompson School District, said that the district has complied with proper financial procedures, as indicated in the letter from Vody Herrmann of CDE. The district has an elaborate formula for financing charter schools. Terry Lucero from the district said that there are no enrollment limits. The district believes that exclusive chartering authority will allow it to continue providing proper control and efficient allocation of resources. They are currently expanding a charter high school and building a charter school facility in the south end of the district. All claims against the district previously made have been resolved. The district’s charter school liaison staff person said that the district has worked very well with its charter schools. The district is considered now to be charter-friendly, although it hasn’t always been “a smooth road.” The district includes the charter schools in its food service. ERIC HALL (Colorado League of Charter Schools): The district has not complied with allocation of administrative costs. Brighton’s resolution does not address 22-30.5-504(5)(a)(I)(A), which applies to them. Polis pointed out that the district has the highest percentage of charter schools in the state. The disagreement about whether the district owed money to the charter schools or vice-versa was resolved through CDE staff, and both sides were happy with the resolution. Middleton said that she’s seen how well the district has been working with its charter schools. The vote was 5:2 to grant exclusive chartering authority (Littleton and Schaffer dissented).
CDE staff recommended approval based on 22-30.5-504. Nobody came to speak in opposition to the district’s request for exclusive chartering authority. The district said that it has consistently supported its charter schools. The district had restricted movement within its schools, but it lifted that restriction this year. Pikes Peak School of Expeditionary Learning left a different district and was approved by Falcon. A representative of the charter school affirmed the good relationship between the district and the charter school. The vote was unanimous to grant exclusive chartering authority.
CDE staff recommended approval based on 22-30.5-504. Nobody came to speak in opposition. Eagle County School District said that it has one of the oldest charter schools in the state, which was recently reapproved for 30 years. The charter school receives 100% of PPOR. The initial relationship between the district and the school was not good, but it has become much better. The district gave it land and a road. The charter school is included in bonding and other district decision-making. The superintendent was asked to speak at a charter school convention about how to maintain a good relationship with its charter school. Schaffer brought up a concern that the charter school’s contract has a limit of 16 students per class. The district explained that the school requested that to be in the contract because small class size is part of their desired structure. Denise Mund, CDE staff, explained that in the part of the charter school law regarding the contract, this is a viable provision of the contract. Munn said that the statute clearly authorizes the district and the charter school to work together; the exclusive chartering authority part of the law is intended to address aspects wherein the district is unfriendly to charter schools. Moloney said it’s a gray area in statute, but we’ve had other cases like this before. Dyl said that the district cannot impose an enrollment cap, whereas this is one that is negotiated. The vote was 6:1 to grant exclusive chartering authority (Schaffer dissented).
CDE staff recommended denial based on 22-30.5-504 (because the district had an enrollment limit on its charter school). Nobody came to speak in opposition. The district’s enrollment has increased from under 3,000 students to over 3,000, which causes them to need to reapply for exclusive authority. The district had an enrollment cap for its charter school, Windsor Charter Academy. An amendment was made to the charter school contract to remove the caps. The charter school submitted a letter to the SBE affirming its positive relationship with the district. The cap was negotiated mutually when the contract was approved. Schaffer asked why the district wants exclusive chartering authority. They said that they would like to be the ones to work with charter schools, and they believe that they work well with these schools. They also said that they are a small district and would like to control what goes on in their district directly by people locally situated. They feel that they are “more than adequately able to administer locally.” Growth in the district and the schools located within it should go hand-in-hand. The vote to uphold the exclusive chartering authority was 5:2 (Littleton and Schaffer dissented). [HB 04-1362, which created the Charter School Institute, requires local boards of education that desire to have exclusive authority for chartering schools within their geographic boundaries to pass a resolution expressing their desire to do so; the SBE must then approve them. The law allows the SBE to grant exclusive authority for districts that meet certain criteria: 22-30.5-504(9)(a), C.R.S., for districts with students enrolled in their charter schools in a percentage that exceeds the statewide charter school enrollment by 3 percentage points (7.15%); 22-30.5-504(5)(b)(I), C.R.S., for districts with fewer than 3,000 students; 22-30.5-504(5)(b)(II), C.R.S., for districts with students eligible for free/reduced lunch enrolled in their charter schools in a percentage that is 1 percentage point below the district’s overall percentage of students eligible for free/reduced lunch; and 22-30.5-504(6), C.R.S., for districts with no history of authorizing charter schools, which have not had a moratorium regarding charter schools and have complied with SBE orders. Also, 22-30.5-504, C.R.S., gives the SBE the discretion to grant exclusive chartering authority to districts that meet the mandatory requirements and at least 2 of the 6 discretionary factors. The mandatory factors are compliance with good accounting practices for administrative costs, with allowing the purchase of district services, and with orders of the State Board, and the absence of a school district moratorium or enrollment limit on charter schools.]
(1) SWAAAC
Approved an interagency agreement between the State of Colorado – for the use and benefit of the Colorado Department of Education, Special Education Services Unit, and Colorado Health Sciences Center School of Medicine for the Statewide Assistive, Augmentative Alternative Communication (SWAAAC), with an amendment to SFY06 for correcting the personal services ($68,000), the new method of tracking equipment, and the adding the services for SFY07 ($451,911). [The agreement is for the provision of ongoing just-in-time training and support to 72 school-based Assistive Technology teams throughout the State; development of and support for Assistive Technology initiatives, including enhanced third party funding of assistive devices and services (Medicaid/Private Insurance); design development and implementation of a statewide regional model of Assistive Technology services delivery encompassing a number of State and Federally funded agencies; provision of enhanced delivery of Assistive Technology devices and services to rural communities within Colorado; and development of and support for a wide range of CSAPA Assistive Technology materials and supports.]
(2) PAYMENTS FOR GIFTED EDUCATION
Approved the distribution of supplemental payments to administrative units for Gifted Education. [HB 06-1368, which has been signed by the Governor, appropriated an additional $1,550,000 for Gifted and Talented Education for the 2005-2006 year to administrative units that have submitted a Gifted Education Plan. The funds are distributed on a per pupil basis.]
Approved the appointment of John Crone as a citizen representative from the 2nd Congressional District to the Colorado Library Advisory Board (CoLAB). [Due to the resignation of Roberta Ponis, CoLAB needed an appointment of a person from the 2nd Congressional District who does not currently work in a library or serve as part of its governing body. CoLAB recommended John Crone.]
(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES FOR LICENSING PROGRAM
Approved evaluation fees and CBI/FBI charges for FY 06/07, as follows:
In addition, CDE is required to conduct CBI and FBI background checks and to collect the actual costs of those background checks from applicants. The proposed fees will result in ending reserves of $199,865. The $199.865 projected ending reserve is within the constraints mandated by SB 98-194, and is the bare minimum amount needed to insure that the Licensure Fund does not experience a negative cash position throughout the fiscal year. The proposed revenues to be generated from the evaluation fees is $1,890 ,000 based on receiving an anticipated 33,000 applications during the year. The proposed revenues to be generated from the CBI/FBI fees is $741,000 based on receiving an anticipated 19,000 initial and renewal applications next year.]
(2) DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
(These remain confidential until action is taken by the Board.)
(3) TEACHER INDUCTION PROGRAMS
Approved the content of the following proposed teacher induction programs:
(4) EDUCATOR PREPARATION PROGRAM PROVISIONAL RE-AUTHORIZATION
Approved the provisional re-authorization of the licensure/endorsement preparation program content for the educator preparation program at Adams State College in Alamosa. [CDE and CCHE have collaborated on the process by which the re-approvals of License/Endorsement programs are conducted and partner on site visits. CCHE is the lead on public higher education institution teacher preparation program site reviews while CDE is the lead on independent higher education institution teacher preparation program site reviews. As Adams State College is a public higher education institution, CCHE was the lead on this review. A site visit to determine whether requirements continue to be met was conducted on November 15-16, 2005. The provisional approval is requested so that the CDE Reading Directorate can review the endorsement proposal to assure the SBE that the literacy components of the program are rigorous and that candidates seeking this endorsement will be appropriately and adequately prepared to teach students effectively.]
(5) EDUCATOR PREPARATION PROGRAM PROVISIONAL APPROVALS Approved provisionally the licensure/endorsement preparation program content as follows:
Approved payments to school districts and administrative units for eligible facilities under the Exceptional Children’s Education Act (ECEA) for 2005-2006 in the total amount of $500,000. [State Board approval is required to reimburse administrative units for tuition cost payments made to eligible facilities within the boundaries of the administrative unit for children with disabilities for whom: (a) parental rights had been relinquished by the parents; (b) parental rights had been terminated by the court; (c) parents were incarcerated; (d) parents could not be located; (e) parents resided out of the state, but the Department of Human Services placed the child within the administrative unit; or (f) the children were legally emancipated. A total of $0.5 million was appropriated for this reimbursement. The total cost of these placements was $946,119. No administrative unit will be reimbursed more than they actually paid for a child. The reimbursement process is defined in section 22-20-114(b.8) of the Exceptional Children’s Educational Act.]
(2) PAYMENTS UNDER PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE ACT Approved payments of $ 245,898,567.41 under the Public School Finance Act for June 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.]
(3) ADDITIONAL FUNDING UNDER ECEA Approved payments to school districts and administrative units for Special Education Programs under the Exceptional Children’s Educational Act (ECEA), for 2005-2006 in the total amount of $20 million. [During the 2006 legislative session, changes were made in the ECEA. An additional $20 million was appropriated for the current (2005-06) fiscal year, and a new funding formula was defined. The intent of the increased level of state funding is to reduce the local support of special education. This is the largest increase in state special education dollars ever appropriated. Under the new funding formula, administrative units will receive $1,250 for each child with disabilities that was reported on the December 1, 2005, special education count. An additional $6,000 will be distributed to administrative units for 5.33955 percent of the children reported on the December 1, 2005, count with the following disabilities: significant limited intellectual disability, significant identifiable emotional disability, hearing disability, vision disability, autism, traumatic brain injury, deaf-blind, and multiple disabilities.]
(4) CONTRACT FOR ACT EXAM Approved the contract between the Colorado Department of Education, Office of Management Services, and ACT, Inc., for the total amount of $1,450,031 from July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. [The ACT is a curriculum–based college entrance examination required by state law to be given to all Colorado public school students enrolled in grade 11.]
Approved emergency Type III educator authorizations for 21 initially and 5 renewals. The vote was 6:2 (DeHoff and Schaffer dissented). [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.]
Affirmed the initial decision of the Administrative Law Judge in the case of an applicant for substitute authorization.
In regard to the contract between the Colorado Department of Education and CTB/McGraw Hill for the continuing development and administration of the Colorado Student Assessment Program Alternate test, for the period of one year, with options for 4 one-year renewals, the motion was to remove it from the agenda because it hasn’t been initiated yet (the vote was 7:1; I dissented). [The intent of this program is to ensure that a small number of students in grades 3-10 for whom the general CSAP is not an appropriate means to measure performance are included in the state accountability system. This alternate assessment is needed in order to determine the progress of these students relative to Colorado Model Content Standards and in accordance with the legislation and the assessment program design developed and recommended by No Child Left Behind. The contract is for the 2006/2007 through 2010/2011 assessment school years and contingent upon funding and the continued satisfactory performance of the vendor. Additional test item development, as well as the development of additional refreshment items, will continue throughout the performance period.]
Gave provisional approval (for one year) of the content of the licensure/endorsement preparation programs as follows:
The item was taken off the consent agenda because some SBE members expressed concern that the CDE Reading Directorate needs to complete its review of the reading curriculum. A representative from Regis University expressed concern that the program has been in process for SBE approval since March of 2005, about 14 months. They believe that there were programs submitted for approval after theirs that the SBE has already approved. They feel that they deserve the same approval. Moloney said that they shouldn’t have had to wait 14 months, but he feels that the Board and department should be able to confirm their literacy program in a reasonably short time. He said that he will put a transparent process in place to ensure bureaucratic efficiency, so that no other schools have to wait so long for approval. Suckla said that we will check to make sure that this problem doesn’t occur again. The vote to approve their program provisionally was 6:2 (Munn and Polis dissented).
There was a motion for approval of the Teacher in Residence programs for the following:
* Special education generalist endorsement – for Pikes Peak BOCES.
* Linguistically Diverse Endorsement – for Pueblo School Districts 60 and 70.
A representative of Pikes Peak BOCES expressed concern that the provisional, one-year approval proposed by Commissioner Moloney would prevent people from having the confidence to enroll in the two-year program. Moloney said that the Reading Directorate’s approval is perfunctory and they shouldn’t worry about it. Munn moved to grant them full approval rather than provisional, since it is a two-year program. Polis said that we need to approve this to maintain our “intellectual honesty” by not having students enter a two-year program that has the danger of losing its approval after one year. Moloney said that he doesn’t think students will be deterred by waiting for CDE to confirm the literacy program. The vote was 4:4 to approve the program provisionally, so it died on the tie vote (DeHoff, Littleton, Schaffer, and Suckla dissented). DeHoff moved to give provisional, one-year approval, with direction for them to come back for final approval in July. I argued that Moloney had claimed the approval was perfunctory. Moloney said that the review is, but not the approval. I said that brought us back to the concerns expressed about the problems of giving provisional, one-year approval. The vote was 5:3 to give provisional approval for one year and to revisit permanent approval in July (Hudak, Middleton, and Polis dissented). [Colorado school districts and boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES) are authorized to establish teacher in residence programs, enabling them to hire non-licensed individuals with appropriate degrees for two years, providing that they give these people individual training, support, and evaluation and that they recommend them for licensure upon completion of the program. The intent of the teacher in residence program is to enable districts to address teacher shortages and reduce the number of people employed under Type III Emergency Authorizations. It also attempts to help school districts and BOCES to recruit and employ nontraditional teacher candidates.]
Commissioner Moloney reviewed the six themes of his “Discussion Paper” that had been presented to the Board at our February Retreat: (1) Literacy, (2) Early Childhood, (3) Data and Accountabilty, (4) Achievement Gap – Clear Focus and High Intensity, (5) Finance – Change in a Constant Cost Environment, and (6) Choice – the Unfolding Revolution. He said that many staff in CDE contributed to the ideas in the paper. Middleton said that this was not what she had expected to do at the Retreat and it is not what the public expected. She thought the conversation was to be about leadership and moving forward, not signing off on a 30-page paper. There are aspects of high school reform that are not in the proposal. The paper appears to have “gotten out of the gate” before the Board had a thorough policy discussion. We heard from the state’s superintendents yesterday that we should use a process of public engagement to determine our priorities. Discussions we had appear to have become part of the media; yesterday’s paper mentioned that the Commissioner does not intend to resign, but that was not her understanding. She feels that the strategy should have been that the Commissioner write a paper after hearing what the Board thinks, not before. It sounds like he is setting the Board’s priorities, not the other way. She thought we were going to talk about a leadership change process. Moloney said the “discussion paper” was a consensus of things that had been discussed for a long time. It was his impression that the staff was supposed to take it to think about. Middleton said that we had a conversation in December at dinner about having a transition process for leadership and public engagement, and that’s what we had decided to discuss at the Retreat. I addressed my concern that we had been told at the end of the Retreat to “digest” the discussion paper, and I was surprised to see the 6 points in it presented to the CSEAC as the SBE’s priorities. I don’t necessarily disagree with the priorities, although I would say that perhaps we’re not in a constant cost environment since the passage of Referendum C and that there might be additional priorities. I was hoping that we would have continued discussion about them. I had hoped that it would happen at our June retreat, which has been postponed. I reminded my colleagues that everyone expressed that they were “frustrated” at the end of the Retreat. DeHoff said that the attack on the Commissioner made in the newspaper article should allow him to defend himself. Polis, who was quoted in the article, said he feels it is his public duty to express his concerns honestly. He pointed out that what the Commissioner’s plans for retirement were said to be differed greatly from what he indicated to this Board in December. Suckla said that we have a real problem having 8 members, 4 D’s and 4 R’s. It is difficult to conduct ourselves in a civil manner. She has been trying to keep us from “airing our dirty laundry in public.” She doesn’t approve degrading staff in public. She believes that Moloney answered leading questions from the reporter; she was present in the office when he took the phone call. Suckla asked us how we expect her to put items on the agenda that won’t result in 4:4 votes. She feels like we played politics on the Bennish resolution issue, including herself, but she would like us to move forward. She has no resignation from Moloney before her, so she can’t discuss moving forward on leadership. Middleton said that she does not feel that this is about partisanship. She said that Suckla is sitting in the Chair position because of a promise to be able to move us ahead this year. Moloney said that conversations like this are usually held in Executive Session. He said that his primary concern is the stability of the institution that he heads. He said that it is not reassuring to people in the department or across the state if leadership at CDE is uncertain. Munn said that he heard yesterday that people are not happy with how things are being done now, and he is not sure how the discussion paper addresses that. Moloney attributed the concerns expressed to us yesterday as a fundamental tension between state and local control. Munn said that there is frustration about the choices we have made and how we carry through with our responsibilities. He heard the superintendents say that they are not hearing a real willingness from the department to work with them collaboratively. DeHoff said that he heard contradictory messages from the superintendents yesterday – they asked for state leadership at the same time as saying that they wanted to do most things locally. Moloney reminded us of a letter from DPS Board member Kevin Patterson that included the concept that we must be prepared to be unpopular. It is unlikely that we will make CASE or CASB happy. Our role of implementing NCLB and the SARs will not make people happy. Middleton clarified that her concerns are not personal and it is not her intention to make them personal. She just had a different impression at the beginning of the year, and when she saw the article in the media, she felt it should be brought up. She said that sometimes changing the leadership can help move reform forward. I said that it is our role to be leaders. If CASE and CASB are unhappy, it is a problem in the education system. I think it’s a good thing that we are discussing this. If we decide that we want to continue doing the things that make CASE and CASB unhappy, then that’s fine, but we need to talk about it and decide what we want. I pointed out that our Strategic Plan says that we want to play a strong leadership role. We heard from CASE that we’re not playing a strong enough leadership role. I think we need to address that. I complained that we rarely have time for an adequate discussion of important matters like this, which is why I have expressed concern about canceling the June meeting and waiting until after our meeting in August to have a Retreat. Suckla said that our July agenda will be revised so we will have time to discuss these topics.
The Board will be asked to approve the proposed Special Education Generalist endorsement preparation program at Regis University.
The Board will consider a resolution on Environmental Education, brought by Polis and Middleton.
The Colorado High School Activities Association recognized 29 Academic Team Champions in 8 different athletic and non-athletic activities for the 2005 winter season. The press release from CHSAA was provided.
Two vacancies will exist on the State Advisory Committee for Gifted and Talented Education at the end of the term, June 30, 2006. Representation is sought to balance the roles (parent, educator, administrator, and business), gender and ethnicity of committee membership. Vacancies will be in the 3rd Congressional District and the 5th Congressional District. The open positions are seeking educators or administrators from universities or colleges, school boards of education, or administrators in school systems. The SAC is collecting a list of potential nominees to fill the vacancies and will submit the list to the State Board for final approval. State Board members and other educational leaders in the state are invited to submit names for nomination. Application information is available through the Membership Committee of the State Advisory Committee.
Nobody was left by 2:30 p.m. to address the Board.
Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved