a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District

SBE Regular Meeting 11-9-06

BOARD MEMBERS’ & COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS

DEHOFF: NASBE (National Association of State Boards of Education), for which he is a Board member as the co-director of the Western Region, has approved guiding principles for NCLB. Not everyone agrees with every one of them, but NASBE Board members felt it was important for NASBE to have something to guide the discussion. They are available on NASBE’s website. NASBE has been working hard to defend attacks on the power and authority of SBEs around the country. DeHoff encourages us to participate in study groups. NASBE’s budget is in much better health, and it is a bigger player nationally as CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers) and ECS (Education Commission of the States) undergo struggles. Congress has approached NASBE for input, and it has been recognized as a more neutral player than some other educational organizations.

HUDAK: I have continued serving as the Board’s liaison to CSEAC (Colorado Special Education Advisory Committee. It is meeting next week. One of the things CSEAC continues to focus on is RTI (Response to Intervention), the new strategy for identifying special education students in IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). I have also continued working with CSAN (Colorado State Accountability Network) to do regional trainings for district accountability committees around the state. So far this fall we have gone to Lamar, Primero (near Trinidad), and Buena Vista. Next Monday we are going to Burlington, and in early December Clear Creek County. CSAN has given CDE advice on changes for Accreditation based on the input gathered at trainings. Also, CSAN and I will be doing a workshop at the CASB conference in December.

LITTLETON: The Reading Summit is planned for May 7. Looking forward to it; theme is return on investment – what we’re getting out of the funding and effort being put into literacy. Brought a gift for Munn’s new daughter, Asha – a CD called "Sounds Like Fun" that teaches words, sounds, etc.

MIDDLETON: [Absent at this time]

MUNN: The reorganization of Bruce Randolph Middle School is on its path; we’ll find out in a few weeks how they’re doing. Cole Middle School is a continual challenge. He is not comfortable about where things are, but comfortable with where things are headed. Manual High School’s reorganizaton is in its second phase; but we’ll see how the next phase goes.

POLIS: The CEA is having a conference this afternoon and tomorrow about reshaping school finance. It will hopefully include an issue the board is concerned about, preventing the continued deterioration of the local share. He is concerned about health care for poor kids; it is difficult for a school to achieve educational success when the nutritional and health needs of children are not met. Will continue to focus on bridging the K-12 system.

SCHAFFER: Has not had a chance to look at what committees he’d like to be involved with, if any. Has nothing to report.

SUCKLA: Congratulated Middleton, Schaffer, and Hudak on re-election. Has been working with Dr. Steinberg and Jo O’Brien, who helped a lot of her districts with their concerns on special education. Now calls Dr. Steinberg her "special Ed." [Littleton and I mentioned that we call him "Cesare" because he heads the Colorado Exceptional Students and At-Risk Education unit at CDE.] The CASB conference coming up – she will do a session on School Trust Lands. Also, Jhon Penn, Regional Services, will be doing a workshop with CASB’s regional director, Randy Black, on strategies for success.

COMMISSIONER MOLONEY: Several Board members have reached out to Douglas County to have a conversation about the waivers they are requesting. We know the amount of time that Douglas County has put into this effort. Several lawyers and Dr. Steinberg met to determine the appropriate legalities. Offered assurance that the ongoing cooperative relationship between Douglas County and CDE will provide a level of accountability that exceeds most we see in the state.

ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA

A. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

(1) TEACHER INDUCTION PROGRAMS

Approved the proposed content of the following Educator Induction Programs:

[The Educator Licensing Act of 1991 requires school districts wishing to hire provisionally
licensed educators to have induction programs approved by the State Board of Education. Induction programs include mentors for new teachers and ongoing professional development.]

(2) DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

(These remain confidential until action is taken by the Board.)

B. APPROVAL FOR ELIGIBLE FACILITIES

Revoked the approval for the following eligible facilities: Managed Adolescent Care and Arapahoe House, Aspen Center. [Managed Adolescent Care (MAC) and Arapahoe House, Aspen Center, have closed their on-grounds school.  They no longer employ a teacher and no longer accept students.  Because they have closed their school door, their CDE approval should be formally revoked.  If they wish to obtain CDE approval in the future to operate a school in an eligible facility, they will need to go through the initial approval process.]

C. APPOINTMENT TO GIFTED AND TALENTED ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Approved appointment of David Grosche to the State Advisory Committee for Gifted and Talented Student Education representing the Congressional District 5. [The State Advisory Committee for Gifted and Talented Student Education (SAC) is a committee of citizens from the Congressional Districts appointed by the State Board of Education. Each district maintains 3 to 4 representatives from business/ community, education, and parents. In June 2006, a Board item provided information about 3 vacancies on the SAC committee in the 3rd and the 5th Congressional Districts. The State Board of Education, SAC members, and other gifted education leaders were invited to submit names for nomination. At the October meeting, the State Board approved a person for the 3rd CD and one for the 5th CD.]

D. HEARING ON RULES FOR SUMMER SCHOOL GRANT PROGRAM

Scheduled a hearing on January 11, 2007, to consider Rules for the Administration of the Summer School Grant Program for Academic Achievement. [The Summer School Grant Program for Academic Achievement, requires the State Board of Education to adopt Rules for implementing the grant program.  The program is designed specifically to fund intensive summer reading, writing or mathematics programs for children who have scored "Unsatisfactory" on CSAP reading, writing, and mathematics components for the previous academic year and are entering fourth through eighth grades. The rules must address application procedures for the disbursement of the funds appropriated.  Approximately $970,000 has been appropriated to fund the program.  The rules must specifically address the time frames for submitting grant program applications; the form of the grant program application; the time frames for distribution of the grant moneys; the method by which the Department shall evaluate the progress of the summer school programs operated by school districts and institute charter schools that receive grants; and other criteria the State Board may deem appropriate.]

ITEMS PULLED OFF CONSENT AGENDA

A. EMERGENCY EDUCATOR AUTHORIZATIONS

Approved emergency Type III educator authorizations for 47 initially and 3 renewals on a vote of 6:1 (DeHoff dissented; I was temporarily absent). [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.]

B. HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO RULES FOR EDUCATOR LICENSING ACT

Conducted a hearing to consider amendments to the rules for the Administration of the Educator Licensing Act. [The Committee on Legal Services requested that certain rules be amended.  The new edits reflect requests by Legislative Legal Services related to legislation that was in the recent legislative session.  The rules were supposed to be reviewed by the Committee on Legal Services at 2:00 p.m. yesterday, but that was postponed.]

Gotlieb reviewed the changes being proposed. Nobody came to testify. The amendments passed unanimously 7:0 (Schaffer was temporarily absent).

C. DOUGLAS COUNTY WAIVER REQUEST

The motion was made last month to approve waivers for the Douglas County School District for a two-year period ending September 30, 2008, as follows:  22-9-106(4)(a); 22-60.5-106, 201; 22-63-201, 203, 301, 302, and 403, C.R.S., as well as the following rules for the same time period:  1 CCR 301-37 2260.5-R-2.00, 7.00, 8.00, 9.00, 11.00, and 18.00. [22-9-106(4)(a) says that only someone with a principal or administrator license may evaluate licensed personnel. 22-60.5-106 designates the Department of Education as the sole agency authorized to grant endorsements for a teacher’s license, including one for special education. 1 CCR 301-37 2260.5-R-2.00 designates the Department of Education as the sole agency authorized to issue educator licenses and authorizations. 1 CCR 301-37 2260.5-R Sections 7.00, 8.00, 9.00, and 11.00 include the requirements for endorsements and authorizations, including special education endorsements and special services endorsements. 22-60.5-201 designates the Department of Education as the sole agency authorized to issue teacher licenses. 22-63-201 says that a local school board may not enter into an employment contract with any person as a teacher unless such person holds a license. 22-63-203 describes the terms of renewal or non-renewal of employment for probationary teachers. 22-63-301 spells out the grounds for dismissal of a teacher. 22-63-302 provides the terms for judicial review, if a teacher is dismissed. 22-63-403 says that a teacher who is dismissed is entitled to a pro rata share of the salary due during the contract period in which no services are required to be performed. 1 CCR 301-37 2260.5-R Section 18.00 includes the standards for the alternative teacher preparation programs.]

DeHoff moved the following motion for today: Approve waivers for the Douglas County School District for a two-year period ending September 30, 2008, for the district to implement its Teacher Endorsement and Alternative Licensure Program, as follows: 22-9-106(4)(a), 22-60.5-106, and 1 CCR 301-37 2260.5-R paragraph 2.00 and Sections 7.00, 8.00, 9.00, and 11.00, for licensed teachers participating in the DCSD Teacher Endorsement Program to gain endorsements in "hard-to-fill" areas as defined by DCSD; and 22-60.5-201, 22-63-201, 22-63-203, 22-63-301, 22-63-302, 22-63-403, and 1 CCR 301-37 2260.5-R paragraph 2.00 and Section 18.00, for participants in the DCSD Professional Teacher in Residence Program for "hard-to-fill" positions and Alternative Teacher licenses, and to include the accountability provisions in their application, with a twice-annual review.

Polis said he supports the motion because we should support any out-of-the-box thinking that allows districts to have the kind of flexibility that charter schools have. I asked Littleton if she is comfortable with the district going through the Reading Directorate; Douglas County said that they are willing to have the Reading Directorate review their endorsement program in the relevant areas. I raised a concern that we are waiving 160 pages of rules for endorsements, which involved a lot of time and effort on the part of the Board and our staff. I said that we are holding all the other districts accountable to these rules. I raised a concern in particular about waiving Section 11.00, which includes the requirements for nurses, pathologists, psychologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, etc., with what I can see as only one course with a general overview of special education to prepare them. Suckla said that those rules were made by other boards, and it is not necessarily what this Board believes should be in effect.

Munn thanked the Board for allowing us to have an additional month to look into the proposal and get questions answered. He said that he shares my concerns about Section 11.00 and thinks it is important to have a basic standard, but from time to time we should be willing to consider other means. He is willing to defend the Board’s approval to Senator Windels or any other legislator who has concerns about it. He is concerned about CDE’s capacity to monitor this, considering the shortage of staff. He is also concerned about the department’s ability to respond to questions. We might need to make some changes to the department to do this kind of monitoring, and we should look at these on a case-by-case basis, not just say that we gave waivers to one district so we should give them to others.

Polis asked Windler how our state contract for NCLB is compatible with this. Windler said we don’t need to make any amendments. He said that the department has the capacity to scrutinize districts’ adherence to requirements for Highly Qualified Teachers. Douglas County has 98% HQT. CDE works with districts through the process to develop a plan for HQT. It involves an annual monitoring that is done before Title II funding is released to the district. Districts provide a detailed plan. States have been given some additional flexibility for special education teachers. Dorothy Gotlieb, head of the Licensure Unit, said that each district must submit a plan to follow the board’s accountability process. She thinks the monitoring will be done as part of the Accreditation process.

I asked Gotlieb if teachers licensed by Douglas County would be considered licensed outside of Douglas County. She said no. I asked Gotlieb if all participants in regular Alternative Education and Teacher in Residence programs have to take the PLACE or Praxis exams before participating. She said yes. Jim Christensen, the superintendent of Douglas County, said that there are not PLACE or Praxis tests in all the areas that they will be endorsing in. I asked if their participants will take it in the subjects that the exams exist for, such as Science; he said it will be done on a case-by-case basis, since they are not sure exactly how it will play out.

The motioned passed; the vote was 7:1 (I was the only one who dissented).

D. AMENDMENTS TO RULES FOR ECEA

Conducted a Board-only discussion and considered adopting the proposed changes to the Rules for the Administration of the Exceptional Children’s Educational Act (ECEA). [The proposed amendments to the ECEA rules are required by SB06-118 and HB06-1375.  The purposes of the amendments are as follows: (a) to address new requirements in SB06-118 and HB06-1375 that amended the special education tuition responsibility provisions and the out-of-home placement provisions of ECEA; (b) to address new requirements in SB06-118 that amended the gifted and talented provision of ECEA; (c) to address new requirements in HB06-1375 regarding the special education funding provisions of ECEA; (d) to add clarification regarding administrative unit responsibilities for gifted and talented programs; and (e) to add clarifying language.]

DeHoff expressed a concern about the payment of excess costs for charter schools, since a portion of their PPR (per-pupil revenue) pays for facilities. I expressed the concern that excess cost payments are for instruction, not facilities. Charm Paulmeno said that a one-time stop-gap remedy has been worked out for the Rocky Mountain Deaf School, but the problem with the form excluding facility costs is outside of that. The problem, as she described it, is that the special education costs are identified separately from the other education costs; the percentage of the total costs that are special education are removed. Facilities are other education costs, and including it would drive up the cost for special education. The main problem appears to be with the calculation on the form, rather than what the rules say. DeHoff clarified that he does not have a concern with the rules, but he wanted to continue the discussion to deal with this issue. Ken DeLay from CASB said that because special education is not well funded, all districts must use regular education funding to pay for special education.

DeHoff moved to approve the rules, with instructions to staff to bring the forms for approval by the Board as part of these rules no later than 6 months from now. The motion passed unanimously.

E. TUITION COST RATES FOR ROCKY MOUNTAIN DEAF SCHOOL

Approved a tuition rate for the Rocky Mountain Deaf School of $90.37 per day for a maximum of 180 school days for the 2006-07 school year. [At the October State Board meeting, testimony was presented concerning tuition rate approval for the Rocky Mountain Deaf School, which is a charter school in Jefferson County.  The Board instructed the Department to meet with representatives from the Deaf School and other concerned parties to resolve the issue.  On October 31, 2006, a meeting was held with representatives from the Department, the Deaf School, Jefferson County, CASB, and the Special Education Directors Consortium.  The group agreed to request the Board to approve the rate which was established for the 2004-05 for the current school year.  This will allow the Deaf School to continue to bill for tuition costs, while allowing time for the charter school and its chartering district to explore options for the future.]

RMDS is the only school that has ever applied for an excess cost rate. It is a higher rate than they would probably be granted for this year, given the changes in the rules. All the parties involved agreed to this for this one year, after which the district will hopefully find a way to help RMDS pay for its facility costs.

F. RULES FOR SUMMER SCHOOL GRANT PROGRAM FOR FACILITY SCHOOLS

Adopted rules for the Administration of the Summer School Grant Program for Facility Schools. The vote was unanimous. [The proposed amendments to the rules are required by HB06-1375.  The amendments concern the summer school program in eligible facilities. A hearing on these proposed amendments was conducted by the Board on October 5, 2006.]

G. ADJUSTMENT OF PAYMENTS TO VILAS SCHOOL DISTRICT

Approved the one-time only adjustment to Baca 5, Vilas School District, of $1,965,837.08 for the November state share payment, which would revise the total state share payments of all school districts from $254,022,780.52 to $255,988,617.60. [Just prior to the beginning of the new fiscal year, the Public School Finance Unit provides an opportunity to school districts to review the "projected" pupil counts to determine if they have more accurate numbers, higher or lower, on which to base their first five months Public School Finance Act State Share payments. During that process, the Vilas School District provided a revised projection of 7000 students, an increase of 4672 students over the 2328 projected.  Since that was such a significant increase, nearly triple the enrollment of the prior year, the department decided not to allow funding to be based on that projection until pupil enrollments could be better documented to verify the increase would actually occur. The number reported as of October 2 was an increase of 2011 over the current 2328 projection, for a total of 4339 pupils.  This is still a significant increase in the number of pupils being reported by Hope Online Charter School. Hope is requesting an adjustment of state share payments for only the months of October and November, based on the difference in the monthly amounts they would have received with the higher count and the amount they were provided based on the lower projected count.  The total adjustment equals $982,918.54 per month, for a total of $1,965,837.08 for October and November adjustments. As is always the case, the December state share payments will be based on the actual October 2 pupil count and will be adjusted to bring all school districts to 50 percent of their total state share funding for FY2006-07.  The December adjustment would also apply to Vilas.  The data for the October 2 count is due by November 10.]

Polis said that this is not the time to debate whether the process of Hope Online’s approval of students’ time is proper; our department has approved this count, and the school needs to have the money to continue to operate. DeHoff commended the district for working cooperatively with CDE to delay the payment until after the October count. Munn said that this is purely an accounting function that we are voting on. The motion passed 7:0 (Schaffer was temporarily absent).

H. CHARTER SCHOOL WAIVER REQUEST

The agenda asked us to approve charter school waiver requests from November 9, 2006, to June 30, 2009, for the Ute Creek Secondary Academy Charter School in the St. Vrain Valley School District. I moved to strike two waivers being requested: 22-32-109(1)(aa) [relating to adoption of content standards] and 22-45-103 [the entire section relating to accounting and reporting of funds]. Munn questioned the motion for all the waivers for 22-32-109, because the numbering on the motion is confusing and appears to be incorrect. CDE staff was contacted but could not come to the meeting to answer questions; we were told that 22-32-109(1)(aa) is a delegation waiver and that 22-45-103 was requested by the district and is listed on the application as 22-45-103 (1)(f). Munn moved to deny all the waivers until we can get clarification on all of our questions; this motion passed unanimously.

INFORMATION FOR FUTURE ACTION

A. CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

At the Board meeting on December 14, 2006, the SBE will be asked to approve the lists of projects recommended for award by the Capital Construction Grant Program Advisory Committee from the remaining balances of the "School Construction and Renovation Fund" and "Powerball Spillover." [This is the 2nd round of the 7th funding cycle for capital construction for school districts. The General Assembly has appropriated $19,250,000 to the "School Construction and Renovation Fund" for FY2005-06 and $7,500,000 for FY2006-07.  The General Assembly has provided spending authority in the amount of $437,602 for "School Construction and Renovation Fund" monies awarded to projects in previous funding cycles that were accomplished for less than the awarded amount, resulting in unused funds. The Capital Development Committee will review the projects approved by the State Board on December 15, 2006. The Colorado Lottery spillover funding becomes additional funding for the "Capital Construction Expenditures Reserve." The amount of Powerball spillover funding for FY2006-07 is $12,545,316. At the August 10, 2006, meeting the State Board approved for award the $7,500,000 of FY2006-07 "School Construction and Renovation Fund", and $12,595,883 of the FY2005-06 "School Construction and Renovation Fund."  The CDC approved the projects at their August 31, 2006, meeting.  There is a balance of $7,091,719 remaining to be awarded. At the September 14, 2006, meeting the State Board approved for award $4,955,024 of the Powerball Spillover funding.  There is a balance of $7,590,292 remaining to be awarded. School districts often do not use all of the awarded funding on projects granted from the "Capital Construction Expenditures Reserve" and "Powerball Spillover."  As it becomes available, the unused funding is awarded to projects in the order they are listed on a "back-up" list approved by the State Board.]

B. MEETING DATES FOR SBE IN 2007

The following are the proposed meeting dates for the SBE in 2007:

January 10-11

February 7-8

March 14-15

April 11-12

May 9-10

June 13-14

July 11-12

August 8-9

September 5-6

October 3-4

November 7-8

December 12-13

C. RESOLUTION CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

The Board will consider the proposed resolution on Environmental Education introduced by members Polis and Middleton.

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

ELIGIBLE FACILITIES APPROVAL PROCESS

From the perspective of the SBE, a facility school would be either "approved" or "revoked."  However, CDE staff would have the ability to issue different degrees of "approval" in order to more effectively monitor facilities.  In each instance described below, the facility would be considered "approved" and eligible to bill CDE directly for PPOR and school districts for excess costs:

LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES

Polis moved to amend the agenda to add approval of the Legislative Priorities, as amended at the Work Session yesterday. The motion failed on a vote of 3:5 (DeHoff, Littleton, Munn, Schaffer, and Suckla dissented). Polis asked how we can move forward if we don’t approve it. Middleton suggested that we make the current draft publicly available.

OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD

HERBERT WEINBERG: Is a substitute teacher in Colorado Springs District 11 and expects to be put in jail soon. He was dismissed with no reason given. He said he asked the district twice for reasons. The district told him that it was harassment for him to ask. Police came to his door and he was issued a restraining order. After 53 years of teaching, he will lose his license. He believes that he deserves a fair hearing. He believes that the other 900 substitutes in the district have gone through the same unfair treatment by the district. He said his offense was that they found rolled up pieces of paper on the floor of a classroom that he substituted in. He was denied a fair hearing before being dismissed. He has received threatening letters and accusations that are untrue. He asked us to do something about these actions by D-11.

Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved