a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District

MUNN: [I was late and missed this.]

HUDAK: I visited the Mapleton School District in Adams County recently to learn about how the district is becoming an entire district of choice. Every school will have one or more special academic program (such as Montessori, expeditionary learning, and intensive English language acquisition). I attended a meeting of the Boulder Valley Schools’ District Parent Council, at which the district presented its booklet reviewing the its budget; one thing I found particularly noteworthy was the examples of budgets for elementary, middle, and high schools. For example, the sample middle school had 8 special education FTEs. I was the sole SBE member to attend the NASBE Legislative Conference in Washington DC (follow link for details). I had sent my review of that conference to the other SBE members, but I pointed out that the main topic was the No Child Left Behind Act, in terms of when it would be reauthorized and what changes might be made to it. Recently I attended my local meeting of the Referendum C Accountability Tour, in which members of the Legislature discussed how they were prioritizing the spending of the Referendum C money. I pointed out that they mentioned the fact that the Joint Budget Committee had asked each department of state government to tell them what its spending priorities for the next 5 years are. We had discussed this to some extent at our February Retreat, and Commissioner Moloney had given us a paper with his proposal for it, but we never finished the task. I recommended that we add it to the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting under "Information for Future Action" so that we get on track for doing it. [Moloney said that CDE hadn’t expected there to be extra money from Referendum C and had given our priorities to the JBC earlier this year, based on the SBE’s legislative priorities for the year. Middleton said she had told the JBC, with Suckla’s permission, that we would be doing public input sessions on this topic. She recently shared with Suckla a report on what Nebraska did to seek public input on prioritizing their budget. Suckla said that during the Retreat it seemed that we had no consensus on doing public input. She didn’t think it was very urgent. Middleton said that it’s an opportunity to look at what we do for the state and that we should discuss what process we want to use to determine our priorities. She said that districts across the state are doing public input. Suckla reminded us that when we met with the Joint Education Committee, they criticized our legislative agenda as a "wish list." Polis said that we need some time to talk about what we will do. Suckla said that we will take some time later today to talk further about this.]

DEHOFF: Attended the NASBE Board meeting recently, at which the Regional Directors met with the SBE members in their regions. In the Western Region meeting, part of the discussion involved the School Trust Lands; they encourage State Board members, especially new ones, to attend the CLASS conference this summer (Children’s Land Alliance Supporting Schools). They also discussed Native American education, particularly an online program for Native American students that Wyoming has. There may be a presentation on it at the Western Region meeting at the Annual Conference in October. Last week he was on Peter Boyles’ show discussing academic freedom. He said that there was "fairly wide consensus" among the panel on that show (Colorado Inside Out on Channel 12) that Bennish was wrong. Then he was on the radio debating CSAP against Angela Engel and a teacher from Metro State College. The teachers from Metro seemed to be against standards. He said it was discouraging; he intends to take a hard look at the teacher preparation program at Metro.

MIDDLETON: Attended a conference of environmental engineers, where the head of NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) spoke. They discussed a bipartisan report on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math), stressing that there is a crisis for funding science, math, and technology. Was glad to see the business community "step up" about the importance of education.

LITTLETON: Attended a local school board meeting and the Pikes Peak Area Superintendents meeting. Attended the March meeting of NASBE’s Early Childhood Study Group; found it interesting that there was a lively conversation about whether pre-K should be mandated, universal, or voluntary. There was much discussion about how we can help children who are most at risk in current programs, to ensure that they are providing best practices. She thinks we should serve children from where they are, be it in the home, in the church, or in a child care program.

SCHAFFER: Had town meetings in Walsh, Kiowa, and Greeley. Went to Ukraine as an election observer, and with the help of the Denver Post set up a blog about it. Said "it was neat to involve Colorado students in the democratic process."

POLIS: Hosted a reception for Roy Romer, who will be leaving the Los Angeles schools and returning to Colorado. Attended the LARASA gala. Met with some CU and DU administrators, discussing the "student pipeline" issue to increase the diversity of their students, which relates directly to the ability of K-12 to graduate diverse students. Participated with the Referendum C Accountability Tour in a couple of locations.

SUCKLA: Attended the CASB Board meeting last month, discussing what the next conference will look like. They really like the sessions with the SBE that used to occur, so we should look for that to be revived. There was a discussion about our charter school hearings; she has suggested that we bring together a task force to look at how to make charter school hearings more useful to the parties involved. She said that Schaffer expressed interest in being on it. [I said that I would like to be on it; Suckla said, "We can look at that."] During the last week she was rounding up some bulls and realized that it was even harder than working with this board.

Dave Smith, head of Prevention Initiatives, and Ed Steinberg, incoming director of the Special Education Services Unit, presented on topics related to early childhood. Smith credited Sharon Triolo-Moloney and Nan Vendegna, who do the majority of the early childhood work for CDE. He talked about the research showing that good early childhood care and education produces a large return on investment. He showed the consequences of not giving children a nurturing environment and strong developmental supports – it shows a large gap by age 5; he suggests that it IS the achievement gap. Brain research is now showing why poverty and deprivation early in life reduce good development. Longitudinal studies show that good early care and education reduces future needs for special education services – 50% less. CDE has four major early childhood programs – the Colorado Preschool Program (CPP), Results Matter, local early childhood councils, and early childhood special education. The state has an Early Childhood State Systems Team with a wide variety of stakeholders, including CDHS, CDPHE, Colorado Head Start Association, Children’s Campaign, etc. Sharon Triolo-Moloney works with 17 early childhood councils (called the Consolidated Child Care Pilots) around the state serving 30 counties, working on integrating funding and improving quality of services to young children. There is proposed legislation to expand the funding for councils to the whole state. The intent is for the councils to include all members of communities in the councils, such as libraries, community colleges (which provide professional development), parents, providers, child care licensing, etc. Child care workers get some of the lowest salaries, yet we entrust our youngest children to them. Littleton asked if investing in funding professional development would be worthwhile rather than, for example, universal pre-K; Smith said yes.

Results Matter is the Colorado name of a program required by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, to assess the success of early childhood special education programs. We are one of three states piloting this program, and the only state trying to extend it to nearly all students in state-funded early childhood programs. With the program, CDE will be able to provide us with results on children’s growth in a wide variety of areas, such as language and literacy, the arts, math, physical development, and health. Young children are in many different settings, such as CPP, Head Start, and non-profit and for-profit programs. The cost of CPP is one half of a PPOR; to repeat a grade is a full PPOR. CPP has been proven to reduce the number of children who need to repeat a grade. Savings are created also if children don’t need special education services later on. CPP helps close the achievement gap, as demonstrated in one district in its results for Hispanic students, where 60% of the Hispanic children were proficient without CPP and 93% with. Long-term studies of Colorado kids in CPP show that the positive results persist through high school and graduation. Almost all districts have waiting lists for CPP.

Polis asked when CDE will have a specific proposal for a concrete plan on early childhood. Moloney said by the Board’s next Retreat. Schaffer asked why only 5% of providers of CPP are private providers, which he called a "failure," and he expressed concern that most providers (65%) are "government" (by which he meant the public schools). Smith said that the requirements are expensive, since the providers must be highly qualified and have a small number of children in the class. I added that there was an extensive discussion on this topic in the Legislature when the amendment to increase CPP funding came up in the Senate Education Committee. I assured Schaffer that many people around the state are looking at expanding the participation of private providers, but in many areas of the state it is not possible because of the lack of child care providers available or the difficulty in providers gaining the B.A. degree and teaching certification necessary.

Steinberg talked about the change in special education because of IDEA 2004 from the "wait to fail" model to the RTI model (Response to Intervention). The RTI model can be used in early childhood. This new model is rethinking the concept of Learning Disability, working with students who are not working at grade level by providing interventions, and if they don’t respond, they are then determined to need special education services. This way it won’t take 2-3 years to prove that students are failing before they are identified for special ed. Steinberg said that many students labeled LD are just "instructional casualties," meaning that they didn’t learn to read early on but do not have actual neurological problems. The key is using good reading instruction, and at the first sign of reading failure doing a good diagnosis, such as the child has problems with phonemic awareness, and monitoring the student’s progress, rather than waiting for an annual review, as special ed students have. We will not eliminate the category of LD, but we will reduce the numbers. It has implications for funding.

Moloney announced that Dave Smith will be retiring as of July 1. He expressed that Smith will be greatly missed, that he has brought the eloquence and passion to this area. There are thousands of children whose lives will be better because of him.

We are following about 55 bills, but several of them have been killed. One was the bill on School Trust Lands that came from the School Finance Interim Committee, which aimed to build the corpus of the Land Trust; it was killed in Senate Appropriations because it removed $31 million from school funding. Suckla asked if we could find a way to pass the provisions that allowed the State Treasurer more flexibility in making investments with the fund; Senator Windels, the bill sponsor, said that there was no willingness to do this by the Treasurer (Coffman is back).

The Senate is working on the School Finance bill, HB 1375. The CPP slots will be increased by 2,000 children this year, with the same increase for the next two years. Since the bill funding the Giardino lawsuit settlement at the required $20 million failed, it is unclear how much funding will be allocated and where it will come from. There was a provision added to the part of the bill establishing the Special Education Finance Advisory Committee, which gives the SBE approval of the awards. A provision has been added on the excess cost payments for out-of-district placements in charter schools and online schools so they are equalized with traditional schools. Polis asked about the amendment defining what a private school is and what a private school conversion is; he wondered whether it weakens the SBE’s authority. The bill sets up a task force to look into the issue.

The Governor vetoed 1005, which would have allowed districts to pass mill levies for full-day kindergarten. The bill providing funding of supplemental online programs, HB 1008, has passed into Senate Appropriations with amendment to allow the funding of about $500,000 for one year only. HB 1240 giving more flexibility in dealing with Unsatisfactory schools is on the Governor’s desk. HB 1358 for postsecondary dual enrollment is awaiting action in House Appropriations; it has a cap on the number of participating students to 500. IF it passes, the SBE will determine by rule how to select the 500 kids. HB 1283, the bill for 75% funding to the classroom, to counter the 65% funding ballot issue, is headed to the House Appropriations. SB 73 changes the compulsory school attendance ages from 7 and 16 to 6 and 18.

There is no proposed funding in the Long Bill for closing the achievement gap. Funding for CELA is proposed for next year, primarily through federal funds. We asked for $2 million in restored funds for libraries, and the Long Bill allocates $400,000. The proposal is to continue the $200,000 for civics education. (We are completing our civics seminars around the state; Alamosa and La Junta had the best turnout. Elementary teachers attending them discussed how to connect civics and literacy. The seminars are working to grow a network of teachers in districts who implement good civics instruction. Middleton said that she is on the NASBE Study Group on Civics, which might have some ideas that we would want to consider. Colorado was asked if we would consider being a pilot state for the NAEP Civics test for 8^th and 12^th grades; she pointed out that in two years, we will be reviewing the Civics Standards and can consider it then.)

Moloney referenced some comments made by Dr. Steinberg about the importance of delivering good literacy instruction in general education, to prevent "instructional casualties." The SBE has the authority to "shut down" teacher education programs that do not conform to the content standards. CDE and CCHE send teams in to the teacher preparation colleges to review and evaluate their programs. The statute also allows school districts to "grow their own" through their Teacher in Residence and Alternative Educator Preparation programs. There are new rules for program approvals. There is particular concern about instruction on reading (voiced by SBE member Littleton). DeHoff told us the process that the SBE went through 5 years ago for the original approval of the teacher preparation programs, and said, "Some of us are concerned that the review process [for the reauthorization of the programs] is not as rigorous as it should be." Steinberg said that in his school district, Cherry Creek, "it is relatively rare that the district gets a new Special Ed teacher who knows how to systematically teach reading." However, he said that the situation is better now than it was 3-5 years ago, which he attributes to NCLB. He sees some "institutional resistance" to using the 5 components of reading instruction, but not as much as there were. Many of the teacher training institutions have leaders who favor "whole language." Some of the private colleges, like DU and Colorado Christian, are more responsive than the public colleges and the school districts. He sees little emphasis on reading at the secondary level.

Polis asked why, if we focus on the outcomes, we don’t leave the means to the practitioners and focus on the accountability. Steinberg said that there is resistance from the veterans to change. Gotlieb said that CDE will be sending CBLA rules (Colorado Basic Literacy Act, which requires instruction in the 5 components) to the teacher preparation institutions. She pointed out that there is accountability also from the job market, since districts have opinions about hiring or not hiring teachers from certain institutions based on their experience with those teachers. Middleton said that we should consider having a discussion with CODE, the Council of Deans of Education. I reminded the Board of a report I presented in February from my visit with the Secondary Literacy Network, which is working with teachers and instructional coaches around the state on how to incorporate the CBLA standards in their work. I told Dr. Steinberg I believe there is a great change in approach to literacy, as evidenced by the literacy networks.

Munn asked if our conversation is about "whether our current process is not driving reform." Seeing Moloney and others nod their head, he asked what we are really asking for here. DeHoff said that he feels our standards for content and teacher preparation are adequately rigorous; he said the problem as he sees it is that programs are "getting through the review process" that are not adequate. He said that teachers have to "go through all this professional development to undo what they have learned." He said, "Instructors don’t like people coming in and telling them we don’t like what you’re teaching and you have to change it. We have not been paying enough attention to it." Gotlieb said, "The concern is that some Board members have a great deal of knowledge about literacy and have taken a great interest" in how the colleges are preparing teachers. She pointed out that two-thirds of the new teachers hired in Colorado come from another state, so we can’t do much about their preparation. Munn asked if staff has withdrawn its recommendation to approve the programs at the University of Phoenix and Adams State, which were on our agenda last month (the meeting that didn’t happen) but not this month. He wanted to know why they changed their mind during the last month – was it because one or two Board members expressed concern and were able to kill agenda items? DeHoff said that it’s his perception that when Board members raised concerns and staff took a second look at it, staff agreed that there was a problem; he said that our process should allow for this kind of thing to occur. Gotlieb said she is proposing that we come up with specifics that we ask institutions to provide on how they are implementing the reading standards. She added that candidates for teacher licensure must pass a content test, which is reviewed regularly as well. Munn asked if the new process means that a portion of the teacher preparation program proposals will be "pulled out and looked at" separately by reading experts. He asked if it is an increase in workload or a shift away from something, "and in that case, what are we shifting away from?" Moloney said it’s improving how CDE does business by utilizing its reading experts more effectively. Polis said that he is concerned that we have received no complaints that what staff is doing is not working. Gotlieb said that we need to focus on this very important area. I pointed out that another very important area in our teacher standards is how teachers work with parents, and we should explore how our institutions are doing in that area as well.

BOCES (Boards of Cooperative Educational Services) have been administrative units for Special Ed since the School Finance Act was created, and they used to be funded with an additional $10,000 per year to help them do professional development as part of 8 Regional Service Centers developed by CDE. This funding was cut during the state’s economic downturn, which virtually eliminated the RSCs. The Colorado BOCES Association has asked the Legislature to restore the funding, which is likely to happen. They have a Professional Development Project that they are proposing to the SBE, to establish a regional service delivery model to address the needs of school districts, especially rural communities, to improve student achievement in literacy and math by identifying what is working in districts with similar demographics and circumstances; it will provide technical assistance and professional development across the state in a systemic and consistent manner. The project will be overseen by CDE through Jo O’Brien, Assistant Commissioner for Learning and Results. There will be a state-level coordinating council which will coordinate the work of the 8 BOCES Regional Cooperatives (there are 22 BOCES, so several in each region will work cooperatively together for the regional service delivery system). There are 10 districts that are not currently in a BOCES, so they would not participate unless they agreed to. Each of the 8 Cooperatives will have a local governing committee, with representation from each district and each BOCES in the region. The BOCES Association is looking for the SBE’s support to go to the Legislature next year and ask for $2 million to fund the project. Middleton suggested that they consider seeking grant money to start up, so when they go to the Legislature, they have a successful program to advocate about for funding. The SBE members unanimously agreed to support the BOCES Association working with CDE on this.

Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved