a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District

HB 1284 – Ed Steinberg, Director of the Exceptional Student Leadership Unit, spoke passionately about the importance of including students with disabilities in all aspects of education. He reviewed the history of the federal special education law and the reasons for its passage, and he advocated for the ability of disabled students to achieve. Middleton interrupted his diatribe, saying that he’s "preaching to the choir," and saying that what we need to do is to decide how we can broker a conversation with legislators. Suckla said that not all Board members are necessarily apprised of all the details. Berman suggested that he discuss why the bill was brought forward. DeHoff reminded the Board that the last time this issue came up, we got "pounded" on the concept of exempting special education students from CSAP. Steinberg said the bill was not initiated by disability groups, and he believes that CSEAC would see this bill as a giant step backwards. He said that 90% of special ed students are not those with mental retardation. I followed up on Berman’s question and asked if we know why the legislator was motivated to draft the bill. Steinberg said he had talked to Rep. Casso about the detrimental effects of the bill. Middleton said that she has heard concerns about how CSAP is calculated, and we need to determine what the problem is that the bill is really trying to solve, as a way to get at this; she doesn’t think we have the information about what the problem is in the legislator’s mind. Moloney said the issue of exemptions from CSAP is the key issue at stake here, potentially costing our state $136 million in IDEA funds. Jo O’Brien, Assistant Commissioner for Learning and Results, echoed that, adding that it would jeopardize our ability to make AYP and would affect longitudinal analysis. Suckla said that her conversation with the Governor on this topic occurred on his request, and she pulled out the facts provided by staff; she said she believes that the Board is unanimous in our support for CSAP and accountability. She said that we haven’t done a very good job of "selling" CSAP across the state. She recounted a story about a conversation she had with a neighbor, who expressed opposition to CSAP; but when Suckla spoke about how the tests help teachers determine what students do and don’t know, the neighbor changed her mind. I said that I agree about the negative perception of CSAP, but that is because people are opposed to rating schools based on CSAP scores, the high stakes accountability, and we need to do a better education about that. I said that I have also heard stories from parents about special ed students being very upset after attempting to take CSAP tests, and perhaps we should consider compromising with the sponsor. I also suggested that we consider how the additional flexibility for 2% of special ed students allowed to states for AYP can be used, if indeed such a low percentage of special ed students are ones with low cognitive ability. Middleton said part of what upsets parents is the grading/labeling of schools; she said this should be about students. We do want to know which students are doing well; the school rating part is what is arbitrary. DeHoff said he is not willing to go quite as far as Middleton, but he agrees that there are some students for whom the pressure of the test is inappropriate. He understands the concern behind the bill, and he supports coming up with a compromise, perhaps changing the -0.5 on the SAR.

SB 106 – O’Brien said the conventional wisdom seems to be that the CSAP tests material not covered by March, and that is not true. I mentioned the discussion we had at a recent state PTA meeting about the perception of parents that nothing is done in the school year after CSAPs. Parents support changing the test to later in the year, since they don’t see that any further learning takes place after it, because that is when schools schedule field trips and other such events.

HB ? – There is a bill being drafted that eliminates the high school CSAPs and the Writing CSAPs. The consequence would be the end of longitudinal tracking in high school, and it would affect the SAR ratings. Middleton said that we should have a discussion about how to reform high school before we discuss any changes in accountability at the high school level. O’Brien said that the bill proposes to use the PLAN and ACT for longitudinal purposes in high school, but using different tests corrupts the results. HB 1048, the longitudinal bill that passed, says that longitudinal measurement will be used to rate schools rather than the current system. DeHoff says that it is questionable whether the ACT can be used in alignment to state standards. O’Brien said no state that is using the ACT for AYP has had it approved by the USDE for AYP; Colorado is one of only 18 states that has had its assessment approved. Moloney said that assessment is the "lynchpin" of accountability.

Berman said we should share our concerns with the bill sponsors so they can take it into consideration. She said that we seem to be "piece-mealing" our approach to assessment; she thinks we should work with the Governor and Legislature to see the big picture. She thinks we should model a new way of behavior, sitting with others in a collaborative fashion to hold a discussion. I mentioned that Senator Windels and Rep. Merrifield had sent a letter to the Governor at the beginning of the session, asking for a task force to take a comprehensive look at education, but that hasn’t happened, and the "piece-mealing" is taking place by legislators, with all these bills. However, I pointed out that CASE convened a lot of education stakeholders, and we were invited to join them, in doing this work. I suggested that we take the lead in convening this conversation, but considering that it is already March and half of the legislative session is over, "the train has already left the station." Suckla said she agrees that we need to be more active in legislative activities and not be reactive, "if we feel so strongly about being the leaders in education." She said we need to be more active in advocacy in legislation; she said that Byron Pendley, our legislative liaison, is not really a lobbyist. DeHoff said he’d be willing to create a resolution regarding CSAP, which we could give the Legislature tomorrow. Middleton said that is the exact opposite of what she thinks we should do; she said we are being defensive and clearly have not done our job on legislation. She had tried to put together a meeting of our Board with legislators for this morning, and that was canceled; she said it was embarrassing for us to have asked the legislators to meet and then cancel the meeting. She suggested that we try to get that meeting scheduled as soon as possible. Berman said this conversation speaks to the issue that we need to revisit our process for dealing with legislation; for example, we could have conference calls weekly. Moloney said that our staff can be very effective with legislation, as long as they are clear about the Board’s position. Suckla said we will discuss this further tomorrow afternoon, after our conversation with NASBE. She assigned Berman and me to write a draft of a policy we could have for legislation.

HB 1270 and 1320 – These bills deal with how CDE deals with data. The original version of HB 1270 proposed to do a study of how we deal with data for $100,000; it was changed somewhat, so a new fiscal note is being written. HB 1320 deals with additional issues of using data. Karen Stroup, Chief of Staff, said that there is some urgency in dealing with the issue. She said that the original idea was to do a study before proposing a solution, which 1270 does, but 1320 proposes a solution. She thinks there are still some problems with the bills, but it would be good to have them pass. She has worked with CASE, which initiated the bills. DeHoff asked whether CDE is already doing much of what is proposed in 1320; Stroup said that there are concerns that although we say we are doing many of these things, they are not being done to the extent that the education community feels necessary. Stroup said she feels the component of the bill requiring a CIO is unnecessary, and she is working with the sponsor. The fiscal note for 1320 is $500,000. She strongly supports the creation of a data dictionary.

BUDGET: Figure-setting for CDE took place last week at a Joint Budget Committee hearing for Fiscal Year 2008. Stroup gave us a written report on that. It shows that the JBC approved a 7.9% increase in state share of total program funding for school districts. The state share is now 64.7% of school funding. They approved the full $20 million in funding for the School Capital Construction Expenditure Reserve. For the categorical funding, they increased from last year special education by 3.3%, English language proficiency by 17.4%, and gifted and talented by 2.4%. They approved spending $2.2 million for "child find" activities. They reduced 4 FTE (full-time equivalents of staff) from the Federal Grant for State Assessment and Related Activities and applied the funds to pay for estimated increases in CSAP and CELA tests. They voted to approve a 3.7% salary survey increase for all classified staff at CDE and an additional 1.37% performance-based pay increase. The library programs were funded as the SBE requested.

The SBE determined "reading readiness levels" for kindergarten students based on the Colorado Basic Literacy Act when it was first passed in 1993, as well as "literacy and reading comprehension levels" for grades 1-3. Jo O’Brien said that the CBLA law required us to select an "instrument," but instead the SBE only set the criteria for the assessments (rather than specifying which assessments would be used). Further state legislation was passed after CBLA, including Read to Achieve, for which there was a state audit in 2006, criticizing CDE for not using a single common assessment. At the federal level, NCLB was passed, in which the Reading First component requires the use of DIBELS to measure progress. In 2005, the Learning and Results Unit from CDE did a statewide "tour" gathering feedback on CBLA; the majority of the field said that they are in favor of a common assessment and reporting system, to meet the need for comparison of data. They said that they are concerned, however, that if one assessment is used, it will result in penalizing those who are not having good achievement. A concern expressed by a "minority" (said O’Brien) is that districts have invested in different assessments, and there would be a cost to change what they are already using. I pointed out that the CBLA "tour" was done mainly to inform districts about changes in CBLA, and I added that four major districts (major in size, representing a majority of students in the state, and thus a major cost for assessments) have sent us letters opposing our setting one assessment (including Boulder Valley and Colorado Springs District 11).

Suckla said her opinion is that we need to pay for a common assessment, if that is what we decide to require. O’Brien said that 80% of districts use DIBELS. I pointed out that 80% of districts is not necessarily 80% of the students in the state. DeHoff asked if there is a single assessment that covers all the aspects of reading; O’Brien said no, but there isn’t a requirement for testing on all 5 components of reading, as long as a prediction can be made based on the assessment used. Suckla proposed that we tell everyone to use DIBELS for now, but then seek input from around the state on which assessment is best. I said that is saying the opposite things at the same time. Suckla made a point of saying that no SBE member has a financial interest in that assessment, as has been alleged, and she said that DIBELS is free. I said that there is a cost to training teachers to use a test, so if districts have to change to DIBELS, there will be a cost for them.

Deb Scheffel, head of the Reading Directorate, said the Read to Achieve audit requires us to address the issue of a common assessment within the next few months. Littleton suggested that we ask districts to use DIBELS as one of the assessments. I questioned why staff was talking about using a common assessment for CBLA when the problem is with Read to Achieve, and I suggested that we use the common assessment for Read to Achieve only and not for all of CBLA. Jeanette Cournier said the Read to Achieve law requires the instrument from CBLA to be used, and that is why we need one assessment for both. Middleton asked if we could just provide a short list of assessments for Read to Achieve and pointed out that the Inspector General has reported that DIBELS has shortcomings. O’Brien asked if we would agree to have a list of a few common assessments, though not specify what they should be at this time, and the Board agreed. DeHoff pointed out that the statute says "instruments," not "instrument." O’Brien said staff will put together some focus groups in the near future to help determine which the assessments would be. Berman suggested that we include the various reading associations, including some that appear to be critical of us, so that the decision reached includes all interested parties.

Suckla asked that we discuss the Reading Directorate. She said that it was initiated because there were complaints that there was a large "pile" of endorsement preparation programs that were behind in their approval. She asked if we have completed the pile; Dorothy Gotlieb, head of the Office of Professional Services, said there are a few left. Scheffel, chair of the Reading Directorate, said that she believes the RD has worked collaboratively with the Office of Professional Services to communicate to infuse quality assurance into the process. Suckla said she brought up this topic because it has been so successful that we are at the place where one staff person could oversee the process, possibly with a "tech board." She said that we also need to be looking at math, and other aspects of teacher preparation. Moloney said it might be premature to declare success for reading. He said the problem was that colleges of education were "not capable of adequately preparing teachers" to teach reading. He thinks excellent progress has been made, but the process has "not been warmly received" and there has been "severe criticism that has taken place in the context of a national debate" about reading. Suckla said that she is trying to make the process more useful. Middleton said she agrees and thinks we need to "expand the dialogue"; she likes the idea of having several technical advisory groups. DeHoff said there is much research about what constitutes good reading instruction and it’s premature to take the heat off on reading. I said that reading is only one of the eight teacher preparation standards and emphasized that our role is to ensure that the content of preparation programs includes the eight standards, nothing more. I asked if we’re exceeding our authority and if we are focusing on one standard to the detriment of the others. Suckla said that obviously we need to have further discussion on this.

Our federal services unit made a presentation about what CDE is doing to help schools and districts meet NCLB requirements. CDE is obligated to create a state system of support to do this. Our system includes School Support Teams, Comprehensive Appraisals for District Improvement (CADI), professional development, support for family literacy, math and science partnerships, and web-base resources. The federal unit works in coordination with other CDE units, including Regional Services, English Language Acquisition, Exceptional Student Services, School Choice, Family Literacy, Library Services, and Information Management. In addition, external collaborations have taken place with CASE, CEA, CASB, BOCES, CPIRC, McREL, IHEs, Omni Research, and RMC Research. The USDE criticized CDE’s efforts to monitor whether districts are implementing NCLB properly; to address this, we came up with C-FIRS (Colorado Federal Integrated Review System), which is comprised of a handbook containing NCLB requirements, a rubric for measuring their effectiveness in implementation, an online database of where all districts rate on the rubric, workshops and training, onsite reviews, comprehensive reports, and onsite technical assistance. The units that work most closely with the Consolidated Federal Programs unit are Grants Fiscal Management, English Language Acquisition, and Prevention Initiatives. The potential consequence of non-compliance with NCLB requirements is developing a Corrective Action plan. If non-compliance continues, it could lead to federal administrative funds being withheld.

The Montezuma-Cortez School District is one of the first districts to use state support because of NCLB. Stacy Houser, Superintendent, met with us to talk about it. The district has also been on Accreditation Watch. The district has had severe financial problems, losing mill levy elections, letting staff go, and deciding to close a couple of schools. Houser’s goal is not just to comply with state and federal mandates, but also to be a high-performing district. He said that when the CADI team came in, a thorough review of the entire community was done, not just the school district. They also had a C-FIRS visit (he took out a latex glove to demonstrate how thorough the examination of the district was). He said that CDE was greatly helpful, rather than being critical. Several consultants from CDE helped them create a detailed plan.

We discussed who should be invited to participate in our focus groups for input on what we want in a new Commissioner. Schaffer suggested that instead of having people from the groups on the proposed list (like CASE, CASB, CEA, etc.), we ask for individual superintendents, school board members, and teachers. Apparently only Schaffer and I submitted suggestions of additional groups to be on the invitation list. DeHoff said that it might be best to just go with the list that CDE made up. Berman agreed with Schaffer that we should not get representatives of organizations, because we would likely get staff. Stroup said that we will get not get staff, but from CASB, for example, we will have school board members. Berman said that it’s important to do a comprehensive scan and take the time to do that.

The School Land Trust Coalition has decided to change into CLASS Colorado (Children’s Land Alliance Supporting Schools), and Suckla checked to be sure we were willing to sign off on the Position Statement again, with the name change. We were.

Littleton asked if we would be willing to consider a resolution at the meeting tomorrow, a resolution saying that the SBE "does not support the mandatory HPV vaccine by making it a requirement in order to attend school, including home schools and private schools in the state of Colorado, [and] … will not support forcing parents or taxpayers to fund this vaccination series." I said that it has been our practice not to approve resolutions without unanimous consent, and I will not agree to the resolution, so it might not be worth discussing. Moloney and DeHoff disagreed, citing resolutions that were passed in 2000 and before, such as when Patti Johnson was on the Board, and argued that we have passed resolutions by a majority. "Ancient history!" I exclaimed, and reminded the Board that it has been our practice for the last 6 years to have unanimous consent. I alleged that now that the Republicans are the majority on the Board, they want to change the agreement. DeHoff claimed that it is not part of our written policy. I emphasized that it has been part of our practice, just like for our Legislative Priorities. Furthermore, I said that I don’t think the topic is one that we would want to argue about, since it is a hot-button issue regarding sex. They said it’s not about sex; it’s about health. I insisted that since HPV is contracted through sex, it is about sex. Because putting it on tomorrow’s agenda would require a unanimous vote to suspend the rules, which obviously would not be reached, the decision was made to put it on our agenda For Information, to be considered at the following meeting or a future meeting, and we might revisit our policy on passing resolutions.

We discussed the process we need to go through in replacing Karen Gerwitz, who is leaving in less than two weeks. Vivienne Belmont, Gerwitz’s assistant, can take over most of the job immediately. The question was whether to just promote her or to advertise the position, and in the latter case, what the job description should be. Gerwitz said she thinks the job requires two skill sets: one is to cover logistics of meetings and communications with the public – someone with a good personality – and the other is to meticulously scrutinize requests for rules, charter school appeals, agendas, and deadlines (she said "there are hundreds of deadlines in this job") – for which someone with experience in legal documents would be preferable, someone who is very detail-oriented. She said that those two dynamics could be done by two separate people. Belmont has mainly been working on our agenda, phone calls, travel, and expenses. Moloney suggested that we ask Jennifer Brittenham to work part-time to assist Vivienne, at least in the iterim, since she has been our assistant in the past. I said that we shouldn’t assume that Brittenham is willing to take that on, and she will be around in CDE anyway to give advice when needed; I suggested that we hire a temporary to assist Belmont. Schaffer suggested that we ask Brittenham to help out, as well as hiring a temporary, and meanwhile we do an application process. Belmont said that she will apply for the position. Berman said that if Belmont is willing to apply, why not just appoint her to the job, and if it works out, keep her there. Suckla said that we still need to consider whether the position of Director should remain the same or change. We have to consider the fiscal aspects too. We will continue the discussion tomorrow. [We didn’t do that.]

Four SBE members will be attending the NASBE Legislative Conference next week, the four that are on NASBE committees or the NASBE board: Middleton, Littleton, DeHoff, and I. We will be visiting most of our Congressional delegation. We will utilize the NASBE Guiding Principles for NCLB Reauthorization, although we will undoubtedly interject our own personal opinions during our discussions. Meetings have been scheduled with Senators Allard and Salazar and Representatives DeGette, Udall, Perlmutter, and Tancredo, and possibly also John Salazar.

[We did this on Thursday, following the Regular Meeting.] Berman brought forward the suggestions she and I came up with for the SBE to have a clear process for dealing with legislation. The proposal is as follows (this shows the changes we made after discussing it, with strikethroughs for deletions and capitals for additions):

1.    All board members are invited to attend, either in person or remotely, the weekly CDE legislative staff meeting on Tuesday at 1:30 at CDE.

2.  1. If there are bills coming up the current or following week that staff and/or board members believe we should take a position on or provide information on, then the Board members in attendance will e-mail the other Board members with proposed positions/actions about particular bills. Board members will be expected to respond within a timely manner, since legislation moves quickly--response expected within 24 hours.

3.  2.  For significant proposed legislation that affects SBE priorities, the board reps who attend the weekly leg meetings will request that the Chair WILL schedule special conference call meetings of the entire SBE, or if timing permits, we will discuss at a regularly scheduled Board meeting.

4.  3.   Regular meetings between SBE and CDE staff should WILL be scheduled with the Joint Ed Committees WHEN POSSIBLE especially during the session but throughout the year.

5. 4. Board members can testify when there is consensus of the board.

Karen Stroup pointed out, in regard to #1, that the meeting might be at a different time and date if the Legislative schedule changes in regard to when the House and Senate Education Committees meet; furthermore, she said it is a staff meeting. Middleton said that she would like to expand #1 to allow legislative issues to be brought up whenever any Board member realizes there is an issue. She thinks that in #2, we might not need to have a call every time, but she agrees that we should have more conversations. We agreed that Board members are always free to attend meetings at CDE, so #1 is not necessary. Suckla said that we have had an agreement that Board members would not testify unless they have been designated to do so. I said that it was my understanding that our exact agreement was that we would not testify a position on a bill unless the Board has taken a position. Middleton pointed out that in previous years, the Governor disagreed with our positions on issues, so we had no reason to push issues; however, now that we have a Governor who agrees with our positions, we should play a more active role. Moloney said there is a difference between what staff and Board members should do. It was clarified that what Byron Pendley does is not lobbying; he is a legislative liaison to provide information to legislators. Berman said she is proposing that the Board do lobbying. Middleton said we need a mechanism for our opinions and information to be shared with legislators; she doesn’t think that is lobbying, but communication. Pendley said that he is sending us weekly updates on legislation, in order for us to watch and see if there are particular issues that we want to raise.

Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved