a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
[All Board members except Middleton gave their report yesterday at the Work Session.]
MIDDLETON: Is giving Board members a copy of a video on libraries.
COMMISSIONER: Yesterday the SBE received a copy of "Forward Thinking." Shared that it is a fluid document; plans to continue to get input and make changes. The pieces that were recommended will continue to evolve, including what might come out of the P-20 Education Coordinating Council and things that the SBE wants. Staff is taking each goal and developing an action plan with a timeline. It is likely to take 3-5 years in some cases. They are looking at roles and responsibilities within CDE and looking to contract with some outside people and organizations. First they must align resources within CDE and then ask for additional resources. Jo O’Brien and Jeanette Cornier are working on a document that will allow us to follow the progress toward the goals, and it will be on the website. Expressed appreciation to the SBE for support of the lofty goals in "Forward Thinking." There are internal discussions taking place about reviewing the standards and assessments. Need to start with standards first. At the November SBE meeting, staff will bring information on the process being planned to do it. It is certainly a big undertaking. There have been several organizational changes in CDE; people are often being asked to play different roles. Will be providing some change training to help staff. Staff continues to work in good faith, and there is widespread support within and outside of CDE for this. Feels good about where we are today. Certainly are making progress. Working on alignment of our work and our funding; for example, in federal programs unit there is the CADI process (which does overall assessments of school districts) – it makes sense to use the same process to align things at CDE. Also, we know that 75% of CDE funding is federal, but we have much state work; WestED is looking at how we are using these funds and how we can take them to scale to help more children. (WestED is a regional part of the USDE for support to state departments.)
[Berman asked whether we are looking at standards reviews in other states, if any, because she is concerned that our country has 50 different sets of standards. Jones said yes.]
Approved funding of grants for Family Literacy Instruction. [Funding was authorized by state statute for grants to family literacy programs in the total amount of $200,000 which will be distributed to the programs as determined by a competitive request for proposals process. Readers of the proposals included experienced family literacy and adult educators and CDE staff members.]
(1) EDUCATOR INDUCTION PROGRAMS
[The Educator Licensing Act requires school districts hiring new and new-to district licensed educators to implement induction programs approved by the SBE. In addition, the SBE rules require a cyclical review of induction programs.]
(2) DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
(These remain confidential until action is taken by the Board.)
Approved Third Way Center, Lowry, to establish an eligible facility school. [This agency has met the criteria for an eligible facility as described in state statute and has also met all of the requirements set forth by the Exceptional Student Leadership Unit for approval of an eligible facility school. It is a residential child care facility that will extend the continuum of care by offering a more secure environment for adolescent residents in a therapeutic environment. Students will be placed primarily by the Department of Human Services and the Division of Youth Corrections.]
Certified the modified monthly payments, for the period July 2007 through November 2007, for two school districts, Yuma-Wray from $156,436.27 to $261,068.97 per month, and Yuma-Idalia from $56,292.50 to $94,699.40 per month. [The State Board of Education is responsible for determining the amount of funding which local school districts receive monthly from the state under the provisions of the Public School Finance Act. Districts are entitled to receive these funds by the 25th of each month. Wray and Idalia School Districts’ assessed valuation was projected at "significantly more" than what the most recent notice from the Yuma County Assessor shows. The difference is a decrease in property taxes from the projected $976,870 to the most recent projection of $515,967 (nearly half) for Idalia and from $2,531,713 to $1,636,121 for Wray. The effect of the over-projection is that the "state share" payment is substantially less than it should be for the first 5 months of the year (approximately $38,000 less per month for Idalia and $75,000 less per month for Wray). Over the 5-month period, the under-payment equals approximately $192,035 for Idalia and $373,164. This change in state share payments eases the cash flow for these two districts.]
Approved Jeanne Boice-Wiley and Rebecca Kluck, respectively, as replacements with special education and finance expertise for the vacancies left by unexpected resignations from the Educational Data Advisory Committee (EDAC). [Statute requires the SBE to designate volunteers from at least 5 school districts and 2 Boards of Cooperative Services, and a charter school, which are representative as to pupil size and population, to EDAC. EDAC has been in operation since 2002 working with the department to review school district data reporting requirements imposed by CDE. Senate Bill 05-019 codified the committee’s existence and was replaced by House Bill 07-1320. The membership is diverse in terms of expertise, pupil size, and geography. The unexpected resignations of the special education and finance representatives from the Pikes Peak region necessitated immediate replacements from unrepresented geographical regions and areas of expertise. Jeanne Boice-Wiley, Special Education Director of East Central BOCES (Northeast region), and Rebecca Kluck, Executive Director, Budget and Planning of Colorado Springs 11 (Pikes Peak region), have been recommended by EDAC members and staff to fulfill these roles.]
Approved emergency Type III educator authorizations for 30 initially and 5 renewals on a vote of 5:2 (DeHoff and Littleton 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.]
Held a hearing on proposed amendments to the rules for the Administration of the Summer School Grant Program at the SBE meeting on October 4, 2007. [The Summer School Grant Program for Academic Achievement requires the SBE to adopt rules for implementing the 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 4th through 8th grades. These rules were adopted by the State Board in May 2007. However, in June 2007, Legislative Legal Services notified the Department of some discrepancies with the rules. LLS has recommended that the following items be added to the rules: a description of the time frames for distribution of the grant moneys, and a description of the method by which the Department will evaluate the progress of programs. Therefore, amendments to the rules are necessary.]
DEB SCHEFFEL: We made the changes to the rules requested by Legislative Legal Services, specifying April 30 as the deadline, but we did not change the part of the rules that say the program is for 5th through 8th graders. We will have to go back to the Legislative Legal Services on the issue of serving 4th graders, because 4th graders who are Unsatisfactory on CSAP cannot be identified by April 30 because the CSAP scores are not ready prior to April 30.
Motion passed unanimously to close the oral portion of the hearing and schedule for approval at next month’s meeting.
Discussed the revised version of the SBE Operating Procedures. I proposed a revision of the section on Miscellaneous Additional Self-Governing Policy Statements, #5, as discussed yesterday, to say: "Board members will go through the Commissioner for requests of staff time, except with matters that need to be handled by the Director of State Board Relations, the Director of Communications, or the Legislative Liaison." The Operating Procedures were approved unanimously with this change.
Suckla said that yesterday we had discussed receiving annotation on the proposed Code of Ethics indicating which parts come from state law, state policy, etc., and several Board members have proposed changes. She suggested that we wait for another month to approve the policy. Middleton said she agreed that there is confusion about which version we are working with. She moved to table the topic for reconsideration at next month’s meeting. Motion passed 5:2 (Berman and Schaffer dissented). Berman said that she is concerned about delaying approval of this policy; it has been under discussion for several months. I asked how we will work on revisions over the next month so we are prepared to pass it at the November meeting. Middleton suggested that we use the Yahoo Groups site, which is open to the public. Dyl suggested that instead each Board member submit proposed revisions and/or questions to Mary Frances Nevans, our Director of Board Relations; she will then route them through Dyl, who will route comments and legal advice back to the individual Board members. This will prevent us from having a document that is a "kaleidoscope" with numerous versions, which could be very confusing for everyone.
Approved the following meeting calendar for 2008 (when two dates are listed, the first is the Work Session and the second is the Regular Meeting; all special meetings are listed separately with explanation):
January 9-10
February 13-14
March 5-6
March 7 – Charter School Appeal Hearings
April 9-10
April 11 – Charter School Appeal Hearings
May 7-8
May 9 – Charter School Appeal Hearings
June 11-12 [possibly a Retreat]
[No meeting in July]
August 13-14
August 15 – Charter School Appeal Hearings
September 10-11
October 1-2
November 12-13
November 30 – December 1 [at the CASB conference, only if needed]
Suckla reminded us that the Chair is the person with the legal power to set the agenda, and she asked the Board’s indulgence so she and the Commissioner can have some flexibility to make changes, such as eliminating the December meeting. Peggy Littleton implored us to consider changing the May meeting to the following week. We will discuss that next month.
Approved the format for the standard MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) and the Temporary Standards to be used when entering into interim agreements between school districts and multi-district online education schools/programs. [Senate Bill 07-215 calls for the State Board to act with regard to establishing multi-district online programs and the establishment of a "Learning Center" as part of these programs. To further this mandate, CDE staff in the Division of Online Instruction has created a standard template for Memorandums of Understanding, as well as Temporary Standards.]
Commissioner Jones said that the work on this has been frustrating and difficult because of the legislative timeline. Also, there is a lot of diverse opinion, and the bill was very hard fought. He reminded the Board that there is vast difference of opinion. CDE staff worked hard to base the proposal on SB 07-215. Staff presented a new version based on Board members’ comments. Jones warned us that staff may not have agreed with every comment and will explain to us why they are and are not making requested changes. Turner said that they accepted 6 of DeHoff’s 8 proposed changes.
The items that staff agreed with DeHoff’s changes on:
Items with different opinions from DeHoff’s:
Middleton made a motion to approve the MOU as amended and corrected (indicated above), but striking #5. I moved to divide the question and vote on the striking of #5 separately; the motion to divide the question passed 4:3 (DeHoff, Littleton, and Middleton dissented). Middleton said that it would be better to have staff develop procedures for calendars separately. I asked why the MOU originally drafted included a statement about the calendar. Dyl pointed out that this was one area of serious deficiency in the ability of accounting of time at Learning Centers. However, the motion to strike #5 passed on a vote of 5:2 (Berman and I dissented). The motion to pass the MOU as amended and corrected, without #5, passed unanimously.
Instructed department staff to issue an initial educator license to one applicant (motion passed 6:1; Schaffer dissented).
Held a hearing on proposed amendments to the rules for the Administration of the Exceptional Children’s Educational Act. [The proposed amendments to the ECEA rules are required in order to conform to the amendments to the ECEA as set forth in SB06-118, SB07-255, and HB07-1244, including alignment with the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) and its implementing Part B and Part C. Additionally, these amendments are proposed in order to do the following: (a) adopt new criteria for the disability category "specific learning disability"; (b) reorganize these rules for purposes of providing enhanced clarification for implementation; (c) clarify language; and (d) make technical amendments, including renumbering made necessary by reorganization of the rules, correction of typographical errors such as misspellings or inaccurate legal citations, and reformatting of the rules.]
The Special Education Director from Northwest BOCES testified that she supports full alignment of Colorado’s rules with the federal guidelines, to decrease the need for retraining teachers from other states, reduce paperwork, and ease the transition of people from other states.
The National Director of the National Association of Directors of Special Education said he supports the change to RTI, because the "IQ/achievement discrepancy" method was not based on scientific principles.
A representative from BOCES expressed support for the changes being proposed and added that the federal regulations were well thought out.
A representative from CSEAC (Colorado Special Education Advisory Committee) said that CSEAC does not support all the changes being proposed. Regarding transition, CSEAC would like us to maintain the age of 14 in the rules, rather than change it to age 15, so that students can plan high school study with a plan in mind for what they do after high school, in order for transition planning to be done well. Regarding the timeline for the initial evaluation, CSEAC supports the change to a 60-day timeline, as long as the eligibility determination occurs within the same 60 days. The reason is that a total of 90 days for both combined, as is in the proposed rules, would be half the school year. Regarding comprehensive assessments vs. assessments in the area of suspected disability, CSEAC doesn’t support changing the rules to test only in the area of suspected disability. They believe that the change might create lawsuits and further costs to districts if additional disabilities become apparent later on, and they believe based on their own experiences that disabilities are not always apparent immediately. Regarding the elimination of short-term objectives from IEPs, CSEAC opposes their elimination. They believe that these benchmarks help parents and teachers provide appropriate services and might prevent lawsuits. They pointed out that OSEP (the federal Office of Special Education Programs) has cited Colorado as "needs intervention" on how we deal with special education; also, that only 52.9% of SPED students graduate from high school in Colorado – that is why they believe that Colorado needs to go beyond the federal guidelines.
The Special Education Director from Boulder Valley School District testified that not aligning with federal regulations adds additional cost and layers of complexity; issues can be resolved by districts using best practices. She said that speech language pathologists have been omitted in the rules addressing related services, although these are addressed in the federal regulations; she thinks these should not be omitted. She would like more clarity about what is sufficient progress besides just assessments done by teachers, to address concerns that parents might have. The age for transition planning is a "floor," not a "ceiling," which is why it doesn’t need to be changed. She would like to change the number of days for evaluation to 40 days, rather than 60.
A representative from CASB (Colorado Association of School Boards) commended CDE’s side-by-side analysis of proposals submitted. They believe that the age for transition planning should be 16, as stated in the federal regulations. Regarding eligibility, they believe that the three areas in the federal regulations are lumped together as one area in the proposed rules. They agree with the previous speaker about the issue of speech/language pathologists being listed as providers of related services.
The Director of Special Education representing the Pikes Peak region said they support changing from 45 days to 60 days for evaluation and eligibility, despite the difficulty it presents for winter and summer breaks. They would like to change the transition age to 16. Regarding the implementation of RTI (Response to Intervention) by August 15, they would like relaxation of that date, because many schools and districts are just beginning to determine how to implement RTI, and it will take time.
The Director of Special Education from Morgan County came representing 10 directors in the Northeast and North Central region. They think the rules should fully align with the federal regulations; it would strike an appropriate balance between the needs of students and the needs of districts. Many of our school districts border other states, and rules that are different in Colorado create confusion if students move here. Then Colorado wouldn’t need to develop its own case law. We should add compliance requirements.
The metro area Special Education Directors also urged alignment with federal regulations. An area of concern for them is the August 15 deadline for RTI implementation. RTI is a philosophical model, not a well-developed set of criteria; districts need time to create systems changes and capacity-building, culture shifts, and practices that are sustainable. In the metro area, students often change districts; there needs to be consistency of RTI practices in the, a coordinated effort among all the metro districts. They proposed that the requirement be for a written plan to be submitted by August 15 (rather than full implementation).
DeHoff said that he doesn’t see inclusion in the rules that allow cognitive testing as part of the body of evidence. He recommended inclusion of it. Berman disagreed.
Middleton asked about the concerns expressed regarding the 45 school days vs. 60 calendar days for evaluation and eligibility determination. Steinberg said that we clarified the eligibility period as 30 days. I asked about the concern raised about the 60 plus 30 being half a school year. Steinberg said that his experience demonstrates that districts usually complete the processes in less than the full amount of time.
Middleton asked about the August 15 deadline for implementation of RTI. Steinberg said we already have been doing training on RTI, but he said that some districts are not as far along as others. He said he would be open to flexibility around that timeline. Suckla asked for more clarification about the August 15 date, and Steinberg said that CDE will not be sending out monitors penalizing districts if they have not fully implemented the rules. Middleton said that we have had issues on the SBE before about districts not meeting deadlines, and we should do more than just say that there will be flexibility. Steinberg said he can provide us with a proposed revision to allow flexibility. He explained that this was drafted a year ago, when many districts seemed to be resistant to the idea of changing to RTI, whereas now every district seems amenable to making the change. We agreed to make that revision. Littleton said she thinks we should change the date from August 15, 2008, to January 1, 2008, or we would have to wait an entire additional year for implementation; Steinberg said that CDE needs the time to do the training for all districts.
I asked about speech/language pathologists as providers of related services. Laura Freppel from the Exceptional Students Leadership Unit at CDE said these services may be either a special education service or a related service. In Colorado, speech/language pathologists have been considered as an instructional service (i.e., special education), and the federal regulations clearly give the state the ability to regulate that, and there is nothing prohibiting it in the rules.
I asked if we can find compromise language regarding comprehensive testing vs. testing in the area of suspected disability. Steinberg said that parents already have the right to ask for evaluations and that RTI will ensure monitoring throughout the process. I said that I receive many phone calls from parents about difficulty with responsiveness from districts and have heard the discussion in CSEAC. Suckla said that we all get phone calls and need to weigh them. DeHoff said the definition of significant disability begs the question for more comprehensive testing, in the body of evidence. Steinberg said that the evaluation team would handle this. DeHoff said he is concerned that special education directors expressed concern that it won’t allow cognitive or aptitude testing because of RTI. Steinberg said that it will. DeHoff read from the written record that others have expressed this concern and insisted that it won’t. A special education director in the audience was allowed to come up and speak to us on the topic; he said that testing would be required to determine a specific learning disability. He said that in the context of the entire rules, parents will still be able to ask for what they believe their child needs.
I asked about the age for beginning transition planning, since the federal regulations say age 16, the proposed rules say 15, and CSEAC has asked for age 14. Steinberg said the rules committee agreed that 16 was too late, and it should be no later than the end of 9th grade. I asked if anyone has expressed concern about the state’s encouragement of college planning information being given to 8th graders, but the rules are not explicitly going to require this to happen with special education students. Steinberg said that it was discussed extensively in the rules task force, and that is why CDE staff believes that age 15 is necessary rather than age 16.
Middleton moved to close the oral portion of the hearing, direct revisions, and place it on the agenda for Board-only discussion, and/or adoption, at the next meeting. Littleton said that we have discussed it extensively enough and should decide today. Suckla said that our rule-making procedures do not allow us to decide today. The motion then passed unanimously.
The State Board will be asked to approve the Mountain BOCES proposal to offer the ALternative Principal Preparation Program. [State Board rules provide that Colorado school districts, boards of cooperative services (BOCES), accredited independent schools, accepted institutions of higher education, or any combination thereof, may apply for approval of an alternative principal preparation program. This proposal has been reviewed by a committee that includes representatives of higher education and educators who are experts in the field of alternative licensure and principal preparation programs.]
The State Board will be asked to approve the induction program for Teacher/Special Service Provider in the Steamboat Springs School District. [The Educator Licensing Act requires school districts hiring new and new-to district licensed educators to implement induction programs approved by the SBE. In addition, the SBE rules require a cyclical review of induction programs.]
The State Board will be asked to approve the Mesa State College Master of Arts in Education Preparation Program. [The Mesa State College Master of Arts in Education Program documentation submitted contains the applicable content and supporting documentation required to assure the SBE that candidates prepared in the program will meet and/or exceed licensing requirements. The recommendation to the SBE is based on the alignment of the Mesa State College Master of Arts in Education Program to the SBE's teacher performance-based preparation standards, including literacy preparation requirements, and all relevant SBE-approved endorsement standards.]
BUDGET
CDE has prioritized budget requests as follows:
LEGISLATION
HB 07-1118: By February 1, 2008, the SBE must report to the House and Senate Education Committees on the adequacy of the existing standards to prepare students for workforce and postsecondary education. CDE will not have completed its review of the standards by that time. The Governor is required to appoint a council to consult with the SBE on graduation guidelines that the SBE must approve by next August. Staff will arrange a presentation with questions that SBE members can use at the CASB conference and in other venues to collect comments on the adequacy of existing standards, in order to prepare the required report by February 1. DeHoff said we should be sure to get input from business and labor, as well as college professors who teach college freshmen. Suckla suggested that we might be able to combine this with regional meetings to introduce the Commissioner and the Forward Thinking plan to the public. She said that we should also invite students to comment. The SBE is supposed to also have its own "stakeholder group"; Jo O’Brien said that the groups we have been using for reactions to the changes we have already made to the standards for this.
HB 07-1270: This law requires a comprehensive review and study of Colorado’s data systems and the capability of districts to work with the SBE on this. The vendor, North Highland Company, has been selected by OIT (Office of Information Technology) to complete the study, which will involve 32 school districts.
Legislative Priorities for 2008: Anne Barkis made notations on our 2007 priorities to show which ones were adopted through legislation in 2007. She added a list of recommendations based on our discussion at the Retreat. These were the items that we discussed changing:
SBE Legislative update sessions will be held at 9 a.m. on the following dates: October 22, November 26, January 7, and every Monday thereafter during the legislative session.
We agreed on the following process for dealing with proposed legislation, as suggested by Anne Barkis: The SBE and Commissioner will meet weekly with our Legislative Liaison during the legislative session. (These meetings will be held at 9 a.m. on Mondays.) If fewer than 6 SBE members are present (in person or on the phone), Elaine Berman (Democrat) and Randy DeHoff (Republican) will contact the other SBE members of their party for feedback. The Board will strive for unanimity on bill positions. If the Board is not unanimous, it will strive for a super-majority, and if not that, a simple majority; in either of those cases, the Legislative Liaison will let the Legislature know that the Board was not unanimous. For bills that the Board is opposed to, we will first try to offer amendments to make the bill acceptable; if there is not agreement on amendments, the position will be to oppose.
A man talked about the importance of God and Jesus Christ to bless schools and have their authority affect schools; he complained about the lack of prayer in schools and about schools teaching homosexuality.
Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved