a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District

Commissioner Jones said that he is excited about what we might be able to do for the children of this state. He said that the staff has worked hard to prepare for this Retreat. Dr. Don McAdams was invited by Commissioner Jones to help us with team building. McAdams is a good friend of former U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige. He is an expert working with boards, helping them be successful. Jones invited him because we will only meet our high expectations if we have a united, high-performing board.

McAdams said he was on the Houston School Board and never imagined that he would make a career in education, but he caught the "bug" about education, realizing that nothing is more important to this country than education. He found that school districts are a key player in change and hadn’t received enough attention for their role as change agents. He started doing training of boards, and soon found himself going around the country training boards. He said a high-performing board is key to the functioning of an organization, although not the only key.

"First God created idiots; that was just for practice. Then he created school boards." -- Mark Twain

McAdams pointed out that there is a double standard for school boards. People expect legislative bodies and city councils to debate vigorously, but not school boards.

OBJECTIVES & GROUND RULES

McAdams asked us what the objectives are that we would like to accomplish at the Retreat. We came up with these objectives: (1) provide state and national leadership on state education policy; (2) be and be perceived as being a high-performing team (CDE and SBE); and (3) transcend partisan structure to achieve consensus on major issues.

Ground rules: (1) express our views with respect; (2) stay on point; (3) have rigorous expectations for ourselves and our performance; (4) have full participation from all SBE members; (5) strive to reach consensus (which is not unanimity, but everyone agrees that they can live with the decision), agreeing on the facts versus points of view, respecting deeply held convictions.

The essence of democracy is compromise. McAdams believes that public perception is better when there is a 5:2 vote than a 4:3, especially when the votes are often 4:3 by the same members. He believes that it is worth our while to compromise on issues if we can move from 4:3 to 5:2 or even 6:1. We can calm the public down by doing this. Berman brought up the question that we’ve had about whether we need to be unanimous for our legislative agenda. I explained that the policy derived years ago after SBE members presented very different views to the public, and our credibility had suffered. However, I added that we didn’t have a discussion about consensus versus unanimity.

The first step is a reasoned deliberation – agreeing on what the facts are. The second step is sharing our opinions.

GOVERNANCE

McAdams led us in a discussion to determine the differences between the SBE and the Legislature and local school boards. The SBE is part of the Executive Branch of government, because we enforce laws and make rules, but at the same time we are a separately elected body that is not under the Governor. Also, we function somewhat as a legislative body, in that our rules have the force of law (once they are approved by the Legislature). We are also at times judicial, when we conduct appeal hearings. There is a big difference in the relationship between the Legislature and the Governor and in the relationship between the SBE and the Commissioner or a school board and a superintendent. That points out a similarity between the SBE and corporate boards.

There is fundamental issue from the kind of governance we have: the line between the governing board (SBE) and management (the Commissioner and CDE). McAdams asked what the definition of "governance" is. Berman suggested that governance involves policy-setting, oversight, and appointment of the CEO. I looked up "governance" in the thesaurus and got "power, authority, supremacy, domination." For "management" I got "organization, administration, supervision, running." McAdams said that we, the SBE, really do have power, authority, etc. He said that governance is steering and management is rowing; governance is making the rules and management is playing the game.

Who is responsible for what CDE does? McAdams says it’s the SBE, because we hire the Commissioner. Governing boards have the ultimate responsibility and authority for how well their organizations run. Their power is through hiring and firing the chief executive. Therefore, it’s a practical matter for us to work well together so that we can determine what the most effective way is for the organization to run. The power is equally balanced, therefore. The Commissioner’s effectiveness depends on how well the SBE works, and the SBE’s effectiveness depends on how well CDE is run by the Commissioner. We will all be judged by the effectiveness of one another.

To reach our goals, we have to figure out what policy framework will get us to our goals. He suggested that we consider writing out our operating procedures to clarify all of our processes for doing our work. It should include how we determine our agendas, when we meet, how we communicate. He said it helps us be more predictable to the public and moves things to policy and away from tradition. It makes us be more effective and be perceived as more effective.

We had a long discussion about how to respond to the press and what our policy should be on such things. Our current Operating Procedures say: "Keep fellow Board members, the Commissioner, and the Director of Board Relations apprised of issues before going public with them." We decided that we might add "Director of Communications" or change to that from "Director of Board Relations." We decided on the following: If we receive an inquiry about an action of CDE, we should contact the Director of Communications before responding. If it’s about a vote we took on the Board or something we are doing as the Board, we can respond directly.

We also discussed what other situations involving staff should go through the Commissioner. The board should always go through the Commissioner when we need staff to do something for us (such as asking for data – in other words, when we want staff to do work for us that is beyond what they normally do; however, any information given to one Board member should go to all). McAdams said that Board members should never issue directives to staff. Business discussions can take place as part of our activities on committees, but the Commissioner should always be "in the loop." He said that if we want a high-performing organization, the Commissioner must have the authority to be in charge of staff.

Regarding what we say to the public after a vote that was not unanimous, we discussed how we should communicate; we will be perceived better if we say something like this: As the record shows, I did not support this, but it was the decision of the majority of the Board, so we need to implement it.

ASPECTS OF GOOD STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

McAdams said that there is general consensus throughout the country on what is necessary for good student achievement.

Data: We agreed that data should be objective, verifiable, and transparent.

Standards: We agreed that they should reflect the content that students should know and be able to do, and that we should set the performance levels that reflect proficiency in them. However, in regard to alignment, although we agreed that there should be vertical alignment (from one grade level to the next), we did not agree whether they should be aligned with one another or with other states. We do not have agreement on national standards.

Assessments: We agreed that there need to be assessments, although Schaffer said he’d prefer that it be dealt with "in the marketplace" instead (for example, he said that there are no assessments on insurance companies, to determine which are the best).

Accountability: We agreed that there needs to be accountability, but the best form for it to take is not easy to determine. There is a difference between holding schools and districts accountable, and punishing them; there was no agreement on this.

Local control: We agree on the importance of this, so the state doesn’t micro-manage education.

End-of-course exams: These are tests given to determine students’ proficiency in content areas; they would be given instead of dictating the number of years that students should take certain subjects. We did not have consensus on this.

State support: The state department should provide support services to districts.

Choice: School choice can be available in a variety of ways. This is a very controversial subject.

McAdams ended by saying that in a democracy, the way you set direction is by language. It would be worthwhile for the SBE to write out our beliefs about major education issues.

Commissioner Jones covered the issues of the purpose, functions, structures, and processes for CDE to be high-functioning. He had asked consultants Dr. Larry Vaughn and Dr. Doris Fassino to do an analysis of CDE by surveying the staff. They presented their results. Jones knows them from when he worked in Wichita, Kansas. They interviewed the top administrative staff; then they interviewed the other staff in teams of about 15. They were looking for qualitative data at that time.

They found that the staff has a strong desire to be leaders in education and to be of service to districts – just like the SBE. The consultants were looking to elicit staff perceptions of the current situation in CDE and help staff influence decision-making about the CDE mission, work toward a common vision for CDE, determine key implementation strategies needed to accomplish the primary purpose and key functions, and determine what structures are necessary to supplement the development of a unified staff.

The staff advice to the Commissioner was:

• Develop a strong mission and vision for CDE.
• Align job functions with the mission and provide training for employees.
• Improve cross-unit/office collaboration.
• Get to know the staff.
• Improve facilities to communicate the business of CDE.
• Increase communication within CDE and to its publics.
• Enhance technology for communication and accountability functions.

Their personal wishes:

• Create "one voice" to convey CDE’s purpose, mission, and direction.
• Provide focused, purposeful, and cohesive leadership.
• Foster open communication.
• Create a collegial and supportive work culture.
• Organize physical work environment to foster effectiveness and efficiency.

Significant barriers:

• Lack of communication between and within units.
• Current organizational structure.
• The (negative) reputation of CDE.
• Lack of modern technology infrastructure.
• Silo concept, internal divisiveness, win-lose, fear, power mongers, bureaucracy.
• Lack of trust.
• Lack of funds and "misuse" of funds.
• Lack of clear purpose of CDE.

The consultants said they have never seen a staff with such enthusiasm for working on making changes. They said, "It was unbelievable. They were delighted that you chose Dwight because he is a people person. It was an unbelievably energetic crowd. The joy that was expressed was amazing."

The staff was asked to create the ideal situation for CDE. Staff’s concept statement was as follows: To create a purpose-driven and dynamic system of educational leadership service and support that relentlessly focuses on the learning of ALL students, in a way that provides:

• A seamless, collaborative leadership system with intentional intensity, urgency, and impatience for continuous improvement action.
• A reliable source for research, data, and analysis envied by professional vendors.
• A recognized model for building expanded leadership capacity.
• Guidance and support services to meet district and school needs.
• Professional development in best practices and tools to eliminate the achievement gap and increase student achievement for all.
• Efficient and effective utilization of federal, state, and private funds.

So that CDE is a fun place to work, agile and proactive in responding to ever-changing conditions, and is recognized as the premiere source of educational leadership.

Commissioner Jones presented the plan that he and Deputy Commissioners Ken Turner and Karen Stroup created to describe how staff intends to organize toward accomplishing the SBE’s strategic plan. CDE’s Leadership Team developed a plan with 7 goals, which are elaborated upon later. Their starting assumptions were:

• Meaningful and sustained change arises out of a healthy dissatisfaction with the status quo.
• Change is more about changing hearts and minds at CDE than policies and practices at the department.

The cornerstone beliefs that will guide their actions are that openness and transparency are necessary, as well as creativity, critical thinking, and receptiveness to new ideas and ways of doing business; and coherence, collaboration, and interdependence create a strong system that supports districts and schools.

High leverage points:

• People are our greatest asset (so success hinges on building capacity).
• Choice enables parents to match program to their child’s needs.
• We must be adapted to current conditions.
• We must be well adapted to changing conditions.

Non-negotiables:

• Narrowing and eliminating the achievement gap.
• Continued and expanded focus on literacy.
• Ensured quality instruction for all students.
• Continued emphasis on high standards and rigor.
• Graduating college- and workforce-ready high school students.

Other key areas:

• Integrity of online educational offerings.
• School funding.
• Early childhood education.
• P-20 and a partnership between K-12 and higher ed.

CDE is currently about $380,000 over budget, but Commissioner Jones pledged to find a balance by the end of the year – or he will cut some staff. He said we have a good staff that we should be proud of. He said that some "have not behaved well," but he believes that was due to the CDE system, and by fixing the system, he believes they will improve. He said that he needed to hire Dr. Ken Turner to help with the restructuring.

GOALS

1. Guidance and support services to meet district and school needs.
   1. Develop a department mission that espouses service and support to the field.
   2. Enhance the CDE brand by reporting how well stakeholders perceive their experience of working with CDE.
2. Professional development in best practices.
   1. Design and implement a more consistent and comprehensive statewide system of support that helps schools and districts building the capacity needed to achieve ambitious student outcomes.
   2. Restore the credibility of CDE by enlisting top experts in the country.
   3. Provide more and better support for content and curriculum-based efforts.
   4. Enhance support to small and rural schools and districts through a partnership with BOCES.
3. Tools to eliminate gaps and increase achievement for all students.
   1. Design, detail, and disseminate model curricula and related assessment tools that districts can use voluntarily.
   2. Redefine the achievement gap in a way that allows it to be addressed by design of school policies with a "no excuses" approach based on research.
4. A seamless, collaborative leadership system with intentional intensity, urgency, and impatience.
   1. Revise how schools and districts are labeled through Accreditation so that the label stigma is removed, and so that resources are funneled to struggling schools.
   2. Develop and implement a revision of the standards and assessments.
   3. Create the Colorado Legacy Foundation, a nonpartisan, rewards-oriented 501c3 that supports innovation, entrepreneurship, the dissemination of best practices, and a design for 21^st century teaching and learning efforts.
   4. Convene the Commissioner’s Summit, an annual 3-day retreat sponsored by the Colorado Legacy Foundation to engage K-12, higher education, and business and political leaders from across the state to coordinate efforts.
5. Efficient and effective use of federal, state, and private funds
   1. Make budgeting transparent and understandable.
   2. Design and implement a position control system in CDE to manage resources so staff have the tools they need.
   3. Develop a consistent, comprehensive statewide system of discretionary funding for schools based on student need.
   4. Implement quality standards for the operation and administration of multidistrict online educational enterprises and develop the infrastructure needed to support this effort.
6. Reliable source for research, data, and analysis.
   1. Revise the data management, tool development, and research request process in ways the field finds useful.
   2. Increase the reliance on longitudinal data within the state system of educational accountability.
7. A recognized model for building expanded leadership capacity – to define, detail, and implement a network of distributed leadership within CDE that includes a Principal Center, a Superintendent and School Board Center, a Futures Center, and a Coaching Center.

Jones intends to create a unit in CDE led by Kelly Leid as the Associate Commissioner for Strategic Partnerships, for planning to create partnerships for 21^st century initiatives, to integrate innovation, critical industry skills, and 21^st century skills into the standards; to create the "Commissioner’s Cup" which honors districts that are leading dynamic public education; the Commissioner’s – or SBE’s – Summit, an annual 3-day retreat, to engage a variety of education stakeholders, business leaders, etc.; Colorado Legacy Scholars, a new scholarship fund that awards a full-ride scholarship to 100 of Colorado’s top high school seniors to attend a Colorado university if they agree to teach for a few years. From this work would be created a CDE Best Practices Guide. These would be paid for by privately raised money from the business and nonprofit sectors.

Jones want to build a 3-5-year plan to move the Board’s strategic plan forward. CDE will partner with McREL (Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning) to design this plan. This would be funded by a non-profit, probably Donnell-Kay. This agenda will address the following: literacy (both reading and writing), building leadership capacity, next-generation standards, 21^st century schools, closing the achievement gap, and high school reform.

These efforts will be a unique public-private partnership. CDE will create RFPs to get the funding for these things. He pointed out that we can’t rely only on the meager state funding and the administrative "cut" from federal funding to do these new things.

Middleton proposed that we use the Partnership for 21^st Century Skills to do this, since it seems to be the most simple, easy vehicle to accomplish these goals. Suckla and others emphasized the importance of us "driving" these efforts rather than conforming to the plans of others. Suckla also reminded us that we need a precise plan to give the Joint Budget Committee soon. Middleton added that we need to give this information to the subcommittees of the P-20 Council.

Jones added that CDE plans to have an Achievement Advisor for districts with large achievement gaps, as Pennsylvania is doing now. The districts will select the person themselves, but CDE will have a detailed plan for how they would do that. He pointed out that he and staff have been working on these plans for a few months, and there will be more details to come.

Because of the 6% limit in the state Constitution, etc., the state’s budget can grow by $431.5 million, but 75% of that is earmarked -- $324.1 million is needed to meet required increases, of K-12 growth, Medicaid, and caseloads. The remaining $107.4 million must be allocated to additional funding for higher education, emergencies, community provider rate increases, and common policy adjustments (payroll increases and benefits). The little that is left, if any, can go to the Governor’s initiatives and change requests from the state departments.

Currently CDE has 305 FTEs, which is approximately $22.9 million in costs, of which 26% is state-funded. We are currently over-obligated by $380,000 (as mentioned previously), due to actions taken by Commissioner Jones to deliver on his "New Day Promise," in creating a Communications Unit and hiring an additional Deputy Commissioner and Full-Time Legislative Liaison. CDE will meet with the Governor’s staff to work on how we might make adjustments of efficiency to cover the costs, but first we will ask for a supplemental allocation.

OSPB (the Governor’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting) controls all new funding requests in the state budget request. This budget must be balanced, so the Governor limits the number of new funding requests. However, since the SBE is an elected body, we can ask for funding in a way that doesn’t have to adhere to the Governor’s budget by going to the JBC separately – we usually present a side-by-side budget, with what the Governor accepted from our budget as well as what we asked for that was not put in by OSPB.

For next year’s budget (08-09), all state departments have been told that there is no new funding available. CDE has submitted 8 requests for new/increased funding. This includes required increases in "total program" and categorical funding because of student growth and Amendment 23’s additional 1% increase. We are also asking for $351,000 for increased assessment costs (since the federal funding for assessments was reallocated by the JBC in the past). Other requests include increased funding for the School Audit Unit travel, CDE legal services, and maintenance for the Talking Book Library.

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: SCHOOLING FOR THE FUTURE

Laura Lefkowits from McREL (Mid-Continental Research for Education and Learning, one of the regional laboratories funded by the U.S. Department of Education) presented to us some information from their research. McREL believes that we must get the most possible out of our current educational system, but schools, as they are currently designed, cannot meet the needs of the future. The trends:

• The population is aging; people 65 and over increased tenfold, from 3.1 million to 35 million. Colorado has a greater growth rate of elderly people than the U.S. – 6 % vs. 4%.
• The population is becoming more diverse. Colorado is one of ten states that together have 90% of the Hispanic population. Black and Hispanic students are much les likely than white students to graduate, attend college, or earn a living wage.
• Poverty – 38% of American children live in low-income families. Schools in high-poverty areas tend to offer low salaries, lack the amenities that other schools have, and experience high staff turnover and a high percentage of new, inexperienced teachers.
• Employment growth in Colorado is highest in professional science and technical services, health care and social assistance, etc., which demand a bachelor’s degree. About 32% of job growth will be from positions requiring a post-secondary degree. Colorado ranks 5^th in technical jobs.
• Colorado fares better than most in our region (which goes east to Missouri) for on-time graduation rate, but it’s worse for Hispanics and worse in 9^th and 10^th grades, although Colorado’s dropout rate is lower than the national average.
• About 7% of Colorado students attend charter schools; 62% of them are white and 24% Hispanic. The strong growth rate of charter schools in Colorado shows that they "are here to stay." Also, 55% of students choose schools other than their assigned neighborhood school.
• About 40% of high school graduates say that there are gaps between the education they received in high school and the overall skills, abilities, and work expected of them in college and in the work force.
• Today’s kids are "digital natives." Web 2.0 is "the end of cyberspace" and moving to 24/7 online connection, including wikipedia, youtube, and secondlife.
• The world is flat, as Thomas Friedman says.
• Daniel Pink, in AWhole New Mind, says that we have moved into the conceptual age now, requiring use of right-brain thinking: design, story, empathy, synthesis, playing well with others, and finding purpose and fulfillment. We need to learn how to learn. Curiosity and passion matter more than IQ.

So, what is the "right" education? Help students "play well with others" and nurture the right brain. We need to move with speed and direction in order to survive and thrive in the future.

Randy DeHoff made a presentation on this topic at the CASE conference. He pointed out that the public education system has changed little in the last 100 years, with a time-based system, learning in 45-minute blocks, and a comprehensive high school still the norm. He said that the current system is not preparing students for the 21^st century. The rate of change is faster than it has ever been; what is commonplace today in technology was unimagined 15 years ago. Our challenge is to design a system of education for an unknown future. No system ever willingly changes from the inside. Online capacity and podcasts are already changing how people learn. "When you arrive at a fork in the road, take it." (Yogi Berra)

We need to figure out what needs to change to create a new system; these are barriers to a 21^st century system:

• Funding a system rather than students
• Teacher recruitment, training, pay, staffing
• The 19^th century agrarian model of the school day/year
• And others

What a 21^st century system needs:

• Flexible use of time, resources, personnel, and facilities
• No longer restricted to the classroom (more use of Internet)
• Funding following the students
• Individualized instruction, so students can choose from a menu of options
• Multiple modes of delivery
• Ability to quickly respond to a changing environment and technology

Some models that we can look at:

• Mapleton School District redesign – small schools, theme schools.
• Adams 14 – "we are not building a new old high school" – allowable uses of interior, into open space or separate classrooms, tables and desks on wheels.
• Douglas County’s teacher preparation waiver program.
• District of only charter schools, or redesigned district organization.

I pointed out that some of the obstruction to changing the system comes not from the "bureaucracy" itself, but from parents who want their children to have the same kind of experience that they had when they went to school. Schaffer asked how many districts are likely to ask for waivers like Douglas County; DeHoff said two to three districts are likely in the next year or two. I pointed out that only large districts with access to expert instructors would be able to create a program like Douglas County has, and it would not be feasible for most of our school districts. Suckla said that if we go to an end-of-course exam method of high school graduation, it might still be questionable whether society is ready for younger kids to be exiting the school system and going into the workforce, or if child labor laws would allow it.

Anne Barkis, our new Legislative Liaison, introduced herself to us. She discussed what she sees as her role, based on the job interview and what has been discussed by the Commissioner and the Board. She knows that we would like a strong voice at the Capitol, someone to be a conduit between CDE and the Legislature, ready to be able to provide information when requested, and lending the SBE’s voice to the conversation about legislation. She spoke with the Legislative Liaison from Alabama, one of the two other states that has a partisan-elected SBE that hires its Chief State School Officer. She thinks that if she can maintain the relationships she already has at the Capitol with legislators, she will be able to be "at the table" when legislation is being drafted. She has already arranged meetings with the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, Joint Budget Committee, online school lobbyists, and the Chair of the Senate Education Committee. She plans to meet with other legislators and meet with each of us individually to learn about our interests and ideas.

Her plans for the fall months are as follows: attend the Governor’s legislative meetings; hold weekly meetings on education legislation with the SBE; monitor interim committees, JBC hearings, Capital Development Committee, and P-20 Council; get around and meet the staff at CDE; attend meetings of CLASS Colorado; and make regular reports that the Communications Office can disburse. I suggested that she also pay attention to Believe in a Better Colorado, a presentation on school finance issues being made collaboratively by CASE, CASB, and CEA.

She submitted sheets to us on the key bills that were just passed in the recent session, including SB 215, HB 1118, and HB 1048. Suckla asked Barkis if she has ideas about how to deal with bills for which the SBE members have different opinions. Barkis said she thinks it can be helpful to explain that there are different ways that the issues can be looked at. She plans to put together talking points. She intends to keep separate sheets for each bill, including the status, and eventually delineate the SBE’s and CDE’s responsibilities and deadlines.

Commissioner Jones said that we should look at bills in regard to what opportunities might exist to carry forward our strategic plan. We will also delineate the issues/problems with proposed bills. Berman said that she thinks a regularly scheduled, weekly meeting to review legislation is a good idea. Suckla said that it is probably advisable to have a couple of "point people," one from each party, to have Barkis contact during the session. She recommended Berman and DeHoff, since they are available in Denver almost daily.

Berman asked whether we are going to determine the SBE’s position on bills. She asked whether our discussion earlier in the Retreat about making decisions by consensus rather than unanimity applies to this. Suckla said we need to discuss it and asked what we think. I pointed out that our legislative priorities from last year comprised a pretty long list that we unanimously supported, and I wonder if it’s a problem. Middleton suggested we create both a list of unanimous priorities and other priorities that we have some differing opinions on. Suckla said that we absolutely must have school trust lands as a priority. Middleton suggested that our list of priorities would be much more useful if we include an explanation of why our priorities are important.

Commissioner Jones asked us each to mention what we’d like to see for our priority areas:

Hudak – creating a coordinated system of early childhood programs and services; allowing an individual student ID to be assigned for each child starting in early childhood and staying with them through higher education; allowing the SBE more flexibility with the SARs.

Middleton – steering the efforts for changes in assessments and preventing piecemeal changes; preventing immediate changes in transitions to higher education, to manage concurrent enrollment and post-secondary enrollment; supporting civics and STEM education, etc., in ways that align well.

Schaffer – changing the methodology of school finance away from seat time and contact hours; revisiting the "small attendance center" issue in terms of charter schools; encouraging the Legislature to advocate for more flexibility in NCLB and greater use of federal teacher incentive funds.

DeHoff – student-based funding; deregulation and increased flexibility for districts; protecting, expanding, and strengthening school choice opportunities.

Berman – (she said that although we should seek to avoid much new legislation that changes education, her priorities would be) examining waivers that have been granted to determine what laws should be changed; focusing on what should be done with standards, assessments, and accountability; providing leadership on graduation guidelines; increasing funding for CDE; improving school finance; reinventing BOCES; encouraging extended learning opportunities; providing input for the reauthorization of NCLB.

Littleton – continued improvement to the state’s data infrastructure; improving teacher preparation and professional development, and teacher licensure and renewal.

Suckla – (if we don’t get an opinion from the Attorney General on the issue soon) getting legislation to name the SBE as the spokesbody for the beneficiary of the School Land Trust; requiring signage on school trust lands; continuing to work to prevent the Legislature from supplanting funds from the school trust lands; defining what constitutes a "loss" in investments of the school trust funds.

We were briefed on what is needed to implement the new legislation:

SB 215: We need to approve an MOU format for districts and the entities doing the online services. CDE is drafting one, and we will meet the October 1 deadline. The Governor needs to appoint people for the online advisory committee. CDE has some recommendations. It is likely to be named by next week, but happily, they will ask for the Commissioner’s input before making the appointments. Effective FY 08-09, districts collect full PPR for their online students, rather than the minimum PPR.

HB 1048: We will adopt rules for the longitudinal growth model. One problem is that there are several different longitudinal approaches required in NCLB, on the SAR, in Accreditation, and for individual students from HB 1433 and 1048.

HB 1118: CDE has a list of people to recommend to the Governor for the Graduation Guidelines Advisory Council. Jo O’Brien should be contacted if anyone would like to recommend others.

SB 140: One SBE member is to be appointed to the Quality Teachers Commission, of the 13-member group appointed by the Governor. Suckla would like me to be the appointee.

Mary Frances Nevans, the new Director for State Board Affairs, looked at the cost-effectiveness of e-Board. She found it to be a good deal, much cheaper and easier than doing it ourselves. We will get a free upgrade, and Nevans will get training. Thus, we will continue using e-Board.

Suckla is trying to ensure that there is equitable distribution of SBE members to advisory committees and other committees. At the last SBE meeting she had everyone indicate which committees they are working with. I’ve been the Board liaison to CSEAC (Colorado Special Education Advisory Committee). Littleton has been on the Read-to-Achieve board. Middleton is the liaison to the Gifted and Talented Advisory Committee. Suckla is the liaison to the CASB board, and she says that they want her to continue. Suckla said we should get another Board member on CLASS Colorado; Berman volunteered. Suckla is Secretary-Treasurer of the larger CLASS group, which has annual conferences in July. The decision was made for Littleton and me to switch CSEAC and Read-to-Achieve.

Suckla and staff have been looking at how to change our meeting agendas so we have sufficient time to discuss issues, get reports from members about meetings they’ve attended, etc. Suckla would like us to have the opportunity to get more reports from staff on what they are working on. Berman said that she would like to figure out a way for us to report without it being a "show and tell." Suckla suggested that we submit written reports. I questioned whether we have time to write written reports and whether we’d read one another’s. Nevans suggested that she could be the clearinghouse and utilize the Communications office to send the information around. She said she thinks it would be nice for the public to know what we’ve done.

Another issue is that it would be nice to make a less formal setting for Work Sessions, so we can sit around tables in a square as we used to do before we began using e-Board. The IT staff suggests that we do e-Board through hard-wiring, to avoid so many problems that we’ve had with the Internet connection going down intermittently during the meetings. Schaffer said that it would be nice to have a more technologically advanced set-up in the Board Room, so it has video-conferencing capability, etc. He also brought up the issue of having to rearrange the room when we have charter school appeal hearings.

Commissioner Jones suggested that we do charter school hearings every other month and do a bunch of them in a separate meeting. With the 60-day window, we can probably do it this way. Middleton said that we should also look at the hearings themselves and try to change the way the hearings are done. She had an informal meeting with the education stakeholders in charter schools and districts to brainstorm how we can improve the process of charter school appeals. She also recommended some technical assistance to help District Accountability Committees review charter school applications. She thinks that the SBE is being used as the "easy out" when districts and proposed charter schools can’t work together. We agreed to look at that, and change the hearing schedule meanwhile.

Suckla said that resolutions are statements of the Board, and she thinks we should pass them only if we are unanimous. I agreed, reminding the members of the controversy many years ago when there was not unanimity. Suckla questioned the importance of them, since they are just statements of opinion and carry no real weight. Schaffer said that he thinks they do have impact, referring to the resolutions passed in the late 1990s on psychotropic drugs and on posting the "national motto" (in God we trust) – he said those were known nationally. I said that those were the controversial ones that did not have unanimous support from those past SBEs. Littleton said that she would very much like us to be able to pass resolutions, and if not everyone agrees, we could have just the supporters sign them. Berman said she doesn’t think it’s the work of the Board and they can take us in a very partisan direction, taking time away from important issues that are the main business of the Board. Suckla said that we should avoid doing resolutions without unanimity. She pointed out that our operating procedures allow discussion. Berman suggested that we pass resolution by a minimum of a supermajority. We finally reached consensus on that decision.

We decided that the best course of action to take to add a code of ethics for the Board would be to add an Appendix to our Operating Procedures that includes the memo we received from Tony Dyl, our legal counsel from the Attorney General’s office, for our conflict-of-interest policy and code of conduct policy. Berman said that she thinks we need to get this done as soon as possible. She suggested we have another committee meeting to work on a draft, so that we can vote on it at the October meeting.

Commissioner Jones thanked us for our attendance and participation at the Retreat. He said he felt that the objectives were met beyond expectations, and it will allow CDE to move forward on many issues. He thanked Chairwoman Suckla for keeping us on the agenda and thanked all of the staff, especially Ken Turner, Mary Frances Nevans, Will Kugel, and Anne Barkis (who has been at work only one day). Each SBE member made a final comment; mine was that this was the best Retreat we’ve had since I’ve been on the SBE, and I think the Commissioner’s New Day Promise is amazing. Suckla thanked the Commissioner for meeting and exceeding all of our hopes, dreams, and expectations in his first 100 days.

Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved