a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
SUCKLA: Our fellow Board member Karen Middleton has resigned because she was elected to fill a vacancy in House District 42, and she was sworn in this morning; we are very happy for her and appreciate being able to be there for the swearing-in. She announced to us last night at our good-bye dinner that she is pregnant. Pat Chlouber, Regional Representative from the U.S. Department of Education, is in attendance as usual. So is Sherrie Wright from Cortez, CASB’s liaison. Attended a presentation with Randy Black from CASE with a charter school in her district. Has been spending a lot of time negotiating on the BEST (Build Excellent Schools Today) legislation, to ensure that the School Trust Lands are protected. Met with Nina Lopez to try to arrange a meeting with the Graduation Guidelines council in the 3rd CD, but the snow has made it difficult – will do an online survey, but will try to hold a couple of meetings.
HUDAK: Last week I attended the funeral of former Assistant Commissioner Gary Sibigtroth; he had a long history as an educator in Colorado, and it was very sad that he died of ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease). Deputy Commissioner Ken Turner spoke at the PTA Legislative Conference last week, since Commissioner Jones was unable to. He and the Commissioner received a copy of the PTA’s 100th anniversary book; I am presenting one to Mary Frances Nevans today, in thanks for her willingness – along with the Commissioner’s – to arrange for PTA to use the lobby of CDE for part of the conference, although thankfully we did not get "bumped" from the room at the Capitol as it looked like we might. I pointed out the historic dinner that the SBE members had last month with members of the House and Senate Education Committees. It is so nice that everyone is willing to improve our communication and collaboration. I will really miss Karen Middleton; I’m glad that she is on the House Education Committee now. I have attended the first couple of meetings of the Teacher Quality Commission, which I was appointed to by the Governor. Chairwoman Suckla appointed me to be on the committee planning the Reading Summit, which is on May 12. I attended the annual conference of CCIRA (Colorado Council of the International Reading Association) – one of the most pertinent parts was a speech about how our instruction and assessment of boys is not well-suited for them in writing. This Friday I will be receiving the Friend of Foreign Language Award from the Colorado Congress of Foreign Language Teachers for all the help I’ve given them on the SBE. Next week I will be facilitating the first community meeting of the Graduation Guidelines Council – which will be in Summit County for the mountain counties of the 2nd Congressional District.
LITTLETON: Will be attending the Character Education Symposium on Friday in Colorado Springs at the Antlers Hotel. Character Education seems to be what people want – they want kids to have integrity, honesty, and a work ethic. Attended a few superintendent meetings in the 5th Congressional District area. Will be at the El Pomar Center later in the week for the Dollars and Cents conference speaking about "Return on Investments."
DEHOFF: Was at the CASE Conference with Berman and me – it provided good information and good networking. Also with Berman and me, went to speak with the superintendent of the Westminster School District about their efforts in reinventing education with a standards-based approach. Met with Cindy Stevenson, superintendent from Jeffco, as they do annually.
BERMAN: Also met with Cindy Stevenson and attended the CASE conference. Is looking forward to attending NASBE’s Legislative Conference in March.
DeHoff updated us on NASBE, since he is on their Board of Directors. He reported that NASBE is doing well financially, having recovered from its deep debt a few years ago. Their headquarters may be moving to Crystal City, Virginia, from Alexandria. They have asked Senator Kennedy to speak at the Legislative Conference about NCLB reauthorization – he reassured us that it was Republican members of NASBE who asked, because Kenndy has spearheaded NCLB. Only DeHoff and Berman are currently planning to attend the Legislative Conference, but Middleton’s replacement will be elected this Saturday, and perhaps he or she would be willing to go. We will need someone to replace Middleton on the Government Affairs Committee; Littleton will consider it and get back to us about her availability. The Middle School Study Group runs out of funding in March, so NASBE is looking for additional funding in order to complete the study.
Mary Frances Nevans reported that the SBE will be meeting on March 4 with the Anchor Group [which consists of the presidents and executive directors of CASE, CASB, and CEA]. Really likes the new tables that were purchased for the Board Room and greatly appreciates our decision to purchase them [they are lightweight and easy to move, and they are designed so that the wires for our laptops and Internet are not hanging out all over]. At the next SBE meeting we will have an e-Board webinar, to learn the updated version of e-Board, and we will be using the new software by April. Feels like she works with a bunch of "energizer bunnies."
Mark Stevens, Director of CDE Communications, reported that the goal is for CDE to launch "The Scoop" – a production of all communications coming from CDE as an electronic newsletter – next week. The idea is to give a sense of priority and organization to what CDE needs to communicate with districts. It will go out weekly. They did a couple of test runs with districts, some large and some small, from around the state, and got good feedback. Some people in CDE are a little nervous, because they are used to having direct contact with districts. This new form of communication is being done because of requests from the field about the inundation of information that is always going out from CDE, and the difficulty of routing that information to the right people; also, sometimes the same information goes out from different units at CDE. It should improve communications tremendously. We have asked CDE staff to identify key people in the districts to send it to; there should be about 1,000 recipients. There is an emergency procedure to send information out in between the weekly newsletters. The department is a couple of weeks behind the timeline for release of the revised website; they had a couple of staff resignations, which slowed down the process. There will be a new Assistant Director of Communications, to be announced next week, who will replace Tanya Price, who has been reassigned to be Chief of Staff.
We were presented with a report from the Online Advisory Board and the Division of Online Learning that summarizes the operations and activities of multi-district online programs in Colorado. There are 9 providers of 11 programs. The oldest provider is Monte Vista. There are also supplementary programs, including primarily Colorado Online Learning (about 100 districts participate in this) – some local districts often have their own, the two largest of which are DPS (Online High School) and Jeffco’s McClain High School. There is a total of 8,858 students in K-12 full-time online programs and 1,235 in supplemental – for a total of 10,713 students (approximately 1.33% of total enrollment in the state) taking some form of online instruction. The average teacher-to-student ratio in online programs is 41.5:1. The lowest ratio is Las Animas A+ Distance Learning with 8:1, and the highest is Hope Online Learning Academy Co-Op with 151.5:1. Out of 25 schools in 11 online programs, 13 are rated Low, 8 are rated Average, and 4 are not reportable (because of a very low number of students enrolled). Also, 12 schools showed Significant Decline, 5 showed Decline, 4 were Stable, and 4 were unreportable. Overall, the percentage of online students scoring Proficient/Advanced has declined one percentage point in the last two years, and it is 15-20 percentage points below the statewide average. At the same time, the percentage of online students scoring Unsatisfactory has risen and exceeds the statewide average. Some online programs have increased in enrollment and some have decreased.
The Special Education Fiscal Advisory Committee was created by HB 06-1375 to set the process and priorities for funding of high-cost special education services for children who need to be placed out-of-district. The committee has 13 members from around the state. The funding for these high-cost special education students is referred to as "Tier C." SEFAC was also charged with reviewing special education funding in Tiers A, B, and C and making recommendations for future funding. Tier A allocates $1,250 per special education student (all students on an IEP, Individualized Education Plan – many are students with learning disabilities or ADHD). The number of students in this category has remained about the same. Because the actual cost per student exceeds $1,250, the Administrative Units are shouldering much of the cost. Tier B provides a supplement of $6,000 per student with significant disabilities specified by law, including deafness, blindness, autism, traumatic brain injury, and significant emotional disorders. The actual funding available for Tier B is insufficient, so there is not the full $6,000 – so only 8.6% of the total amount needed was actually funded last year; this year, it was 11.8%. Of all the students in Tier A, about 22% are eligible for Tier B. The Legislature allocated $2 million for the last fiscal year in Tier C. There were 47 applications from 12 Administrative Units for Tier C funding, which was for 917 students. SEFAC approved funding of 30, which came from 10 different AU’s; it represented $23 million in costs. The $2 million was spent in decreasing amounts based on the priority of the students’ needs and the districts’ funding needs (as required by the statute). The ones that were not funded had the least impact on the districts. The majority of high-cost students were from the metro area. SEFAC determined that $40,000 would be the threshold to qualify for Tier C funding.
There was also an appropriation of $500,000 for educational orphans. Last year 16 AU’s received funding for 143 children. SEFAC believes that they are fairly well funded.
Colorado has the lowest percentage of students identified with disabilities compared with other states. The number of students with specific learning disabilities or emotional disorders is decreasing, but the number with Speech/Language and physical disabilities is increasing; also, autism is increasing. SEFAC recommends that the funding for Tiers A, B, and C be increased by the same percentage that ECEA (Exceptional Children’s Education Act, the state’s special education law) is increased and that additional funding be sought for Tier B in order to fund more students. SEFAC also recommends creating a new pool of $2 million to fund high-cost in-district kids, who are not funded at this time.
HB07-1270 required a study contracted through the Governor’s Office of Information Technology on data and technology in CDE. NorthHighland was the company hired to do the study. They presented their "Data Infrastructure Review" report. The purpose of the study was to outline the current state of data collection and reporting at CDE and present recommendations for improvement to the data collection process and systems as executed by the department. NorthHighland first sought to understand the current state of the data collection and reporting efforts. They interviewed 30 school districts, conducted an online survey to gather input from the remaining 148 school districts, and interviewed CDE program unit members, including CDE IMS, to understand the current technology in place. They found the following:
The systems developed are "collection driven," in that they were developed in response to fulfill legislative requirements. These systems are working as designed and being maintained as well as could be expected given the resources available. The architecture of the CDE and districts’ systems has been driven by the collection process. This has resulted in a number of key issues:
The report makes the following recommendations:
The Graduation Guidelines Development Council is charged with recommending minimum High School graduation guidelines. Its report is due to the SBE by May 1. Its 13 members were appointed by the Governor, as required by statute. They have met five times so far and held conversations with various people from K-12 and higher education, as well as people from business and the military and from the Education Commission of the States. The Council will continue to solicit input at its meetings and by holding meetings in each of the Congressional Districts. They will also be seeking input from the public. As opportunities arise, they are open to seeking input in other venues, such as at the CASB conference next week. Their online survey tool is being finalized as well. All the information will be complied into the May 1 report. They hope to have input done by the end of April. The compelling question they are dealing with is: What do we want kids to know and be able to do when they graduate from a public high school in Colorado? They realize that they are not the only group considering this question. The Council does not view itself as a means to implement the Governor’s agenda, but it wishes to look at how to coordinate the efforts going on throughout the state by the SBE, the Legislature, etc.
Berman said that she is concerned about the various efforts going on simultaneously on this topic. She would like everyone get together, in the very near future, to share what they are working on. Suckla said she’d like a side-by-side chart of what all the efforts are and what their deadlines are. We can use that to ask the Legislature to change dates, if there are difficulties with the differences among them. Commissioner Jones said that he will be giving us an update tomorrow about work on reviewing the standards. He said that it would be done by the fall of 2008, so that the SBE can approve the revised standards by the end of the year. He is concerned that there is a bill that will be introduced soon requiring K-13 alignment, and we are not sure what it will involve. Also, he is concerned about the reconvening of the SADI Council and how that will or will not align with CDE’s efforts to review the standards. Littleton expressed concern that we had already reviewed the Math and Science standards, and we had collected the data on Reading and Writing. She would like the process to move along.
We held a hearing on the Permanent Rules regarding the establishment of quality standards for online programs and the establishment of timelines and processes for application, reporting, certification, and monitoring of online programs in Colorado. [The SBE adopted emergency rules at the January 2008 meeting to meet the requirements of SB 07-215. The rules create Quality Standards to apply to any agreement entered into by a multi-district online program and a school district, as well as timelines and processes for application, reporting, certification, and monitoring of online programs, and for the approval of the location of a proposed Learning Center.]
Assistant Commissioner Jeanette Cornier said that CDE staff has worked diligently on seeking input from the Online Advisory Board and others for the rules. They had a very short timeline to do so. Pamela Hoppe-Ice, Director of Online Learning, said that members of the Advisory Board are present for the hearing. She submitted to us a side-by-side of the comments submitted.
STEPHEN MARTIN: Is the Director of COVA (Colorado Virtual Academy), here representing the Colorado Cyberschools Association, which represents over 7,000 students in the state all over Colorado. Said that CDE has accepted much of their input, but there has not been meaningful dialog. Their schools will be profoundly affected by the rules. They fear serious unintended consequences. Their concerns are in these four areas: (1) Rule 2.03 defining a "complete educational program" – are all online schools considered one? If not, they may not all receive funding. (2) Rule 2.04 defining "course completion requirements" – online programs should be able to approve their own classes. (3) They would like to remove any rules already in existence that apply to all schools – they don’t think these need to be in the online rules. (4) Rule 2.15 regarding supplemental online programs – no more than two online classes should be allowed, because one or more would allow a district program to buy courses and get funded. (5) Rule 5.05 calls for 30 days for CDE to respond; thinks two weeks would be more reasonable.
SHAUN GILLAM: Is the attorney representing Hope Online Academy. Would like to see Rule 10 expanded – they submitted ideas to expand the rules for appeals. Having prepared one appeal so far, feels that the process should be streamlined, so that one brief would include the argumentation. Had to provide a brief in support of the appeal and then a reply brief, and it was confusing because the district kept writing responses to the briefs, and it was unclear what was expected and proper, as well what the timeline was.
CYNTHIA SALZANO: Is a teacher at COVA and the parent of 3 COVA students. Has the same concern about the course completion issue expressed by a previous person.
JUDITH STOKES: Represents the Branson School District. As an authorizer of an online program, the district is thrilled to be able to be certified as an online program provider. Will also have their programs reviewed for CDE approval. As a rural district, had some concern and alarm that CDE would not have a better idea of what their students need. Would prefer the certification to be contained within the Accreditation process; have a very small staff who all have multiple jobs.
JIM GRIFFIN: With Colorado League of Charter Schools. They are concerned about the definition of "complete educational program." It’s addressing a 1979 statute for when a district places such a program within the boundaries of another district, to get permission. The statute governs when and under what circumstances, and therefore is pertinent. Rules 2.03.2 and 2.03.3 say that an online program is not a complete educational program, so it would not apply to the statutory restriction. However, it does define what a complete educational program IS, which invalidates the source statute involved here. Thinks it’s unnecessary to define what it is, only what it is not.
I said that SB 215 requires us to have a definition of "complete educational program." Assistant Attorney General Tony Dyl said that it was in SB 215 because people thought that learning centers were illegal according to 22-32-109(2). Dyl agreed with me that the statute requires a definition of it for purposes of 22-32-109(2). Littleton suggested resolving the problem by adding language that says "in the case of a multi-district online program that serves students through learning centers." I suggested that we ask staff to come up with the appropriate language for tomorrow. Ice said that staff’s consideration of this issue has already been addressed in the side-by-side provided to us and they prefer the proposed wording. We had an extensive discussion to understand why the rules in 2.03.1, 2.03.2, and 2.03.3 are phrased as they are and whether they are clear and won’t have any unintended consequences. The Commissioner said that the staff grappled with this extensively and worked with legal counsel to make it say what they feel is what we want it to say.
DeHoff raised the question about how having no time limits in the definition of "course completion requirements" would affect reporting of when students have completed courses. Ice said we’re not talking about mastery of the material, just completion of a portion of curriculum. Deputy Commissioner Ken Turner said that it just has to meet the authorizer’s requirements, and regular schools always make these same determinations.
I asked if we should make the appeals process more specific. Nevans said that the field asked for a kind of "case management" meeting for the attorneys involved in the appeal we have from the Eaton School District, to decide how they would best handle the situation. Dyl said that the timeline is much shorter than the one for charter school appeals; it’s a narrower timeline. He said that the parties need a flexible schedule to deal with the short timeline. I said that my concern that an inequitable situation could arise when one party has extensive legal help available to write long briefs and the other doesn’t. Dyl suggested that we might allow oral presentations in a situation like that. We agreed to specify it in the Administrative Procedures; I asked for a reference in the rules to that – Dyl said we can we can put something in about the order, but cannot incorporate the Administrative Procedures by reference.
DeHoff raised a concern about Rule 8.06.06, which he would like expanded to allow for the entire time the military member or dependent remains a resident of Colorado. Dyl said we need to check this with the School Finance Act.
The SBE recognized the two Colorado schools to be awarded the National Title I Distinguished Schools 2006-2007 Award of Schools, one for Academic Achievement and one for Closing the Achievement Gap. This year, the two schools to be awarded are West Park Elementary School in Leadville and Las Animas Elementary School in Las Animas. [Each year the Consolidated Federal Programs unit awards two Title I schools for Academic Achievement and Closing the Achievement Gap. Each school receives a $10,000 award and is honored at the National Title I Conference in late January or early February. Each winning school planned an award ceremony for their community, and CFP staff was in attendance. The Commissioner also visited both schools. Considering there are over 600 Title I schools in the state, this is a huge accomplishment.]
Las Animas could not be in attendance. West Park reviewed for us what they believe made the difference for them. They said that they could not have done it without the support from CDE staff in Title I and the mesh with literacy programs like Reading First. Much of their success they attribute to the funding from Reading First that allowed them to buy books and do professional development. But they also attribute much of their success to very hard work of their teachers and buy-in to the concepts of Reading First. They have a "no excuses" approach. The teachers and administrators in the school work in teams; they merge Title I, ESL, and special education. Collaboration is just the way they do business. They are a Professional Learning Community, with sustained, imbedded professional development. Parent involvement is also a big aspect of the program. They use a lot of screening tools and do progress monitoring – every week. They changed their schedule to have 90 minutes of literacy instruction and 45 minutes of intervention daily. They have a core class with a large group and also small-group instruction. They stress "focus" on standards, benchmarks, and essential learning targets. Kids track their own progress in meeting essential learning targets. Data is used to group and regroup students, to plan and change instruction, and to plan and change interventions. Linda Adams, the principal of West Park, emphasized the importance of the supportive leadership of Betty Bullock, the superintendent. Each school in the district has a Building Leadership Team composed of teachers from each grade level, the "specials," and Title I. They celebrate all of their successes. Linda Adams acknowledged the School Readiness Program [which I was the state coordinator for during its first 3.5 years], which she believes contributed significantly to the success of the students.
Jo O’Brien came with a response to concerns raised last month about the privacy protections in the Parent Network that CDE is developing. We received a lengthy report. The other question was how many past years the information will include; she said that for a price, we can add previous years, but we don’t have the funding for it. The feedback has been positive so far.
CDE staff provided an update on the Technical Advisory Panel's work on the Longitudinal Analysis of Student Assessment and a draft of the permanent rules. The TAP has been working since May. A survey was done of all the superintendents around the state. About 95% of them said that we need to harmonize all three forms of accountability, but should not make them all like AYP. They felt that longitudinal analysis is the best way to harmonize these. Last month we were informed about the "Growth Model" the TAP developed, based on the growth of similar students. The growth will be defined as "low," "typical," or "high."
The statute requires us to adopt rules 30 days within receipt of a report from the TAP, so at the March SBE meeting, we will be asked to adopt rules for the growth model, which will be used for the three accountability systems. The proposed rules will say that by August 15 of each year, CDE will report to each district and charter school the following: the median growth percentile for each school by subject, grade performance level, and student group; student growth percentiles for each student, defining which students made adequate academic growth; and amount of growth needed for students to reach the next higher level of proficiency for one, two, and three years.
In terms of Accreditation, districts’ contracts had been extended for one year. The growth model will be incorporated into Accreditation’s new rules. The proposed new rules will base Accreditation on five points of accountability, designed to make decisions about when districts are put on Accreditation Watch or Probation less subjective: (1) status and growth (40 points); (2) reduction in gaps in achievement with respect to minority/poverty gaps (30 points); (3) post-secondary readiness (10 points); (4) progress monitoring – for districts scoring less than 65 points for the first three elements (10 points); and (5) other indicators of progress. The plan is to change the frequency of monitoring by CDE so that districts getting results don’t need monitoring as frequently – resulting in less regulation and more support. The new rules would take effect as of July 1. The new method will be voluntary in the first year, to see how it is working.
I expressed concern that some of the other indicators for Accreditation that are in the current SBE rules, and even in the law – particularly having a functioning Accountability Committee and parent/community participation – do not appear to be in this plan, and it appears to be based solely on CSAP scores. I made an impassioned plea about not focusing so much on test scores, which don’t cover all the content areas. Turner said that the input given to CDE was from superintendents, and I said that sometimes they don’t welcome parent involvement, which is important. I said that I feel this does not focus on the entire education environment that the original 1971 Accountability law required. A district might have high test scores because it has eliminated art, music, etc., which is not what makes for a good education.
Suckla reported that at the CLASS meeting yesterday, the group discussed the bill for the BEST (Building Excellent Schools Today) proposal. They agreed that they support the concept of spending 35% of the revenues earned on the School Trust Lands for school capital construction. We agreed to have Pam Suckla represent the SBE at the press conference tomorrow and to have her testify in committee on agreement to the concept, stipulating that we would continue to work on the details of it.
Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved