a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
Found that the decision of the Ridgway School District in denying the application of the Owl Creek Charter School was not contrary to the best interests of the pupils, district, or community, and affirmed the decision of the district. (The vote was 6:1; Schaffer dissented.)
Commissioner Jones said that he is amazed at how quickly his first 6 months on the job have passed. He feels good about how the department is starting the new year. He highlighted a few things most worth mentioning that CDE is doing:
The Forward Thinking plan is moving along. It was released in September. Through the CDE website, soon the public will be able to track progress in accomplishing the goals of the plan – just doing that will help achieve one of those goals, which is to make CDE more transparent.
In the SBE’s meeting with the Joint Budget Committee in December, he was pleased with the direction and support that each SBE member gave to him and the Department. Even though we don’t agree on everything, the SBE’s support is unwaivering. He hears it from people throughout the state – how pleased they are about the alignment of the Board and the Commissioner. It was a turning point at the JBC hearing when Berman emphasized that we are working together. He is especially grateful to the four SBE members who went: Berman, DeHoff, Littleton, and me. CDE staff are working hard to carry out our plans.
Dr. Ken Turner, Deputy Commissioner, gave some more specific information on some of the Forward Thinking initiatives. CDE is working on revision of standards and assessments. They are awaiting a response from the Governor as to whether he will appoint a new SADI (Standards and Assessments Development and Implementation) Council or let CDE do it alone. The Online Division is working to complete its tasks for rules adoption. The rules are forthcoming for the Longitudinal Reporting and Analysis. They have made some strides regarding the CDE budget, in regard to reporting funds and looking at appropriating them strategically; they are able to marshal existing funds to various purposes, including bringing in managers for closing the achievement gap and providing comprehensive services. Conversations are being held around the state regarding new rules for Accreditation – they met with CASE and surveyed superintendents on what is working and what needs improvement. We are "locked in" to assumptions for it to help promote student success and provide a single system of accountability. The new form of Accreditation will be different from AYP and the SAR ratings. It will have five key areas: achievement results, closing achievement gaps, post-secondary readiness, progress monitoring, and compliance indicators (such as finance and safety). The new approach will allow CDE to do the following: provide greater support and less bureaucracy, make decisions that are defensible, place more emphasis on growth, make Accreditation more understandable and transparent, and funnel resources to areas of greatest need. The Regional Managers proposed that a district which is struggling might be able, as a last resort, to get a "bridge loan" based on the number of students who make improvement in a year’s time (as we will define in the future).
CDE will be able to fund and host the Reading Summit. The focus of the Summit this year will be on closing the achievement gap. This event attracts people from around the state; we are expecting about 1000 people again. It will be held at the Adams Mark Hotel on May 12. Suckla assigned me to work with CDE staff on the planning, since I’m the Board’s liaison to the Read to Achieve Board.
Commissioner Jones has been working on ensuring that there is a quality assurance process on teacher preparation. There has been a large focus on literacy, through the Reading Directorate. The RD achieved its goals of focusing on literacy in teacher preparation, so he is disbanding it and instead convening the Colorado Literacy Council, an advisory group to advise CDE on a variety of areas, including literacy, chaired by Deb Scheffel and Ken Turner. The CLC will advise CDE on systems for educator licensing, reviewing the literacy aspects of teacher preparation, topics for research forums, and innovative literacy programs. It will work with CCHE to improve teacher education programs. It will include Dr. Goetz from Educator Licensing and Dr. Medina from ELAU. There will be some Special Education staff on it as well. It will be more transparent.
Vody Herrmann from School Finance said that we have received accolades from the field regarding our school capital construction work. She revealed a large banner we received that was made by students from the Classical Academy as thanks for the $147,000 grant matched by the school for a new roof. The Plateau School District (Peetz, Colorado) got grant of $96,000 for the replacement of its preschool and kitchen, with matching funds provided by the district. Their board sent us a photo album of the new facilities, signed by all the board members.
The February 1 pupil count of active-duty military members’ children who moved into school districts following the October 1 count now allows for additional funding for districts with 1% or greater of these students. They get allocated a half PPOR, subject to approval by the Legislature as a supplemental. The budget estimate was 400 students; we’ll see how close our guess was.
Commissioner Jones said that we can track his progress visiting around the state with the map in his office. So far he has met with 24 superintendents and districts. When he goes, he gets out to classrooms. Sometimes he gets to sit and talk with board members. He has heard comments that it’s the first time a Commissioner has been there. He has also visited the Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind and a number of schools in the Denver metro area. He drives to them, so it’s not very costly. He hears a lot of concerns about the process of teacher licensure. We rely on CBI for background checks – it takes 62 working days. CDE is streamlining the department’s part of the process, with an online system. We are trying to work with CBI to expedite the process with online bridges. An additional staff person is needed for that work. That unit in CDE is underfunded. It’s doing a self-review to see how it might improve its staffing. This is not an easy problem to fix. Dr. Goetz has been making some tough decisions for improvement.
Jones met with chiefs from some neighboring states and the group has plans for more. He attended the McREL board meeting and sat with Tim Waters to schedule further meetings.
There is a great deal of conversation among CDE units about how to combine efforts with the federal unit, etc. The Commissioner is also working to have more representation in Washington DC by working with people in a law firm. Long ago we actually had a staff person in DC.
Approved the request from the Colorado Talking Book Library to approve the expenditure of up to $60,000 from the Mary Jones Trust Fund. [The Mary Jones Trust Fund was created in 1981 when a donation of $91,000 was made to the Colorado Talking Book Library. Since that time, the fund has increased to $1,142,092. The intended use of the Trust is to support projects that have an impact on a large number of library patrons. CTBL is requesting that funds from the trust be used for operational expenses. This expenditure is monitored by the CDE Deputy Commissioner. All requests for expenditures must be made to the CDE Deputy Commissioner in writing by the director of CTBL and must be approved before any funds are expended. The balance in the Mary Jones Trust Fund as of 10-31-07 is $1,142,092. The amount requested by CTBL for the period of 7-1-2008 to 6-30-2009 is $60,000. The ‘08-‘09 request covers the position costs for existing 1.5 FTEs. This includes the salary and other costs, as well as an estimated amount to cover whatever salary increase might be approved and other increases in position cost for the upcoming fiscal year. If the increases are small, the total amount requested may not be used.]
(1) DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
(These remain confidential until action is taken by the Board.)
(2) TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM
Approved the content of the proposed North East BOCES Alternative Teacher preparation program. [Colorado school districts, boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES), accredited independent schools, and accepted institutions of higher education, or any combination thereof, may apply to the SBE for approval of an alternative preparation program. The program must submit documentation of the applicable content to assure the SBE that candidates prepared in the program will meet and/or exceed licensing requirements and that it is aligned to the SBE’s teacher performance-based preparation standards, including literacy preparation requirements, and all relevant SBE-approved endorsement standards.]
(3) EDUCATOR INDUCTION PROGRAMS
Approved or re-approved the educator induction programs as follows:
[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.]
(4) DISTRIBUTION OF ELPA FUNDS
Approved the distribution of 2007 funds to eligible school districts in accordance with the English Language Proficiency Act (ELPA) in the amount of $7,201,113. [ELPA recognizes that each of these students’ educational potential is severely impacted because of a language other than English that is his or her primary means of communication. ELPA recognizes that language instruction educational programs will improve not only these students’ English language skills, but also their educational and career opportunities. As such, the Act provides funding to eligible school districts to help defray the costs of districts’ programs for eligible limited-English proficient students. The documents submitted for this distribution contain student count, allocation of funds, a 10-year analysis, and the language distribution. The latter shows that the most common languages other than English spoken by students in Colorado are Spanish (65,827), Vietnamese (1,298), Russian (739), and Korean (717), with a total of 192 foreign languages spoken.]
Approved notice of a hearing on rules for the Administration of the Longitudinal Analysis of Student Assessment on February 14, 2008. [The Governor’s Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) for the Longitudinal Analysis of Student Assessment has been directed under HB 07-1048 to recommend to the SBE a statistical model appropriate for measuring student academic growth and an improvement award method. The growth model will show how much growth students make in one year and how much growth is necessary for them to be Proficient or Advanced on CSAP. CDE will examine how growth percentiles can be used for accountability purposes (SAR, Accreditation, etc). The TAP and CDE intend to submit recommended rules to the SBE on or before January 31 for the hearing to take place on February 14. An official report on the recommended statistical model will also be submitted to the SBE on that date. It is anticipated that both emergency and permanent rules may be promulgated on March 6, 2008.]
Approved charter school waiver requests from January 10, 2008, to June 30, 2009, for the Imagine Charter School at Firestone in the St. Vrain Valley School District.
(1) PAYMENTS UNDER PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE ACT
Approved payments to school districts in the monthly amount of $ for state share of total program for December 2007 and $ for January 2008. [Local districts are entitled to receive monthly payments from the state by the 25th of each month, under provisions of the Public School Finance Act of 1994, as amended. The December 2007 payments incorporate preliminary assessed valuations and final October pupil counts. The January 2008 payments incorporate final assessed valuations and actual specific ownership tax revenues.]
(2) EDAC APPOINTMENT FOR UNEXPECTED RESIGNATION
Appointed Jeremy Felker as the replacement with automated data exchange expertise for the vacancy left by an unexpected resignation from the Educational Data Advisory Committee (EDAC). [Colorado law requires the SBE to designate volunteers from at least 5 school districts, 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. SB05-019 codified the committee’s existence and was replaced by HB07-1320. The membership is diverse in terms of expertise, pupil size, and geography. The unexpected resignation of the automated data exchange/data quality representative from the Metro region necessitates immediate replacement from the unrepresented area of expertise. Jeremy Felker, Director of Student Data Services in Jefferson County Public Schools (Metro region), has been recommended by EDAC members and staff to fulfill this role.]
Approved emergency Type III educator authorizations for 75 initially and 3 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.]
Regarding the initial decision of the Administrative Law Judge on a disciplinary matter, rejected the exceptions filed by the applicant and adopted the initial decision of the ALJ as the final agency order.
Instructed the department staff to issue a notice of denial and appeal rights to a teacher applying for renewal of a special services license. (Motion passed on a vote of 6:1; Schaffer dissented.)
Formally approved the decision of the Commissioner to retain of the law firm of Sherman and Howard, LLC, to deal with the lawsuit against the State Board of Education brought forth by the Mesa County Board of Commissioners, et al., regarding the "mill levy freeze" passed by the Legislature in SB 07-199.
Held a hearing for the approval of Emergency Rules for Quality Standards for Online Programs, including the establishment of timelines and processes for application, reporting, certification, and monitoring of online programs in Colorado. [These rules and procedures are required by SB 07-215 to be passed by the SBE by January 1, 2008. The statute requires an 11-member Advisory Board to be appointed by the Governor; this has only recently occurred. The Advisory Board is required to consult with the Online Division at CDE on the establishment of temporary standards to provide written assurances for the notification of the location of new "Learning Centers." These standards will apply to any agreement entered into by a multi-district online program and a school district. Approval for the location of a proposed Learning Center is contingent on any and all conditions listed therein. The Advisory Board is also required to provide a report to the SBE annually on or before February 1 on the progress of the Online Division at CDE, the appropriateness of existing policies for online programs, and the operations and activities of online programs. The Advisory Board is required to meet at least once every three months to monitor the progress of the Online Division and appropriateness of existing policies. In addition, they make recommendations to the Online Division regarding documentation of enrollment, demographics, and measures for determining longitudinal academic growth.]
Ken Turner and Jeanette Cornier explained that the Online Advisory Board fashioned the standards, but CDE staff fashioned the rules. They took input from all the stakeholders. On the advice of counsel, they propose to make a distinction between what a learning center is and what a school is, as well as to differentiate between a teacher and a mentor. They don’t plan to have the rules define a complete educational program at this time, because they believe they can bring it in the future after consulting with people in the field. They thanked all the members of the Advisory Board and Michael Poore, Superintendent from Colorado Springs Districtd 11, for chairing it. Tony Dyl, our legal counsel from the Attorney General’s office, said that SB 07-215 requires rules for an "expedited procedure" for learning centers in operation as of January 1, 2008.
SENATOR WINDELS: As the sponsor of SB 215, she appreciates the opportunity to listen and answer any questions about the legislative intent. She will be available when we get to the Board discussion.
JUDITH STOKES: Represents the Branson School District and Branson Online. She appreciates the openness of CDE to online education and to the input of people in the online learning community. She requests that we consider all the administrative aspects so that they are aligned with what is already required of districts.
SEAN COONEY: Is a high school student at COVA. Is thriving at COVA and is giving us a persuasive essay about online education.
HEATHER O’MARA (Director of Hope Online Academy): Thanked CDE staff and the Advisory Board for taking the time on this issue and incorporating most of the suggestions Hope Academy and Douglas County made for the rules. Is concerned about the two suggestions not taken – one on the adult-to-child ratio and one on course completion. Would like the rules to be more comparable with regular schools and for the MOU process to have an appeals process mirroring the language in the statute.
DeHoff suggested that in 3.01.9, we change the word "procedures" to "policies" (where it says that the online programs "shall meet or exceed Quality Standards in the administration of program and delivery of curriculum consistent with its Authorizer or district" to follow "procedures for tracking attendance, participation, and truancy") so that this rule matches the wording in other rules. We had consensus on that change. He asked if the intent was for CDE to approve online programs prior to them be authorized by the authorizers. Senator Windels came up and told us that the intention of the law was that no district would approve a program which CDE had not already given its "seal of approval" for. She said it is an interesting dilemma as to whether the approval should take place before the certification of meeting the standards or after. But she said that all we are approving in these rules is that the program meets the quality standards.
Berman brought up the concerns about the definition of a "learning center." She suggested that it would be best to use the definition in the statute. Dyl said the status of the learning centers is the "thorniest" aspect of this issue. They appear to be functioning as stand-alone schools. To prevent concerns that they are private schools, he suggested that we directly say that they are not schools. Berman said that given that we will define "complete educational program" later on, she suggests that we leave these rules with the definition of SB 215 alone. Therefore, she proposed that we delete 2.04.1. Everyone agreed.
DeHoff raised the concern about the definition of a teacher as someone who is licensed. He said that if this is the definition, no charter school teacher whose school has a waiver from licensure could be said to have a teacher. The suggestion was to omit this definition. Schaffer asked if its omission would allow different determinations by every district. That doesn’t appear to be the case, so we agreed to delete 2.14.
DeHoff asked to delete from 3.01.13 "are culturally relevant to students" from the standard that the online program’s "instructional strategies, practices, and content address various learning needs and styles." Poore said that the Advisory Council was split on this wording but a majority supported it. Turner said that staff brought in this phrase to ensure that students from a variety of backgrounds would receive equal treatment. Berman said that she has seen this language in many education documents and does not believe it would be misinterpreted. DeHoff moved to strike it, and Littleton seconded. The vote was 4:3 (Berman, Middleton, and I dissented), so it was deleted.
DeHoff asked what the meaning is at the end of the paragraph in 3.01.13 where it says "the online program demonstrates evidence of collaboration with the department." Turner said that it is there to ensure that future programs are expected to work with CDE, as the current ones are. Ed Steinberg, from Exceptional Student Services, said it was there because he told the Advisory Board that online schools need to work with CDE on issues of students with disabilities or English language learners to ensure that their needs are being met.
DeHoff proposed adding "or the governing board of the charter school" in 4.03 where it requires that the plan for operating and monitoring the online program "must be agreed to by the Authorizer and the principal, director, or other chief administrator," because for Charter School Institute schools, the governing board of the charter school does the operating and monitoring. This was agreeable with everyone.
Schaffer suggested that we add "consistent with its authorizer or district" to each of the items in 4.03. Middleton said that it makes no sense to put that there, because the section is about things that must be "agreed to" by both the authorizer and the director of the program. DeHoff pointed out that the current language (as amended with "governing board") follows the statute directly. Therefore, we agreed not to add this.
Schaffer proposed deleting "course completion rates" in 4.03.6. Ryan DeHerrera from CDE said that it is a nationally used standard. Middleton suggested that we put in a definition of "course completion" so that it is not perceived as requiring a specific amount of time. I said that I believe it is important to measure the courses that students complete. In looking at the statute, we decided that it needs to be added in the standards section and defined. We found that it is already in the standards in 3.01.8, but decided to leave it in 4.03 but as a separate element.
I pointed out that 5.02 says that submissions of applications will be accepted on "January 1, 2009, … of each year." We agreed that 2009 should be deleted because it should be on January 1 of each year, not only on January 1, 2009.
DeHoff suggested that in 6.01.3 we add "which can be retrieved by the Unit of Online Learning," since CDE already collects the information mentioned here ("the number of online teachers employed by the online program who satisfy the requirements specified for a highly qualified teacher as such requirements are described in the federal No Child Left Behind Act.")
DeHoff questioned why in 7.01 it requires "on-site visits two years after certification and once every three years thereafter" when it’s not in the statute. Berman said she thinks it’s important for accountability; she doesn’t mind the cycle. DeHoff said that "on-site visits" aren’t required by statute. DeHerrera pointed out that in the Division of Online Learning, there is a requirement for "input from stakeholders, including but not limited to input from students, parents, and school districts in which the program is located," which was interpreted as on-site. DeHoff said that no other program is visited in this way. We agreed to remove "on-site" but add the input requirement as 7.02.
DeHoff pointed out that in 8.06, "residency in the State of Colorado" needs to take into account the children of military stationed elsewhere.
DeHoff said that in 10.03, we should change "and/or" to "and" to conform with the statute, in the part about the SBE determining in an appeal whether the local board’s decision to enter into an MOU with a multi-district online program was "contrary to the best interests of the pupils, school district, ____ community."
Schaffer suggested we add something in 10.01 clarifying what the district must submit as reasons for its denial. He says it is implied. We found that the statute does specify the standards, so we will add them.
The motion to adopt the rules as amended passed unanimously (except that Middleton was absent at this time).
The hearing on the permanent rules will take place on Wednesday, February 13, and the Board will probably approve them on February 14. The emergency rules expire on April 10, and the permanent rules take two months to be effective. We are endeavoring to prevent a gap of time in which no rules are in place, especially because approval of future online programs will have to take place around that time.
State Treasurer Cary Kennedy met with the SBE to discuss State School Trust Land Funds and the proposed BEST (Building Excellent Schools Today) legislation. A draft of the bill is not available yet, but we will get it when it is available. Kennedy said that she would very much appreciate the SBE’s support for the bill. She only wishes it could be a full solution, but it will help "get us part of the way there…for the state to expand its role in helping districts" with capital construction. It is needed for districts that don’t have a tax base to address their health and safety needs. Financing for the proposal comes from the School Trust Lands, which consist of 3 million acres of surface lands and 4 million acres of sub-surface lands. The proposal takes a portion of the revenues generated from the Trust (from rents, royalties, and interest) to leverage money to help districts construct or reconstruct facilities. The proposal would take about 35% of the revenue generated (about a third) for this program, which is about $32 million per year. It would authorize the Capital Finance Corporation which issues COPs (Certificates of Participation) for the purpose of building and leasing and doing the financing to establish joint financing arrangements, which the SBE agrees are appropriate. The Powerball spillover money would continue to be an additional part of this program, to be used for ongoing maintenance. Kennedy believes that the most likely recipients of this funding would be districts shown on a map she distributed. Currently these districts are putting money into repairing very old school buildings. This proposal would pay off the remainder of money owed in the Giardino lawsuit settlement, reducing the amount of money being taken from revenues generated by the Trust Lands and put into the School Finance Act ($20 million per year). The proposal is that CDE would administer the program; there are discussions about having a new unit designated for this purpose that has the expertise for this program. There would be a committee, much like the current one, to prioritize the projects, but it would not contain any political members (currently the committee has two legislators). A statewide needs assessment would be completed so that the criteria used is based on a thorough assessment of the condition of all the buildings across the state. The SBE would have final approval of all projects. The bill sponsors will be the Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff and President of the Senate Peter Groff. Several SBE members thanked the Treasurer for listening to concerns we have expressed in the past while this plan was being developed and putting the committee into CDE. The bill will likely have provisions to prevent there from being an incentive for districts to avoid doing their own bond issues for capital when they have the ability to do so. We would also like assurance that the money is used for buildings with longevity and not do it "on the cheap." CDE will be able to provide some technical expertise to make the projects a "better deal" for the community than it might have been if the community did it on their own. The legislation will likely set out the criteria for prioritization of the projects.
Kennedy thanked the Board for raising the profile of the School Trust Lands and their legacy. The related issue of in-lieu lands has also been brought to her attention; it is a cumbersome and bureaucratic process for the transfer of these 10,000 acres that belong in the Trust, and she will work on that process.
[Nobody signed up or was there to address the Board by the time we got to this part of the agenda.]
Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved