a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
Matt Gianneschi from the Governor’s office and Kristi Kauerz from the Lt. Gov.’s office came to discuss the Governor’s forthcoming bill, Colorado Achievement Program for Kids (CAP4K). Gianneschi said the draft is 34 pages and under great scrutiny by many people. He said that the intent of the bill is to build on what has been going on in education, for the most part. The Graduation Guidelines Development Council (GGDC) is supposed to issue its report in May, and the new council proposed in CAP4K, the Preschool to Postsecondary Alignment Council (PPAC) will take over the continuing work of looking at transition to postsecondary. The new part is a collaborative work on what workforce and postsecondary readiness is, to be adopted mutually by K-12 and higher education. There is much support from college faculty for this proposal. He said that the P-3 portion of the draft was just a rough draft and intentions are that changes will be made. Kauerz said that there were 5 major edits to the P-3 section: (1) expand the Legislative Declaration to include early childhood years and school readiness; (2) change the definition of "school readiness" to include all the elements of readiness that we know there are; (3) increasing staff capacity in early childhood, with experts in early childhood development; (4) add people with early childhood expertise to PPAC; and (5) change the language on the school readiness assessments to ensure that they won’t be used to deny entry into kindergarten but be used as a diagnostic device, proving information for interventions students need and professional development that K-3 teachers might need – and not to be used to judge schools. I asked whether there would be funding for the early childhood initiatives, and Gianneschi said the items in the bill will require SBE adoption, and then requests for funding will be considered. Suckla asked whether there is protection that parents won’t feel pressured to send their kids to preschool or that the bill will be requiring "babysitting." She asked also if money would be taken from K-12 in order to fund early childhood. Gianneschi said that the Governor’s interest is in providing early education for as many children who want it voluntarily; he said that there is no view of mandating it. Kauerz said that nobody intends to make preschool or kindergarten mandatory, but the fact is that there are many children already in these programs, so creating standards that are aligned with elementary standards will ensure that they are high-quality and not babysitting. She pointed out that early learning standards are a bit different from K-12 content standards, covering what the emerging skills are that children should have, which would be helpful for entire communities to know and have. Littleton said that some of those standards have already been developed through the Colorado Basic Literacy Act. I asked about the Building Blocks, early standards that already exist, and Kauerz said that we will utilize what has already been developed. I asked about the Standards Framework the Outcomes and Evaluation Task Force of Smart Start Colorado – she said that was at a broader level for early childhood, and we would focus on learning standards a bit more with the CAP4K effort. Goff asked about the conversation that has been taking place regarding early access to kindergarten for gifted and talented, being proposed by a bill, and whether that would be incorporated. Berman asked whether there would be an effort to align all the ongoing parallel efforts – GGDC, P-20, CDE’s standards review – with the proposed PPAC. Commissioner Jones said that CDE has looked at the current efforts, but have not been able to see how they intersect with CAP4K; CDE has had opportunity to give feedback to the Governor on the proposed legislation. He said that there hasn’t been a detailed dialog, but he agrees that it would be helpful for us to take the lead on getting everyone to work together. He said we would welcome the opportunity to work with the Governor and key people in each group to talk together, with a facilitator, to develop a sequence for the various pieces to take place. He said that he even has a suggestion for who that facilitator might be. Gianneschi said the draft of the bill was sent out to encourage this kind of conversation. Berman said that there would be some urgency to do that before the bill is introduced. Gianneschi said the Governor is willing to take the time to have that be done and that perhaps the chairs of P-20, people from GGDC, key staff from CDE, the SBE, etc., should plan a meeting.
Mary Wickersham came to talk about the BEST bill (Building Excellent Schools Today). It was recognized that there could be a gap if a district’s bonds run out; however, Wickersham said there will be a FY 09 appropriation, and there is money in the grant program to help with that. Suckla said that we shouldn’t "sign off" on support for the bill until the attorneys from the Giardino lawsuit give official notice that they would agree that the bill satisfies the lawsuit settlement terms. Wickersham said the legal process for that is taking place. DeHoff said we should support the bill contingent upon receipt of that. Suckla said that we also disagree with the new board being a Type 1, not a Type 2 (although that will not stop us from supporting the bill). However, the SBE will have full authority on the provision of the grants, constrained only by the statutes. We would not have to adhere to the rules promulgated by the Type 1 board, because their rules will be on technical matters for things like standards for construction. They will be dealing with the needs assessment and making recommendations on a much higher volume of proposals.
HB 1204 – The bill on eligible facilities has been cut back substantially since its first introduction, lowering the fiscal note dramatically. Suckla asked why if we have already voted on the bill would we be asked to revisit it. Anne Barkis, our Legislative Liaision, said that as bills change, we can either revisit them as they change or wait until their last version. Dr. Ed Steinberg, Assistant Commissioner for Exceptional Students, said that the fiscal note was drastically reduced by an amendment – eliminating the provision for all eligible facility teachers to be employees of CDE. It leaves intact the proposal to create a system to track students records as they move among facilities and for a small number of CDE staff to handle that. Jones said that CDE has always been supportive of the concept, but is "very comfortable" with the reduction of the new unit, and staff is in full support of the bill. Vody Herrmann said that there is support for funding for summer school for the eligible facilities, which was recommended by the JBC – not sure if it will be put into this bill or into the School Finance Act.
SB 129 – The bill on nutrition standards for beverages in schools changed to have the SBE set the nutritional guidelines rather than mandating them in the bill. Suckla said she thinks that children should just have the choice of what to eat and that obesity is a matter of their own choice. Berman said we’re paying a large cost in society because of bad health resulting from obesity. I said that schools should be a good role model for what children eat, and we should ensure that at least the food they get during the school day is nutritious. Suckla also asked about the fiscal impact to districts that get revenue from changing what is given out of the vending machines. I said that beverage companies have already changed what they provide, and in other states that already have a law like this, there has been no reduction in the profits.
Dr. Ed Steinberg and Cindy Dascher from the Exceptional Student Services Unit made a presentation about the appointments to the Colorado Special Education Advisory Committee (CSEAC) that the Board will have to make in April. CSEAC is recommending people to fill the vacancies at the end of this year, and they recommend that the SBE approve the people they are recommending.
CDE staff Ken Turner, Damian Betebenner, and Richard Wenning provided a demonstration of the latest prototype display of growth data that will allow districts to move from district-wide information to school information to student information of longitudinal data. This is the basis for the proposed rules for the Longitudinal Analysis of Student Assessments that the SBE will conduct a hearing about next on the agenda and pass, hopefully, tomorrow in the emergency and permanent rules for Longitudinal Analysis of Student Assessments.
Turner said they visited with many groups for feedback on the proposed method of longitudinal analysis, including CASE, CASB, PTA, and CSAN. They received feedback from people of whom 80% were rural and 10% urban. They were asked if they think this is a good approach. Well over 90% said it is. The method will describe students’ growth percentile as well as whether the growth is low, typical, or high. Each district will have access to the web page where the data will be housed in CDE.
Conducted a hearing on the proposed emergency and permanent rules for Longitudinal Analysis of Student Assessments. [State law requires the SBE to adopt emergency rules within 30 days of receipt of the TAP (Technical Advisory Panel) report, which was submitted on February 14, 2008. The Board has the option of adopting permanent rules in March or April. The emergency rules, if adopted by the Board, will become effective immediately and will expire on June 6, 2008. If the Board promulgates permanent rules on March 6, the rules will take effect on April 30, 2008. If the Board promulgates permanent rules on April 10, they will take effect on May 30, 2008.]
Turner read a letter from Carol Eaton of Jeffco, a member of the Technical Advisory Panel that created the proposed rules. It expresses support for the proposed rules as a valuable tool for aligning the three accountability systems, and it encourages the SBE to provide longitudinal data to districts as early as possible in the school year. He also referenced a letter received from Monte Moses, Superintendent of Cherry Creek.
CHRIS DOMINO: From CSAN, representing community members with decades of experience in accountability and training around the state. CSAN reviewed the draft rules. They don’t include much of what was demonstrated earlier today, but have no objection to them. CSAN applauds the move toward longitudinal analysis. Comments about the growth model itself are as follows: Where the horizontal line between high and low status is appears to be at 60%, but they think it should be, at the very least, at the state average. The other issue is the upper left quadrant labeled "Sustaining" – a problem can be that if a school is at a lower point in the status and making very low growth, chances are the student’s status will drop, because the student is not making adequate growth. Schools with under 35% growth are not doing their job; CSAN suggests dividing it into 6 boxes, with 3 columns for growth.
Motion passed unanimously to close oral portion of hearing and scheduled the emergency and permanent rules for Board-only discussion and action at the March 6, 2008, meeting.
Deputy Commissioner Ken Turner followed up on the presentation and discussion from the Work Session on February 13 on the proposed changes to the rules for Accreditation, with detailed information about the proposed rules and their implementation in preparation for the rulemaking hearing on April 9. The SBE will be requested to act on revised rules for the Accreditation of School Districts in May, so that districts’ Accreditation Contracts can be approved in June.
The proposal spells out elements to be contained in the Accreditation Contracts, primarily student CSAP and ACT results calculated in three ways: growth, closure of achievement gaps, and "post-secondary readiness." These are joined with assurances for compliance with various laws and with the district’s improvement plan to comprise "five points of accountability." Longitudinal growth will play a larger role in assessing districts’ success. Districts will be expected to report annually to the public on a number of things, including attendance rate, graduation rate, graduation requirements, numbers of expelled and suspended students, and the number and identity of schools in each Accreditation category. The frequency of districts’ Accreditation Reviews will vary, depending on how high or low their student performance is on CSAP, with the lowest-performing districts receiving annual on-site reviews and the highest-performing districts receiving reviews every 3 years; these districts will receive data summary reports from CDE annually with commendations and recommended actions. The reviews will be "streamlined" to focus on student results, assurances in the areas of finance and safety, and possibly other items if warranted. The contents that need to be in the District Improvement Plan will be spelled out. The categories of Accreditation will change to the following: Accredited with Distinction, Accredited, Accredited with Letter of Support, Accredited with Notice of Support, Probation, and Non-Accredited.
Turner said that along with the "tour" of the state on the Longitudinal rules, questions were asked about the proposed framework for Accreditation. Much feedback included approval of inclusion of postsecondary readiness and strong agreement with the new approach. He said that Regional Managers started this past fall seeking feedback from the field. Staff would welcome suggestions from the Board. Wenning said that the "flowchart" submitted represents a streamlined process.
I asked if we are implicitly approving the point system in the flow chart, because they are not in the rules. Turner said that the rules were purposefully left flexible. I expressed concern that the rules don’t match the flowchart, and there doesn’t appear that compliance with accreditation indicators required by law are factors in whether the district is accredited. I said that there are indicators required by law that should get points. I repeated my concern that the flowchart makes it appear that 80 out of 100 points are for CSAP (and ACT) scores and there are no points for compliance with laws. There appears to be no consideration about the requirement that districts have an Educational Improvement Plan. It looks as if only districts with low test scores are required to have one and to do progress monitoring. Jones said that districts have clamored for a more objective system, and we should focus on achievement because that is the result. He said that they have heard loud and clear what I said, and they will come back with a clearer presentation of what they are aiming for.
We were given the draft report from WestEd’s analysis of the expenditures in CDE and how it is funded compared with other departments, as well as how spending relates to the Forward Thinking plan. WestEd is part of the Southwest Comprehensive Center of the U.S. Department of Education; it was established to help states "comply with the enormous burden of NCLB." It is a nonprofit service agency that does research, based in Phoenix. It was hired to accomplish Goal #5 of Forward Thinking, to make efficient and effective use of state, federal, and private funds. WestEd did an analysis of what state and federal funds are available, where they are used, and what flexibility might be possible in use of federal funds. They are still receiving comments from CDE staff. Nothing in the report reflects on the CDE staff, just on the system they are trying to run, and it gives system recommendations only. WestEd was asked to examine funding overseen by CDE, identify resources, identify strategies that CDE can use, prepare a matrix of available funding, and assist CDE in determining how to reallocate funds to create a blended and needs-based model focused on highest priorities. WestEd is not a vendor responding to an RFP; there was no money paid for the service, and it truly was a service they provided.
The report shows that unit managers in CDE do not have much flexibility over how money is spent, since most of it is federal money with specified requirements. The indirect cost rate continues to drop (mostly for operation of federal programs) - about the tightest of any state. As our state funding has decreased, our flexibility has decreased. The less state money we get, the more federal money we have used to support the operations of the department, which in turn decreases the amount of federal money we get because of the federal formula. CDE is among the lowest funded of state education agencies when comparing total spending per student. The presenters from WestEd pointed out that state education agencies got 55 huge new responsibilities from NCLB, with virtually no funding for them.
Transparency is lacking in how much of the CDE budget is allocated. There is no clear articulation of CDE’s priorities. The organization and its systems need to be redesigned. CDE’s data systems are suffering from a lack of investment. Because of that, we don’t have an automated data submission system, necessitating more staff time to process paper submissions, which is more expensive! Colorado is far behind most states in this regard.
Many staff are funded by 6-8 different funding sources – how could these people be managed by the managers of the different programs? We should try to streamline positions, without supplanting state funding. There is no incentive for managers to create cost efficiencies, since they possess limited discretion over how resources are allocated.
They said that Forward Thinking can be a unifying policy document, but only in a limited way at this point given the great limits of the department budget. There is work that needs to be done at CDE to deal with some of the problems, but until more state money is allotted to CDE, there is not much that can be done to fix the basic problems.
Yesterday the JBC did figure-setting for CDE.
However, the funding for the proposed Parent Network was removed. We might be able to discuss this with them and get it later. It was a contract amendment with CTB McGraw-Hill.
Dr. Jami Goetz from CDE made a presentation on actions taken by the SBE in disciplinary proceedings for educator licensure during the last 10 years. The information has been compiled to eliminate any personal identification, in order to protect the confidentiality as designated under state law. Two charts were provided. Chart A has the number of final disciplinary actions categorized by the type of offense for the period from 1998 through December 13, 2007. The categories are determined by the definitions in state law and state rule. In 1999, there was a significant drop in final disciplinary actions. This was due to a substantial transition in the Attorney General’s Office, which resulted in our cases not being processed. The total number of cases has been fairly consistent during the last 10 years with a significant increase in 2006 and 2007. Chart B takes the number of final disciplinary actions and, for each type of offense, delineates in how many cases (a) the license was revoked; (b) the application was denied; (c) the license was suspended; (d) the license was annulled; or (e) the license was voluntarily surrendered. The largest numbers of disciplinary cases were for theft or fraud, sexual assault on a child, and other unethical behavior (such as contributing to the delinquency of a minor).
The department carries out its statutory duty to disseminate to schools and school districts particular criminal record information pertaining to educators so that schools and school districts may make informed personnel decisions, and it fulfills its obligations to investigate allegations of educator misconduct and pursue disciplinary action against the credentials of educators who have engaged in activities in violation of state statutes and regulations concerning unlawful and/or unethical conduct. Fingerprinting and criminal background checks are conducted on all applicants for licensure. Since January 1, 1991, applicants for Colorado school district positions that do not require a Colorado educator license or authorization have been required to submit their fingerprints to the school district for fingerprint-based criminal history record checks. A school district cannot employ a person who has not complied with this requirement. Also, when a school district finds good cause to believe that a person employed in a position that does not require a Colorado educator license or authorization has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor subsequent to such employment, it must require the person to submit his or her fingerprints to the school district for a fingerprint-based criminal history record check.
The grants in this statutorily created program are limited to districts that do not "export" online programs and have less than 3,000 students.
Pam Ice reviewed the revisions to the online rules. She explained that the staff recommendations are based on consultation with the Online Advisory Committee as well as our legal counsel.
Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved