FINAL MINUTES
State Board of Education
January 12-13, 2005
Thursday, January 13, 2005
California Department of Education
1430 N Street, Room 1101
Sacramento, California
Members Present
Ruth E. Green, President
Glee Johnson, Vice President
Ruth Bloom
Don Fisher
Ricky Gill
Reed Hastings
Joe Nuñez
Suzanne Tacheny
Johnathan Williams
Bonnie Reiss
Members Absent
Vacancy
Closed Session
The Board met in Closed Session from 8:10 a.m. to 8:31 a.m.
Call to Order: Public Session
President Green called the Public Session to order at 8:35 a.m.
Salute to the Flag
Mr. Fisher led the Board, staff, and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Announcements/Communications
President Green reminded the audience that the Board would recess around 10 a.m. to allow the Board and others to acknowledge the important contributions of Ms. Tacheny and Mr. Hastings. A reception would follow in the Press Room adjacent to the Board Room.
Closed Session Report
Chief Counsel Karen Steentofte reported that the Board had met in Closed Session. In Closed Session the Board received an update from their attorneys on Centinela Valley Union High School District, et. al. v. State Board of Education, et al. and took no action. The Board also received an update from their attorneys on Californians for Justice Education Fund et al v. State Board of Education and took action to direct their attorneys to accept a settlement offer regarding attorney fees that included withdrawing the State Board of Education’s appeal in this matter.
ITEM 9 / No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Federal Program Monitoring Visit, Report of Findings and California’s Response. / INFORMATIONACTION
This item had been discussed the previous day. See Minutes from Wednesday, January 12, 2005. Action had been postponed until Thursday, January 13, 2005.
Mr. Flores summarized the CDE’s and SBE’s concerns about Critical Elements 1.3 and 1.4 of the federal monitoring report.
President Green asked Mr. Flores to address other issues raised in the monitoring report. Mr. Flores reported that the finding for Element 2.1, which addresses a state education agency’s (SEA) activities to support the hiring and retention of highly qualified staff, reflected the USDE’s concern that California wouldn’t meet the 2005-06 timeline for ensuring that all students would be taught by highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals. The NCLB states that the SEA must provide guidance to LEAs for identifying qualified paraprofessionals, including providing examples of valid and reliable assessment tests, although there is no requirement that the SEA select a particular test. Mr. Flores recalled that the Board gave LEAs the responsibility to identify paraprofessional tests. He indicated that the CDE has a data collection in place by which LEAs report the number of qualified Title I-funded paraprofessionals they employ and that the CDE established annual growth objectives for each LEA. The proposed response describes these and other technical assistance activities the CDE has provided to LEAs.
Mr. Flores summarized the remainder of the proposed response by saying it reports activities California has already implemented and identifies things California could do to improve and strengthen assistance to the field.
President Green commented that the CDE’s recommended action would provide a timely response to the USDE and referenced California’s intent to address elements 1.3 and 1.4 in a conversation with Secretary Spellings. Ms. Reiss concurred and encouraged the Board to convene its NCLB liaisons to begin development of an action plan given an adverse response from the USDE.
· ACTION: Ms. Johnson moved to approve the draft response from the President of the State Board of Education and the Superintendent for Public Instruction for submittal to the U.S. Department of Education subject to non-substantive changes as approved by the Executive Director of the Board and the Superintendent. Ms. Tacheny seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0.
ITEM 42 / Annual Report of Waiver Activity 2003. / INFORMATIONACTION
Judy Pinegar, Waiver Office, with assistance from Ms. Parker and Sue Stickel, Deputy for Curriculum and Instruction, provided an overview of the item and answered Board members questions.
There was no action taken on this item.
NON-CONSENT WAIVERS
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE INDEX (adult testing irregularities)
ITEM W-1 / Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) Academic Performance Index (API) Waiver. Specifically, the OUSD requests waiver of a portion of Title 5, CCR Section 1032(d)(1) & (6) to allow Peralta Elementary School to be given a valid API for the 2004 year despite “adult testing irregularities” (CST mathematics for 17 second-grade students) 16.8 percent.Waiver Number: 5-11-2004
(Recommended for DENIAL) / ACTION
Ms. Pinegar, with help from Robert Bernstein, manager of the Educational Planning and Information Center of the Assessment and Accountability Division, introduced this item to the Board. The CDE recommended denial of the waiver.
Individuals who addressed the Board:
Assembly Member Loni Hancock, also speaking for Assembly Chairmember Wilma Chan
Francis Kaimer, parent
Rosette Costello, principal of Peralta Elementary School
Assemblymember Hancock stated that she was speaking as a grandparent of a Peralta student. She asked that the Board seriously consider data on the school’s academic record and approve the waiver. She reported that the school’s schoolwide API for 2002-03 was 757, its African American subgroup API was 741, and its low-income student subgroup API was 739. She commented that the school is very small with only about 100 students so that a problem with only one test item in one class could seriously impact the school.
Ms. Bloom asked about the effect of percentages when applied to a small vs. a large school population. In response, Mr. Padia reported that the Board picked a percentage because it’s fair to small schools. He indicated that, earlier in the state’s accountability system, the Board had used an absolute number, but would end up arguing with district people about its unfair effect. While some waiver requests with testing irregularities of close to 5% have been approved, the percent of students affected has never been as high as 16%.
President Green asked Ms. Sigman to explain the possible impact of one item being presented incorrectly. Ms. Sigman responded that, given the integrity of the testing system, one item could move a school into a different performance category.
Ms. Kaimer countered that analyses performed by the school indicated that the testing irregularity had not impaired the integrity of the test.
Board members discussed whether or not their approval of this waiver would set a precedent for future waiver discussions. Mr. Fisher asked Ms. Pinegar to speak to the precedent setting concern. Ms. Pinegar indicated that waivers are not considered precedent setting actions. Ms. Reiss commented that the reason the Board had discussions was to respond to the individual circumstances of each waiver request. Ms. Bloom suggested the Board was dealing with two policy issues. One was the waiver policy and the other was the specific testing regulation.
Mr. Nunez suggested that the nature of the waiver process permitted the Board to examine situations on a case-by-case basis. He commented further that, with all the issues reported in Oakland, it seemed important not to deny an API to a high performing school in Oakland.
Ms. Tacheny acknowledged the difficulty in making decisions like this but emphasized the need to protect the rigor of the API process.
Assemblymember Hancock commented that Secretary of Education Richard Riordan wanted to remind the Board the testing irregularity was self-reported. The purpose of the API is to provide accurate information on achievement to the public and to parents.
Mr. Padia indicated that the CDE is not insensitive to the effect of testing requirements on schools, but reminded the Board that the issue was protecting the integrity of the API.
Gavin Payne, Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, reiterated that CDE staff agonized over this decision because it operates the Oakland School District and is aware of the many unique circumstances within the district. He affirmed, however, that the overriding issue was the integrity of the API system on which we base so much decision-making about data-driven instruction. He commented that Peralta Elementary School is a good school, would continue to be good school, and would experience little tangible effect of not having an API.
· MOTION FAILED: Ms. Tacheny moved to deny the waiver request as recommended by staff. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion failed on a vote of 4-6. Ms. Bloom, Mr. Nunez, Ms. Reiss, Mr. Williams, Mr. Gill, and Mr. Fisher voted against the motion.
· ACTION: Ms. Reiss moved to approve the waiver. Ms. Bloom seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-4. Ms. Johnson, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Tacheny, and Ms. Green voted against the motion.
ITEM W-2 / Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD) Academic Performance Index (API) Waiver. Specifically, the NVUSD requests waiver of a portion of Title 5, CCR Section 1032(d)(1) to allow Pueblo Vista Elementary School to be given a valid API for the 2004 year despite “adult testing irregularities”. (CAPA test for 9 students, 5.26 percent)Waiver Number: 3-11-2004
(Recommended for DENIAL) / ACTION
Mr. Bernstein provided background on this item.
Individual who addressed the Board:
Alina Tescana, Testing Coordinator, Napa Valley Unified School District
· ACTION: Ms. Tacheny moved to approve the waiver request. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 10-0.
CONSENT WAIVERS: WC-1 through WC-9
Waiver Number: Fed-25-2004 / ACTION
WC-2 / Request by Cuyama Joint Unified School District for a waiver of section 131(d)(1) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-332)
Waiver Number: Fed-25-2004 / ACTION
WC-3 / Request by Shandon Joint Unified School District for a waiver of section 131(d)(1) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-332)
Waiver Number: Fed-25-2004 / ACTION
WC-4 / Request by Waterford Unified School District for a waiver of section 131(d)(1) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-332)
Waiver Number: Fed-25-2004 / ACTION
WC-5 / Request by Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District for a waiver of section 131(d)(1) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-332)
Waiver Number: Fed-25-2004 / ACTION
WC-6 / Request by El Tejon Unified School District for a waiver of section 131(d)(1) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-332)
Waiver Number: Fed-25-2004 / ACTION
WC-7 / Request by Natomas Unified School District to waive Title 5 California Code of Regulations 11960(a) related to charter school attendance for two different sites, Sacramento Valley Technical High School and Sacramento Valley Technical High School Independent Study Program, to allow a calendar with two different tracks.
Waiver Number: 6-10-2004 / ACTION
WC-8 / Request by San Jose Unified School District for a retroactive waiver for the 2002/2003 fiscal year of Education Code (EC) Section 60119 regarding Annual Public Hearing on the availability of textbooks and instructional materials. The district had an audit finding for fiscal year 2002-2003 that they failed to properly notice (10 days) the public hearing.
Wavier Number: 7-10-2004 / ACTION
WC-9 / Request by Manhattan Beach Unified School District to waive No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB); Title IV, Part A, Section 4115(a)(1)(c) to use Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities funds to support the cost of Hooked on Health, Substance Abuse, Violence Prevention Program, Kindergarten through fifth grade program.
Waiver Number: Fed-29-2004 / ACTION
Ms. Pinegar introduced the item.
· ACTION: Ms. Bloom moved to adopt staff recommendations to approve WC-1, WC-2, WC-3, WC-4, WC-5, WC-6, WC-7, WC-8, and WC-9, including any conditions, and with the changes to WC-7 that corrected the legal reference to the subject area of the waiver (from Education Code Section 11960(a) to Title 5 California Code of Regulations Section 11960(a)) and limited the term of the waiver to two years minus one day. Ms. Reiss seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 10-0.
NON-CONSENT WAIVERS
BOND INDEBTEDNESS
ITEM W-3 / Request by Greenfield Union School District to waive Education Code (EC) Section 15102, to allow the district to exceed its bonding limit of 1.25 percent of the taxable assessed value of property. (Requesting 1.31 percent)Waiver Number: 2-11-2004
(Recommended for APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS)
EC 33051(c) will apply / ACTION
Ms. Pinegar provided background on the item.
· ACTION: Mr. Gill moved to approve the waiver on the condition that the bonded indebtedness of Greenfield Union School District not exceed 1.1 percent of the assessed valuation of taxable property of the district and that the waiver is limited to the sale of the bonds approved by the voters in the March 1999 election. EC 33051(c) will apply. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 10-0.
CHARTER SCHOOLS
Waiver Number: 4-11-2004
(Recommended for DENIAL) / ACTION
Ms. Pinegar, with assistance from Ms. Reyes, provided background on this item. Ms. Reyes reported that geographic limitations were created under AB 1994 to prevent charter schools from developing learning centers removed from the authorizing LEA, which provides oversight. She described alternatives the charter school could utilize to remedy the problem.
Individuals who addressed the Board:
Lisa Corr, Attorney
Dr. Kathleen Hermsmeyer, Executive Director, Eagles Peak Charter School
Brian Bristol, Superintendent, Julian Unified High School District (chartering agency)
Mr. Hastings commented that the Board was very concerned with relatively small districts approving charters that enroll large numbers of students. In this case, the district has an ADA of 250, but the charter school has an ADA of 1,500. Oversight of the charter school can be difficult because of the authorizing LEA’s dependence on revenue from the charter school.