Final Minutes March 9, 2005 - SBE Minutes (CA State Board of Education)

Final Minutes

State Board of Education

March 9 and 10, 2005

Wednesday, March 9, 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

Joe Nuñez

Bonnie Reiss

Johnathan Williams

Members Absent

Vacancy

Vacancy

Vacancy

Secretary and Executive Officer

Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Principal Staff

Cathy Barkett, Executive Director, State Board of Education

Karen Steentofte, Chief Counsel, State Board of Education

Bob LaLiberte, Special Consultant, State Board of Education

Rebecca Parker, Education Program Consultant, State Board of Education

Debbie Rury, Education Policy Consultant, State Board of Education

Deborah Franklin, Education Policy Consultant, State Board of Education

Vickie Evans, Executive Assistant, State Board of Education

Gavin Payne, Chief Deputy Superintendent, California Department of Education

Marsha Bedwell, General Counsel, California Department of Education

Susan Ronnback, Chief Policy Advisor to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Cindy Cunningham, Liaison to the State Board, California Department of Education

Call to Order

President Green called the meeting to order at 9:07 a.m.

Salute to the Flag

Mr. Gill led the Board, staff, and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of Minutes (January 12-13, 2005, Meeting)

• ACTION: Mr. Nuñez moved to approve the meeting minutes for the January 12th and 13th, 2005, meeting with minor technical changes. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion was passed by a vote of 8-0.

Announcements/Communications

Changes to the Agenda

President Green announced that Items 4 and 10 would be heard at the beginning of the following day, that Item 17 was withdrawn at the Department’s request, that WC-1 and W-5 were withdrawn by the petitioners, and that Item 25 would be heard at approximately 1:00 p.m.

The minutes reflect the order in which items were heard by the Board.

Report of the Superintendent

Superintendent O’Connell reported that negotiations with the United States Department of Education (USDE) resulted in an agreement regarding how school districts would be identified for Program Improvement (PI). He thanked Mr. Payne for his work with the negotiations and for keeping the Education Coalition abreast of the news.

Superintendent O’Connell indicated that, in general, the negotiated method was a reasonable compromise and reiterated that all parties to the negotiations were committed to high standards, high expectations, and to focusing assistance on those subgroups not achieving to standards. He commented on the lack of flexibility afforded states that were implementing the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, providing the example that, using USDE calculations, high performing districts are being identified for PI.

He announced two pieces of good news. First, the cheerleading team from the State-run School for the Deaf in Riverside came in 2nd place in the nationals despite the stiff competition. Second, he announced that Alice Parker, Director, Special Education Division, was recognized by the National Association of School Psychologists as a “friend of education.”

Don Fisher asked whether it would be possible to pull together a coalition with other states to speak to Congress. Superintendent O’Connell responded that he had sent a letter last year inviting colleagues from other states to participate, but that it was hard to pull these types of coalitions together.

2006 Meeting Calendar

President Green reminded Board members that the SBE bylaws call for six regularly scheduled two-day meetings on the Wednesday and Thursday preceding the second Friday of the months of January, March, May, July, September, and November. In keeping with the bylaws, the following meeting dates will be scheduled for 2006.

January 11-12, 2006

March 8-9, 2006

May 10-11, 2006

July 12-13, 2006

September 6-7, 2006

November 8-9, 2006

State Board of Education staff

President Green introduced the Board’s new legal assistant, Kathy Dobson.

Committee Assignments/Appointments

President Green informed the Board that she had appointed Rae Belisle to serve as chair of the Advisory Commission on Charter Schools. She also announced that she had reappointed Rex Fortune to the WestEd Board and appointed Suzanne Tacheny to fill a vacant position on the WestEd Board.

Board Member Liaison Reports

Board member Bloom reported that, as liaison to the State Summer School for the Arts, she had attended two meetings last month. The focus of the meetings was to rethink the school’s curriculum to involve new media and technologies for teaching art.

Ms. Bloom updated the Board on activities of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC). She reported that, in June 2006, short term (emergency) staff permits will no longer be available and that, in their place, CCTC will issue short term or provisional staff permits. These permits will be valid for only two years, and renewed on a one year basis. She indicated that large local educational agencies (LEAs) have significantly cut the number of short term permits they need.

Ms. Bloom indicated that the other great concern discussed at the CCTC was the lack of solvency for the agency. She reported that, although the CCTC had been advised not to raise fees, it had felt there was no alternative given the statutory requirement for a 75-day turnaround for permits and credentials. The actual turnaround time is currently 89 days and is likely to continue to grow due to staff cuts.

No action was taken on this item.

The following individuals addressed the Board:

Linda Olson, Board member, Yosemite High School District

Bill McCabe, Superintendent, Yosemite High School District

Larry Caldwell, Quality Science Education for All

Martha Wallace, California Teachers Association

Kim Shipp, parent, Oakland Unified School District

This item was for information only. No action was taken.

President Green introduced the seminar as the first in a series about what works in schools. The day’s seminar would focus on successful elementary schools, although subsequent seminars might focus on middle and high schools, charter schools, and programs for special education students.

She introduced the two presenters: Fernando Ureno from Yamoto Colony Elementary School in Livingston Union School District, and Kevin Woldridge, formerly responsible for Intensive Support for Elementary Schools, Oakland Unified School District.

Mr. Ureno has been in the district for 14 years as an assistant principal, and for two years as the principal at Yamoto Colony Elementary School. The school’s API has grown 126 points in the past three years to 737 in 2003-2004, and they have a similar schools rank of 7. The school met its AYP target for the past two years. Demographically, 74.5% of its students are Hispanic, 14% are Asian and 9% are white. The majority of its students (83%) qualify for free and reduced price meals.

Mr. Woldridge recently left as the Executive Director of Intensive Support for Elementary Schools in Oakland Unified. Previously, Mr. Woldridge was a principal for 6.5 years in Berkeley Unified School District.

The presenters stressed the importance of full implementation of Board-adopted instructional materials, Reading First funding, and standards-aligned AB 466 and AB 75 professional development in their achievement gains.

This item was for information only. No action was taken.

Wendy Harris, Director of the School Improvement Division, introduced the item by commenting that, although the Board is not required to approve the criteria, its approval is being sought because the Board does approve SAIT providers recommended by the CDE. The proposed criteria are the same as those used last year with just a couple of clarifications.

The criteria identify providers with expertise in the nine essential program components and will be used for selecting new providers. The current providers will continue to offer services.

Mr. Gill commented that Member Fisher had asked for evidence of SAIT provider effectiveness. Ms. Harris responded by indicating that the CDE has only one year of outcome data for current providers and that, by 2006, CDE will have two years of data. President Green commented that the Board would expect to see growth and effectiveness incorporated into criteria in the future.

The following individuals addressed the Board:

Martha Zaragoza-Diaz, Californians Together Coalition and California Association of Bilingual Educators

• ACTION: Mr. Gill moved that the Board approve the criteria for selection of 2005-06 SAIT providers as recommended by staff. Ms. Bloom seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0.

Ms. Harris introduced the item and indicated that this action would add seventeen schools to the state-monitored list. Mr. Fisher indicated he was concerned that schools with API scores of 697 and above, and with statewide ranks of 7, received more funding than did schools with much lower API scores. Ms. Reiss concurred and asked whether the Board could develop a policy to waive higher performing schools from the sanctioned status.

Mr. Nuñez indicated that one difficulty with developing a waiver policy is that the II/USP program was voluntary and that schools had agreed to the possibility of sanctions in the event they failed to make adequate growth.

The following individual addressed the Board:

Harry Gerst, Los Angeles Unified School District

• ACTION: Mr. Williams moved to (1) deem the 17 schools identified on the Board agenda item as state-monitored schools, (2) require the districts to enter into a contract with a School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT), and (3) allow the local governing Boards to retain their legal rights, duties, and responsibilities with respect to the school. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 7-1. Mr. Fisher voted against the motion.

Ms. Harris introduced the item by saying it was a little different than previous items of this type because at this time there is not sufficient funding in the current year budget to support corrective action in all state-monitored schools. A larger than anticipated number of schools came into monitoring this year and, due to limited resources, the motion needed to be contingent on the availability of funding to support the corrective actions. She indicated that the CDE is working with the Department of Finance (DOF) to secure the required funding.

The following individual addressed the Board:

Sherry Skelly Griffith, Association of California School Administrators

• ACTION: Mr. Williams moved to approve the SAIT expenditure plan for 17 state-monitored schools, conditioned on the availability of funding and the legislative authority to spend the funds for the expenditure plan, as recommended by staff. Ms. Reiss seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0.

Deb Sigman, Director of the Standards and Assessment Division, presented this item. She reported that the writing assessment was scheduled to be administered on March 1, 2005, with a backup date of April 2, 2005.

No action was taken.

Ms. Sigman stated that this was an annual item and that the apportionment was unchanged from last year.

• ACTION: Mr. Gill moved to approve the following 2005 STAR district apportionment amounts:

• $0.32 for completing demographic information for each student not tested with the California Standards Tests (CSTs) and the California Achievement Tests, Sixth edition Survey (CAT/6 Survey) or the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA).
• $2.52 per student for completing demographic information and administering the CST – CAT/6 Survey.
• $2.44 per student for administering the Spanish Assessment of Basic Education, Second Edition (SABE/2).
• $5.00 per student for completing demographic information and administering the CAPA.

Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0.

President Green drew the Board’s attention to the blue, last minute memorandum on Item 10 and asked them to read it to inform the discussion on Thursday morning.

Ms. Sigman presented this item.

The following individuals addressed the Board:

Liz Guillen, Public Advocates LLP

Sylvia DeRuvo, California Association of Resource Specialists and Special Education Teachers

No action was taken.

Ms. Sigman presented the item.

No action was taken.

Ms. Sigman presented this item as a chance to review the CELDT assessment results.

President Green indicated she was concerned with the discrepancy between the number of students that met the Board-adopted criteria to be considered for reclassification and the number that were actually reclassified. Superintendent O’Connell agreed, stating that while the numbers are encouraging, perhaps some students are not being reclassified as quickly as they might.

No action was taken.

Geno Flores, Deputy Superintendent of the Assessment and Accountability Branch, presented this item with assistance from Camille Maben, Director of the School and District Accountability Division, and Diane Levin, Manager of the NCLB Implementation and Coordination Office.

Ms. Levin introduced the item. She reported that, on March 1, 2005, representatives from the USDE accountability office were here to study California’s Highly Qualified Teacher implementation. This study was part of a six-state study requested by Congressman George Miller. The results will be published in fall 2005. She commented that this visit was good preparation for another visit scheduled for the week of June 13, 2005. USDE will be monitoring California’s Title II Part A programs and will interview CDE staff and visit some districts.

Mr. Flores described CDE and SBE activities to resolve the criteria for identifying LEAs for Program Improvement (PI). He indicated that CDE had been in discussion with the federal government since the Board meeting in January. Discussion was continuing about how to handle special education students’ assessment scores, in particular, how to determine the LEA to which they should be attributed.

Mr. Flores recommended that the Board approve the grade-span approach as the second criterion for identifying LEAs for PI. He commented that districts would have a 10-day period in which to appeal their identification.

Mr. Flores indicated that USDE agreed to consider 2005-06 as year 1 for the newly identified PI LEAs, even though the districts would need to begin improvement activities immediately. The first responsibility of the LEAs will be to study why they were identified for PI and revise their LEA Plan. Accordingly, Ms. Maben indicated that the revised LEA Plans from previously identified PI LEAs were due three weeks earlier and were still being finalized through discussions between LEA and CDE staff.