Final Minutes January 12, 2005 - SBE Minutes (CA State ...



Wednesday, January 12, 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

Suzanne Tacheny

Johnathan Williams

Bonnie Reiss

Members Absent

Joe Nuñez

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

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

Bob LaLiberte, Education Policy Consultant, 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 9:10 a.m.

Salute to the Flag

Mr. Williams led the board, staff, and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of Minutes (November 9-10, 2004, and November 29, 2004, Meetings)

• ACTION: Ms. Johnson moved to approve the meeting minutes for the November 9th and 10th, 2004, and the November 29th, 2004, meetings with minor corrections as identified by Mr. Williams. Mr. Gill seconded the motion. The motion was passed by a vote of 7-0.

Announcements/Communications

State Board Staff

President Green introduced Cathy Barkett, the new executive director for the State Board of Education. Ms. Barkett presented Karen Steentofte, acting executive director for three months, with a certificate for job well done.

Board of Education

President Green reported that the January 13, 2005 meeting would be the last for Ms. Tacheny, whose term was ending. Her work over the last four years would be acknowledged with a short reception after the meeting on Thursday. Ms. Green reported that Ms. Martineau resigned from the Board effective December 18, 2004, for personal reasons.

Changes to the Agenda

President Green announced that Items 20, 21, and 35 had been postponed to the March meeting. At 11:05, President Green announced that Item 21 had been restored to the Agenda. She also announced that Items 16 and 17, Senate Youth and Teachers of the Year presentations, would be heard at 11:45 to accommodate the schedules of the recipients.

Schedule changes President Green announced the Board would break about 12:25 and reconvene after 3:00.

Report of the Superintendent

Superintendent O’Connell reported he was in the midst of putting together a meeting in Washington, D.C. with President Green and United States Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings to discuss issues related to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. He informed the Board that he would be delivering his second State of Education address on January 24, 2005, at 11 a.m.

|ITEM 1 |STATE BOARD PROJECTS AND PRIORITIES. |

| |Including, but not limited to, future meeting plans; agenda items; State Board office budget; staffing, appointments, and |

| |direction to staff; declaratory and commendatory resolutions; update on litigation; bylaw review and revision; review of the |

| |status of State Board-approved charter schools as necessary; Board Liaison Reports; election of State Board officers; and other |

| |matters of interest. |

Superintendent O’Connell conducted this portion of the meeting.

• ACTION: Ms. Reiss nominated Ms. Green for President of the State Board of Education. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher. Superintendent O’Connell declared that Ms. Green was elected President of the State Board of Education by acclamation.

• ACTION: Ms. Reiss nominated Ms. Johnson for office of Vice President of the State Board of Education. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gill. Superintendent O’Connell declared by Ms. Johnson was elected Vice President of the State Board of Education by acclamation.

Superintendent O’Connell handed the gavel to President Green.

President Green asked Board members to consider which committee and Board liaison assignments they would prefer. She also reported that she would be taking Ms. Tacheny’s position on the State Board’s screening committee.

|ITEM 2 |PUBLIC COMMENT. |INFORMATION |

| |Public Comment is invited on any matter not included on the printed agenda. Depending on the number | |

| |of individuals wishing to address the State Board, the presiding officer may establish specific time| |

| |limits on presentations. | |

The following individuals addressed the Board:

Glen Thomas, California County Superintendents’ Educational Services Association

Jim Woodhead, Advisory Commission on Special Education

Mr. Thomas thanked outgoing Board members Suzanne Tacheny and Jeannine Martineau and asked that the record show how appreciative he was for their service.

Mr. Woodhead expressed regret on behalf of the Advisory Commission on Special Education that Jeannine Martineau was leaving the Board.

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

|ITEM 3 |Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Including, but Not Limited To, Program |INFORMATION |

| |Update. |ACTION |

Deb Sigman, Director of the Standards and Assessment Division, announced that the released test items for 2004 had been posted on the web in December 2004. She informed the Board that districts were in the process of designating their Standardized Testing and Report (STAR) coordinators. These individuals are the “lifeline” through which the division contacts the district. Ms. Sigman indicated that, in anticipation of CALPADS, districts were being allowed to submit pre-identification data to the California School Information System (CSIS). This allows districts to edit files prior to submission to ETS. This process will increase the accuracy of data and allow the Policy and Evaluation Division to get test result data more quickly. In preparation for testing, ETS will be providing 22 workshops for districts on STAR.

Mr. Fisher asked how difficult it was for charter schools to fill out the forms. Mr. Williams indicated that it was a fairly simple form to complete.

Ms. Sigman announced that Jan Chladek is the new manager in charge of STAR.

No action was taken on this item.

|ITEM 4 |Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Receipt of California Writing Test Task |INFORMATION |

| |Force Recommendations for the Grade 4 and Grade 7 Writing Standards Tests. |ACTION |

Ms. Sigman presented the item and provided information about the Grade 4 and Grade 7 Writing Standards Tests. She reminded the Board that, earlier in the budget year, it appeared possible that the writing tests for 2005 would not be scored. To address this concern, CDE and SBE staff worked closely with the Governor’s Office to ensure there was sufficient funding. During the process, it was agreed there was a shared interest in improving the examination. The testing contractor, ETS, convened a 31-member writing task force including fourth and seventh grade teachers, curriculum directors, assessment directors, Content Review Panel members, and psychometricians to recommend improvements.

Ms. Sigman summarized the main issues as identified by the task force:

1) Define the writing constructs being tested more clearly;

2) Change the current system of prompts, directions, and scoring rubrics to better reflect the construct being tested;

3) Field test additional prompts and collect and analyze student response data

4) Promote clarity, consistency, and efficiency in the scoring process;

5) Increase transparency to the system by providing more documentation to the field; and

6) Ensure the standards, prompts, and scoring rubrics are aligned.

She indicated that CDE and ETS would address most of the issues within the current scope of the contract. However, two of the issues would require a change in the scope of work for the STAR contractor and, consequently, needed Board approval. Two recommendations were generated to address the issues, which are:

1. Modify the scoring method by switching to a one-reader model, and

2. Field test 40 additional writing tasks.

1. Modify the scoring method by switching to a one-reader model

Ms. Sigman provided background for the first recommendation. In previous testing cycles, the reliability between the two test readers has been extremely high, indicating that we could move to a one-reader model. To ensure continued high inter-rater reliability while utilizing a one-reader (versus two-reader) model, readers would receive high levels of training. ETS would do a percentage of double-reads (at least 10%), reading experts would do read-behinds, and reader drift would be identified and corrected very quickly. The practice of identifying anchor papers that reflect different points on the rubric would continue and would inform reader training. If approved, this change would result in a savings of $3,300,000.

2. Field test 40 additional writing tasks

Ms. Sigman indicated that the task force felt strongly that new prompts needed to be developed and field tested. She was pleased to report that the budget would support testing 40 prompts. This testing would ensure that instructions to teachers and students are clear and accurate.

The following individuals addressed the Board:

Sherry Skelly Griffith, Association of California School Administrators

• ACTION: Ms. Johnson moved to: (1) approve using, beginning in 2006, a one-reader model with at least a 10 percent double read for scoring the grades four and seven writing tests; and, (2) approve field testing 40 additional writing tasks as recommended by staff. Ms. Bloom seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0. Mr. Hastings was not present at the time of the vote.

|ITEM 5 |Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: One-Year Extension of Educational |INFORMATION |

| |Testing Service (ETS) California Alternative Performance Assessment (CAPA) Contract. |ACTION |

Ms. Sigman explained that the one-year extension would: 1) allow ETS to administer the California Alternative Performance Assessment (CAPA) for one more year, and 2) allow CAPA administration to be incorporated into the STAR Request for Applications that will be released in spring 2005.

• ACTION: Ms. Johnson moved to approve the extension of the ETS contract for CAPA to December 31, 2006, and direct the State Board’s testing liaisons and Executive Director to work with the Department staff to update the 2005-06 Scope of Work, with the final version to be approved by the testing liaisons and Executive Director. Mr. Gill seconded the motion. The motion was approved with a vote of 7-0. Mr. Hastings and Ms. Tacheny were not present at the time of the vote.

|ITEM 6 |California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE): Including, but Not Limited To, CAHSEE |INFORMATION |

| |Program Update. |ACTION |

Ms. Sigman announced that Lily Roberts is the new CAHSEE manager.

Ms. Sigman reported that about 62,000 eleventh graders who had not passed the CAHSEE in tenth grade were preparing to retake the CAHSEE. She indicated that the largest group of test-takers this year would be the 10th grade students who will take the CAHSEE in the spring.

No action was taken on this item.

|ITEM 7 |California English Language Development Test (CELDT) Update: Including, but Not Limited |INFORMATION |

| |To, Approval of Apportionment Funding for the 2003-04 Administration of the CELDT. |ACTION |

Ms. Sigman explained that this was a routine action to gain Board approval for district apportionments.

• ACTION: Ms. Bloom moved to approve the district apportionment funding of $5.00 per student assessed with the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) during the 2003-04 school year as recommended by staff. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 8-0. Mr. Hastings was not present at the time of the vote.

|ITEM 8 |No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 - Including, but Not Limited To, an Update on the |INFORMATION |

| |Submission of Part 1 of California’s Consolidated State Performance Report and |ACTION |

| |California’s IASA Timeline Waiver. | |

Diane Levin, Consultant in the School and District Accountability Division, reported that California’s Consolidated State Performance Report was being finalized and, once submitted to the U.S. Department of Education (USDE), would be posted on the CDE web site. She also reported that California received written confirmation from the USDE that California’s timeline waiver is now complete and our assessment system satisfies the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) of 1994 requirements for Title I.

No action was taken on this item.

|ITEM 9 |No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Federal Program Monitoring Visit, Report of |INFORMATION |

| |Findings and California’s Response. |ACTION |

Geno Flores, Deputy of the Assessment and Accountability Branch, Camille Maben, Director of the School and District Accountability Division, Deb Sigman, and Wendy Harris, Director of the School Improvement Division, reported that in September 2004, the USDE conducted a monitoring visit to review CDE’s administration of parts of NCLB Title I and Title X. California received commendations for the quality of its standards-based assessments, the quality of the data used in its accountability system, efforts to reach out to families whose home language is not English, and our Even Start program efforts.

Ms. Barkett indicated that the monitoring report required a response within 30 working days (Jan 28) and that this was the only Board meeting during which the Board could take action to ensure California met the timeline. She commented that some language in the report suggested the USDE could hold up funds if specific elements were not satisfied. She also indicated that individuals would have an opportunity for input before the Board acted.

Mr. Flores explained that when USDE came to monitor activities, they focused on three things, accountability provisions, instructional support, and fiduciary activities.

Mr. Flores indicated that the most challenging elements were 1.3 and 1.4 and that he wanted to discuss each element to ensure the Board understood the impacts of these findings. He also acknowledged that the public hadn’t had a chance to study the response as it was provided in a last minute memorandum.

Mr. Flores explained that Element 1.3 refers to California’s regulations that allow out-of- level testing and level 3 accommodations (modifications) for students with disabilities. CDE has included students who used those accommodations in its calculation of the participation rate for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), but has considered scores from those tests to be not proficient. USDE wants California to exclude those students when calculating the participation rates.

He further reported that Element 1.4 refers to the process used by CDE to identify districts for Program Improvement (PI). To determine whether a district has made AYP, all student scores within the district are aggregated. The aggregated data is analyzed to determine student participation rate and whether all sub-groups made adequate progress. If a district has not met AYP, California applies a second indicator, which is to identify whether the district’s low-income students’ API is equal to or above 560. If a district satisfies the second criterion, it is not identified for PI. USDE disallowed the second step and wants CDE to respond to the finding in 30 days or face possible administrative actions, including withholding of funds.

He concluded by stressing that the major significance of these findings is that USDE wants California to apply these procedures retroactively and reconsider schools and districts for PI status for the current (04-05) year. This finding would have a major impact on how California identifies PI schools and districts.

Ms. Sigman provided additional details about Element 1.3 and indicated that, while California does allow out-of-level testing for the STAR, the Title 5 regulations adopted by the Board in September only offer that option through spring 2005. Losing this option immediately would impact districts tremendously. Many individualized education programs (IEPs) were written to allow out-of-level testing for the 2004-05 testing cycle that begins in February, leaving no time for teachers and parents to rewrite their students’ IEPs.

Ms. Sigman also explained that level three accommodations change the construct being tested, e.g., reading a reading/language arts test item to a blind student. As with the out-of-level testing, California has deemed a student participating for the purpose of the AYP participation requirement, although the students’ scores are considered not proficient. The USDE intends to disallow these students in calculating participation rates.

For both issues, there is a concern in the timing of implementation. If the state must implement the changes retroactively, it would cause about 1,525 more schools to fail the 95% participation level for the STAR and 172 to fail the 95% level for the CAHSEE. Even implementing the change for the 2004-05 testing cycle is problematic as decisions about how students would access the state assessments were made months ago.

Ms. Johnson provided context to this discussion by stating that these changes in the participation rate calculations would mean that roughly 20-25% of all schools in the state would be identified for PI in the 2004-05 school year.

Ms. Bloom asked how other states were complying with these requirements. In response, Ms. Sigman indicated that California is the only state still allowing out-of-level testing and that CDE felt there were enough other accommodations available that out-of-level testing could be discontinued next year.

Mr. Flores asked to move the discussion on to Element 1.4. Mr. Padia described the federal requirements with regard to identifying districts for PI. USDE says that once the analyses of participation rates and growth are calculated for the AYP, additional criteria can be incorporated only if they increase the number of districts identified. USDE says California can’t use its additional criterion because it decreases the number of districts identified for PI. USDE wants to apply the changes retroactively, which would increase the number of PI districts to 354 instead of the current 14, in the current year. We can anticipate having 385 districts in PI in 2005-06 and 832 districts in 2006-07.

Mr. Padia also indicated that the USDE has approved indicators for other states and that CDE needs more time to examine those methods and to learn from the proposed meetings with Secretary of Education Spellings. He indicated that CDE would bring recommendations to the Board in the spring.

Ms. Harris reported that new legislation, AB 2066, includes a spending plan for districts in PI or at risk of becoming PI. The funding amount in this legislation is based on the Board’s decision about how to identify PI districts and targets funding to those districts. Her division has been working with SAIT providers to develop plans for supporting the PI districts. The new funding would be eclipsed by the demand for help from newly identified PI districts. The CDE would need to go back to the legislature for more funding.

The following individuals addressed the Board:

Sherry Skelly Griffith, Association of California School Administrators

Silvia deRuvo, California Association of Resource Specialists and Special Education Teachers

Holly Jacobson, California School Boards Association

Zella Knight, chairperson for District Advisory Committee, Los Angeles Unified School District

Princess Sikes Ward, parent, Los Angeles Unified School District

Action on this item was postponed to Thursday, January 13, 2005. See Minutes for January 13, 2005.

President Green announced that Item 21 had been restored to the Agenda.

|ITEM 10 |No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Approve Local Educational Agency Plans Title 1 |INFORMATION |

| |Section 1112. |ACTION |

Ms. Maben provided background information.

• ACTION: Mr. Gill moved to approve the Local Educational Agency (LEA) Plans for the 15 districts listed in the attachment for Item 10 and the Last Minute Memorandum as recommended by staff. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0.

|ITEM 11 |No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Approve Additional Supplemental Educational |INFORMATION |

| |Service Providers for the List of 2004-05 School Year Providers. |ACTION |

Ms. Maben provided background information on this item.

President Green reported that, with these additions, there would be a total of 260 providers and that all provider applicants understood their approval would expire at the end of June 2005.

Ms. Bloom indicated she was concerned about the accountability of these providers and asked for about 20 minutes at a future meeting to discuss this issue. She is concerned that some individuals may see being a provider as a profit-making opportunity and wants to ensure providers are serving their students effectively.

• ACTION: Ms. Tacheny moved to approve additional Supplemental Educational Service Providers for the list of 2004-05 school year providers as recommended by staff. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. Motion was approved by a vote of 9-0.

|ITEM 12 |No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Adopt Title 5 Regulations Regarding Supplemental |INFORMATION |

| |Educational Services. |ACTION |

Ms. Maben introduced the item by saying that this revised version of the regulations incorporated the ideas and concerns received during the public comment period and at the public hearing.

Ms. Reiss asked why the regulations did not reflect concerns about the needs of English Language (EL) or special education students. Ms. Maben responded that the guidance does not permit a state to require that providers have experience with special education or EL students. President Green reminded the Board that the regulations require provider applicants to demonstrate they have a proven record of effectiveness.

The following individuals addressed the Board:

Sherry Skelly Griffith – Association of California School Administrators

Martha Wallace – California Teacher’s Association

Ms. Steentofte confirmed that Ms. Maben was correct about not requiring providers to serve EL or special education students. In the future, the supplemental educational services provider application could include information about experience serving EL and special education students and then be made available on the internet. The posting would allow LEAs to identify providers with expertise in particular areas.

• ACTION: Mr. Hastings moved to:

1) Direct that the regulations with the proposed technical changes be circulated for a 15-Day public comment period;

2) If no objections to the technical changes are received during the 15-Day public comment period, CDE shall complete the rulemaking package and submit the amended regulations to the Office of Administrative Law for approval;

3) If objections to the technical changes are received during the 15-Day public comment period, CDE shall place the amended regulations on the State Board’s March 2005 agenda for action following consideration of the comments received.

Ms. Reiss seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0.

|ITEM 13 |No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Draft Revised Provider Application Materials for |INFORMATION |

| |the Supplemental Educational Service Program. |ACTION |

Ms. Maben reported that the Board’s approval of the revised application materials would allow the application to be available in time to select providers for the 2005-06 school year. She indicated that the materials could be approved with the condition that the Executive Director approve any changes to the current draft.

Ms. Maben described the application as having four major components:

1. What the provider can do;

2. What population the provider can work with;

3. A narrative response including a demonstrated record of effectiveness; and

4. Assurances.

• ACTION: Ms. Reiss moved to approve the staff recommendation to approve the application materials for the Supplemental Educational Services Program with the condition that the executive director incorporate into the application the Board’s encouragement that applicants include staff with credentials or experience with special education and English language students. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0.

|ITEM 14 |No Child Left Behind Act, Title III Accountability Update, Including Release of the |INFORMATION |

| |2003-04 Title III Accountability Reports. |ACTION |

Bill Vasey, Director of the Professional Development and Curriculum Support Division, reported that the USDE requires three annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAO). He explained that:

• AMAO 1 measures whether students are making progress in English proficiency from intermediate to early advanced or advanced,

• AMAO 2 measures how effective schools are at helping students become English proficient, and

• AMAO 3 reflects how well EL students achieve on academic goals in math and reading/language arts.

Mr. Vasey reported that about 70% of districts that received Title III funds made all three targets. Only 19% failed to demonstrate growth in either the first or second indicator, indicating a need to re-evaluate their methods for teaching English to English learners.

There was no action taken on this item.

|ITEM 15 |2004-05 Title 1 Academic Achievement Awards Including, but Not Limited To, Approval of |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |Proposed Selection Criteria to be used to Determine Eligibility Pursuant to Public Law | |

| |107-110, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Section 1117(b)(1)(2). | |

Ms. Maben reported that the Title I schools conference was an opportunity to honor Title I-funded schools for accomplishing important work and to learn about those schools’ effective approaches to improving student achievement.

The Board discussed the conference and the additional criterion that schools with an API of 800 or above for both schoolwide and the socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroup need not achieve twice their API growth target.

• ACTION: Ms. Johnson moved to approve the 2004-05 Title I Academic Achievement Awards proposed selection criteria with the additional criterion that schools with an API of 800 or above for both schoolwide and the socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroup would not need to meet the API growth criterion. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0. Mr. Fisher was not present at the time of the vote.

|ITEM 16 |2005 United States Senate Youth Program Presentation. |INFORMATION |

|ITEM 17 |California Teachers of the Year 2005 Presentation |INFORMATION |

Superintendent O’Connell and President Green presented certificates to the 2005 Senate Youth Program delegates and the California Teachers of the Year.

The Senate Youth Program delegates are:

Christian Alexander Osmena, Tesoro High School, Las Flores, Orange County, and

Kaitlin Spak, Bear River High School, Grass Valley, Nevada County.

Alternates are:

Hillary Chu, Lowell High School, San Francisco, San Francisco County; and

Lakshmi Chirla Reddy, Irvine High School, Irvine, Orange County.

California Teachers of the Year are:

Alan Siegel, W.C. Carlé Continuation High School, Lower Lake, Lake County;

Eric Burrows, San Marcos High School, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County;

Ray Williams, Steve Luther Elementary School, La Palma, Orange County;

Kim Labinger, Thomas A. Edison Elementary School, Glendale, Los Angeles County; and

Stanley Murphy, San Diego High School, San Diego, San Diego County.

In addition, Superintendent O’Connell announced that Mr. Murphy would represent California in the National Teacher of the Year competition.

President Green and Ms. Barkett reminded the Board and members of the public that the Board meeting would resume that afternoon after 3:00.

Lunch: 12:05 p.m. - 4:28 p.m.

The extended break occurred to allow people to attend the Senate Rules Committee’s Confirmation Hearing for Reed Hastings, a Governor Schwarzenegger appointee.

At 3:00 and on several occasions thereafter, Deborah Franklin, consultant for the Board, returned to the Board meeting room to see whether individuals were waiting for the Board to resume and to inform them that the meeting was slated to resume after 3:00 p.m.

|ITEM 18 |Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) and High Priority Schools |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |Grant Program (HPSGP): Adopt Title 5 Regulations Sections 1030.5 and 1030.6: Definition of | |

| |Significant Growth and Criteria to Demonstrate Academic Growth for II/USP and HPSGP Schools| |

| |without Valid APIs | |

Ms. Harris reminded the Board that this issue had been before them at earlier meetings and that the current draft reflected comments received during the 15-day comment period and from the Department of Finance (DOF). DOF was particularly concerned that the prior draft had not specified timelines within which the growth was expected to occur.

Ms. Harris described projections of the impact of each of four options for defining significant growth for High Priority schools.

The Board discussed the impact of the options and asked CDE to provide at its next meeting information on the state’s capacity to serve underperforming schools, and on

resources, priorities, and evidence of effectiveness.

There was no action taken at this meeting.

|ITEM 19 |Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP): Proposed Intervention for a Cohort |INFORMATION |

| |II School That Failed To Show Significant Growth. |ACTION |

|ITEM 20 |Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP): School Assistance and Intervention |INFORMATION |

| |Team (SAIT): Approval of Expenditure Plan to Support SAIT Activities and Corrective Actions in a | |

| |State-Monitored School. | |

Ms. Harris and Alice Parker, Director of the Special Education Division, provided background on the item. Ms. Harris described the academic performance of Strathmore High School and recommended the school be deemed state-monitored.

The following individuals addressed the Board:

Richard Morris, Vice Chair of Porterville Unified School District Board

Dr. John Snavely, Porterville Unified School District Superintendent

Ms. Harris explained that the school had been part of the Strathmore Union High School District, which merged with Porterville Unified School District this summer. The merger caused a delay in identifying the school as an II/USP school that failed to show significant growth. The school had negative growth for two of the last three years and has a current API of 530.

Ms. Parker addressed concerns about key growth indicators for special education and indicated that, in 2002-2003, Porterville had only 5.2% of special education students proficient or above. During 2003-04, only 4.5% were proficient. The school’s benchmark was 12%. In addition, the low rate of diploma receipt for special education students concerns CDE.

• ACTION: Ms. Tacheny moved to approve the staff recommendations to:

1) Deem Strathmore High School a state-monitored school;

2) Require the district to enter into a contract with a School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) for Strathmore High School;

3) Allow the local governing board to retain its legal rights, duties, and responsibilities with respect to the school; and

4) Approve the School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) expenditure plan to assist Strathmore High School.

Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0. Ms. Johnson, Mr. Hastings, and Ms. Reiss were not present at the time of the vote.

|ITEM 21 |2005 History-Social Science Primary Adoption of Instructional Materials: Appointment of |INFORMATION |

| |Instructional Materials Advisory Panel (IMAP) Members and Content Review Panel (CRP) |ACTION |

| |Experts. | |

Tom Adams, Director of the Curriculum and Instructional Frameworks Division, provided background on the item.

• ACTION: Mr. Fisher moved to approve staff recommendations for the appointment of the Instructional Materials Advisory Panel (IMAP) Members and the Content Review Panel (CRP) experts. Ms. Tacheny seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0. Ms. Johnson, Mr. Hastings, and Ms. Reiss were not present at the time of the vote.

|ITEM 22 |2005 Follow-up Adoption of Instructional Materials for Mathematics, Reading Language |INFORMATION |

| |Arts/English Language Development (RLA/ELD), and Foreign Language: Appointment of |ACTION |

| |Instructional Materials Advisory Panel (IMAP) members and Content Review Panel (CRP) experts| |

This item was postponed to the March meeting.

Proposed Consent (Items 23 through 24, and 28 through 33)

|ITEM 23 |2006 Visual and Performing Arts Primary Adoption: Approval of Timeline. |INFORMATION |

| | |ACTION |

|ITEM 24 |2006 Science Primary Adoption Timeline | |

|ITEM 28 | Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program (AB 466) (Chapter 737, Statutes of|INFORMATION |

| |2001): Including but Not Limited To, Approval of Training Providers and Training Curricula. |ACTION |

|ITEM 29 |Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program (466) Approve Local Education |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |Agencies’ (LEAs) Reimbursement Requests. | |

|ITEM 30 |The Principal Training Program (AB 75): Approval of Training Providers. | |

|ITEM 31 |The Principal Training Program (AB 75): Approval of Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |Consortia Applications for Funding | |

|ITEM 33 |Proposed Changes to be Included in the California School Information Services (CSIS) Data |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |Dictionary, Version 6.1. | |

President Green invited questions from the Board and comments from the public.

• ACTION: Ms. Bloom moved to approve staff recommendations to:

• Item 23: Approve the 2006 Visual and Performing Arts Primary Adoption Timeline.

• Item 24: Approve the 2006 Science Primary Adoption Timeline.

• Item 28: Approve the recommended providers and training curricula for the purposes of providing professional development under the provisions of the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program (AB 466).

• Item 29: Approve reimbursement requests, as recommended by staff, of local educational agencies (LEAs) that have complied with required assurances for the AB 466 Program, pursuant to Education Code Section 99234(g).

• Item 30: Approve the list of Recommended Training Providers, as recommended by staff, for The Principal Training Program (AB 75).

• Item 31: Approve by name only the LEA and Consortia members, as recommended by staff, who submitted applications for funding under The Principal Training Program (AB 75).

• Item 33: Approve the changes, recommended by staff, for the California School Information Services (CSIS) Data Dictionary, Version 6.1.

Mr. Gill seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0. Ms. Johnson, Mr. Hastings, and Ms. Reiss were not present at the time of the vote.

|ITEM 25 |Adoption of Physical Education Model Content Standards. |INFORMATION ACTION |

Mr. Vasey, with assistance from Diane Wilson-Graham, Physical Education Consultant, provided background on the item. State law required that model standards be developed and adopted by the State Board.

• ACTION: Ms. Bloom moved to adopt the physical education model content standards as proposed, recognizing that the standards will be subject to professional editing prior to printing and distribution. Mr. Gill seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0. Ms. Johnson, Mr. Hastings, and Ms. Reiss were not present at the time of the vote.

|ITEM 32 |Consolidated Applications 2004-05: Approval. |INFORMATION ACTION |

President Green asked for a motion on this item.

• ACTION: Mr. Williams moved to approve the Consolidated Applications for the 2004-05 school year. Mr. Gill seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0-1. Mr. Fisher recused himself from the discussion and voting on this item. Mr. Hastings and Ms. Reiss were not present at the time of the vote.

|ITEM 26 |Reading First Special Education Referral Reduction Program: Approval of Supplemental |INFORMATION |

| |Instructional Materials. |ACTION |

Mr. Vasey provided background information on this item.

• ACTION: Ms. Tacheny moved to approve additional supplemental instructional materials, as recommended by staff, for use in the Reading First Special Education Referral Reduction Program. Ms. Bloom seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0. Mr. Hastings and Ms. Reiss were not present at the time of the vote.

|ITEM 27 |Reading First Program: Request of Authorization to Extend Funding of Reading First Local |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |Educational Agencies (LEAs). | |

Mr. Vasey provided background information on this item.

• ACTION: Mr. Fisher moved that existing Reading First Grants be funded for a fourth year and requested that CDE comply as necessary with Budget Act Language. Mr. Gill seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0. Mr. Hastings and Ms. Reiss were not present at the time of the vote.

Note: Items 28 through 31and 33 were heard with the proposed consent items.

|ITEM 34 |Williams vs. State of California: Approve Commencement of Rulemaking Process to Implement |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |the Williams Lawsuit Settlement. | |

Mr. Adams provided background information on this item.

• ACTION: Mr. Gill moved to approve the commencement of the regulatory process for the proposed regulations, including the Initial Statement of Reasons and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and direct staff to conduct a public hearing on the proposed regulations. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0. Mr. Hastings and Ms. Reiss were not present at the time of the vote.

|ITEM 35 |Procedures (UCP): Adopt Revised Uniform Complaint Procedures Regulations. |INFORMATION ACTION |

This item was postponed until the March meeting to allow time for revisions based on comments received during the public comment period.

ADJOURNMENT OF DAY’S SESSION

President Green announced that the Board would meet in closed session at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday and the public session would begin at approximately 9:30 a.m. She adjourned the day’s session at 5:40 p.m.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download