FADSS - Home



February 13, 2014MEMORANDUMTO:District School SuperintendentsFROM:Joy FrankAllie Akre, Legislative InternCourtney Larkin, Legislative InternRE:Legislative Update - Week of February 9, 2015General InformationThe Senate PreK-12 Education Committee is meeting next week on Wednesday, February 18th to discuss SB 100 by Senator Bean, SB 616 by Senator Legg and SB 774 by Senator Montford. The bills are hyperlinked and analyses/summaries are attached. If you cannot download the bills; go to and download the bill.Chair Legg also wants testimony and specific recommendations on the following:K-12 Education Accountability Recommendations and Options Related to:?? Purposes and Amount of State-Required and Locally-Required AssessmentsTest Schedules and Student Test-Taking TimesUse of Assessment Results in Educator Performance Evaluations Chair Legg has requested testimony from several education stakeholder groups including FADSS. We are in the process of finalizing the superintendents that will testify on the association’s behalf. If you are up here anyway, please try to attend the meeting. It is from 2:00 to 5:00 in room 412 Knott Building. If you have any questions, please give me a call.Also, Senator Montford filed SB 774 which is his proposal to address the assessment and accountability issues. As mentioned above, the bill and analysis is attached. He would welcome any comments on the proposal. Please call me with any suggestions, concerns, etc.Below is a summary of the major issues/bills that were discussed in committee this week. The Senate PreK-12 Education Committee did not meet.Senate Education Appropriations SubcommitteeThe committee held two workshops. In the first workshop, the committee was presented a proposal for an FEFP supplement for federally connected students as a follow up to testimony from superintendents earlier this month. See the proposal which impacts 14 districts. The proposal was received favorably by committee members and will be included in the education budget as it is developed over the next several weeks. In addition, a sample letter was distributed that requires organizations that have received funds to not assume that the state will continue to support such projects. In determining the value of the project, specific information is being requested to be provided within the next 10 calendar days.Finally, the committee had a follow up discussion on assessment and accountability issues for school districts. In particular, Senator Montford discussed the pending certification tool that superintendents must sign indicating that each school in the district is ready and any school not ready will be provided with support. He indicated that superintendents should be very reluctant to sign a certification if they are not ready. He said that he did not know if any superintendent feels comfortable going forward from a technology sense. The problem is not just about a sufficient number of computers but also the disruption to instruction that will occur. The first year should be a beta test.Then Senator Legg indicated that he is asking superintendents and other stakeholders to come up next week (the 18th) to provide input on the assessment and accountability system, including three bills – SB 100 by Senator Bean, SB 616 by Senator Legg, and SB 774 by Senator Montford.Senator Simmons then expressed his strong belief in the accountability system; that it is truly a model for the nation. At the same time he is seriously concerned about rushing the administration of the new assessment that may jeopardize the entire system. School boards and superintendents are not ready. Moving cautiously is not abandonment of the accountability system.Members discussed the fiscal cost of students losing instructional time due to all of the assessments. They also discussed the fiscal cost of having sufficient technology to administer the assessments. Senator Ring offered to look into the issue especially now that there is a new state agency dedicated to information technology. Committee staff was asked to work with FADSS to try to quantify these costs. I am working on this and will send out a survey or ask for information in the next few days. House Choice & Innovation CommitteeThe committee had a workshop on school choice and reviewed a legislative proposal relating to school choice. No testimony was taken. Also, the committee is not meeting next week. Therefore, the next meeting will be during the regular legislative session. A section by section analysis is below.Section 1. Amends s. 1002.33 re to charter schools.Subsection (1) re Authorization.Adds language that an existing charter school that is seeking to become a virtual charter school must amend its charter or submit a new application. Subsection (6) re Application Process and ReviewProhibits a sponsor from requiring a charter school to implement the reading curriculum adopted by the school district.Requires applicants to disclose the name of each applicant, governing board member, proposed management company, the name and sponsor of any charter school operated by such parties, and the academic and financial history of such charter schools. The sponsor is required to consider these disclosures in approval or denial of an application. Clarifies that an application fee only applies to the draft application. Requires the sponsor to allow the applicant, upon receipt of written notification, at least 7 calendar days to make corrections and clarifications to address any deficiencies. Removes the requirement that the corrections can only be technical or non-substantive.Requires an applicant appealing a sponsor’s application denial to provide the sponsor with a copy of the appeal filed with the State Board of Education.Changes “no later than 30 days” to “within 30 day” for denial appeals to the State Board of Education. Removes repetitive language and replaced with “the State Board of Education shall determine whether the sponsor’s denial of the application complies with the requirements in sub-subparagraph (b) 3.b. Subsection (7) re CharterRequires the reading curriculum and instructional strategies specified in the charter satisfy the research-based reading plan requirement under s. 1011.62(9), for purposes of determining eligibility for the research-based reading allocation. Removes language that the term of the charter shall provide for cancellation of the charter if insufficient progress has been made in attaining the student achievement objectives of the charter. Removes language, throughout the section, that states “in order to facilitate long term financing for charter school construction.”Adds language that long-term charters remain subject to annual review according to paragraph (9) (n). Adds termination clause that states “termination or nonrenewal of the charter pursuant to subsection (8) or paragraph (9) (n). Moves the requirement that a charter school’s governing board must appoint a representative to facilitate parental involvement to 1002.33(9). Moves the requirement that each charter school’s governing board must hold at least two public meetings per school year in the school district to 1002.33(9). Subsection (8) re Causes for Nonrenewal or Termination of CharterAdds language that when the operator closes a charter school voluntarily, the school shall be dissolved under provisions of law. Requires the governing board of a charter school that closes voluntarily to notify the sponsor and department within 7 calendar days of its decision to cease operations. Requires the notice to include reasons for closure, and an acknowledgement that the governing board agrees to follow procedures for dissolution. Subsection (9) re Charter School Requirements Requires the sponsor to review each monthly financial statement and identify the existence of any conditions identified in s. 1002 345 (1) (a). Changes language from “the sponsor shall terminate a charter…” to “a charter school’s charter is automatically terminated if the school earns a second consecutive grade of “F” after all school grades appeals are final.”Requires the sponsor to notify the charter school’s governing board, the charter school principal, and the department when a charter is terminated for two consecutive failing grades. Subsection (13) re Charter School Cooperative Allows a charter school to enter into cooperative agreements with other charter schools or educational institutions to further educational, operational, and administrative initiatives in which the participating charter schools share common interests. Subsection (17) re FundingEntitles charter schools whose students or programs who meet the eligibility criteria to the research-based reading allocation. Prohibits the district school board from delaying payment to a charter school if any portion of the funds provided in paragraph (b). Subsection (21) re Public Information on Charter Schools Changes language “model application form” to “standard application form.” Subsection (25) re Local Educational Agency Status for Certain Charter Removes the following charter school system requirements for local educational agency status: Includes both conversion charter schools and non-conversion charter schools Has all schools located in the same county Does not contract with a for profit service provider for management of school operation Requires the same governing board for all charter schools in the system. Section 2. Amends s. 1002.331 re High Performing Charter Schools Removes the prohibition on establishing more than one charter school within the state in a year for charter schools established by high-performing charter schools in the attendance zone of a school identified as in need of intervention and support or needs for innovative school choice options identified by the district school board. Section 3. Creates s. 1002.333 re Charter School Sponsor Accountability Requires the State Board of Education to monitor the performance of the district school boards regarding the sponsorship of charter schools. Requires the Commissioner of Education to annually compile and review information collected by the department regarding charter school application submissions, approvals, denials, and withdrawals; charter terminations and nonrenewal; voluntary closures; appeals; and corrective actions for academic of financial deficiencies. Lists the information the commissioner must review for each school district. Ambiguity about what the standard actually require remains. Gives the state board authority to impose additional requirements if the information reviewed indicates that a sponsor is not adequately performing its authorizing or oversight functions. The additional requirements allowed include: a 50% reduction in the administrative fees collected, additional support to the charter school including making available to charter schools unused education facilities or discretionary millage, monthly or periodic reporting regarding oversight of charter schools. Lapse in oversight is not defined. The section does not create a private cause of action or rights for individuals. Requires the state board to adopt rules to implement this section. Section 4. Amends s. 1002.37(5) re Florida Virtual SchoolRemoves language requiring that a student must meet at least one of the eligibility criteria in s. 1002.455(2) to be eligible for part-time instruction in kindergarten through grade 5. Section 5. Amends s. 1002.45 re Virtual Instruction Programs Student Eligibility Specifies that students in kindergarten through grade 12 may enroll in a virtual instruction program. Removes the requirement that the student meets eligibility requirements for virtual instruction pursuant to s. 1002.455. Changes language from a school improvement grade of “Declining” to “Unsatisfactory” as the trigger for requiring an approved provider to file a school improvement plan with the department. Changes language so that an approved provider’s contract is automatically terminated if the provider earns two consecutive grades of “F”, or receives two consecutive school improvement ratings of “Unsatisfactory.” Removes the requirement that an approved provider’s contract is automatically terminated if the provider earns two consecutive “D” grades. Section 6. Repeals s. 1002.455 re to Student eligibility for K-12 virtual instruction.Section 7. Amends s. 1003.498(2) re School District Virtual Course Offerings Removes requirement that students meet the eligibility requirements of s.1002.455 to participate in virtual course offerings. Section 8. Creates s. 1004.650 re Florida Institute for Charter School Innovation Establishes and outlines the purpose of the Florid Institute for Charter School Innovation within the Florida State University. Outlines the responsibilities of the institute. Requires the President of the Florida State University to appoint a director of the institute and outlines the director’s responsibilities. Require the institute to provide a written report to the Governor, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House which outlines its activities in the preceding year, reports significant research findings, and provides specific recommendations for improvement by October 1 of each year. Requires the institute to provide a report on the results of an annual independent financial audit to the Auditor General, Board of Governors of the State University System, and the State Board of Education within 180 days after completion of the institute’s fiscal year. Section 9. Amends s. 1011.62 re to Funds for operation of schools. Expands the multiplier or programs that are considered in calculating the virtual education contribution that the Legislature annually provides.Section 10. Amends s. 1012.56 re to Professional Development Certification and Education Competency Program.Includes charter school in the list of institutions that may develop and maintain a system by which members of the instructional staff may demonstrate mastery of professional preparation and education competence. Adds language that practices and instructional performance must be aligned with district or state-supported public school’s evaluation system. Section 11. Amends s. 1013.62 re to Charter Schools Capital Outlay FundingAdds the requirement that to be eligible for a funding school allocation a charter school must have an annual audit that does not reveal one or more of the financial emergency conditions provided in s. 218(503(1) for the most recent fiscal year for which such audit is available. Section 12. Effective date is July 1, 2015.House Local Government Affairs SubcommitteeHB 41 relating to Hazardous Walking Conditions by Rep. Metz. The bill relates to identifying, inspecting, and correcting hazardous walking conditions on roads students walk along or cross in order to walk to school. The current statute applies to elementary school students through grade 6 living within a 2 mile radius of a school. Currently, the law states the intent is for the condition to be corrected within a reasonable time, but does not require entities with jurisdiction over a road with an identified hazardous walking condition to correct the condition. The bill: Requires district school boards and other governmental entities to cooperate to identify hazardous walking conditions; Requires the entity with jurisdiction over the road to correct the hazardous condition within a reasonable time; Requires the entity with jurisdiction over the road to include correction of a hazardous condition in its next annual 5-year capital improvements program or provide a statement of the factors justifying why a correction is not so included; Revises the criteria identifying hazardous walking conditions for walkways parallel to the road; Creates a new hazardous walking condition category, “crossings over the road”; Requires additional parties to participate with the representatives of the school district and entity with jurisdiction over the road in inspecting the walking condition and determining whether it is hazardous; Provides the district school board, after notice, may initiate a declaratory judgment proceeding if the local governmental entities cannot agree whether the condition is hazardous; and Provides a hazardous walking condition determination may not be used as evidence in a civil action for damages against a governmental entity. The bill passed the committee favorably as a committee substitute and is now in the Education Appropriations Subcommittee. The companion, SB 154 by Senator Hays will be heard in the Senate PreK-12 Education Committee next week.House Education Committee (full committee)The House Education Committee discussed an Early Learning draft bill. Basically, the proposal is similar to last year’s bill that did not pass. The bill is now a PCB – PCB EDC 15-01 and will be heard on February 18th. The proposal is summarized below. Currently, the School Readiness and Voluntary Prekindergarten Education (VPK) programs are delivered by a diverse range of providers, including licensed and unlicensed child care providers and public and nonpublic schools. The child health and safety standards applicable to each provider type and the degree to which minimum levels of health and safety are inspected and enforced vary widely. The bill increases provider health and safety requirements by requiring: Unlicensed private providers to substantially comply with specified health and safety standards and submit to inspections by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) or local licensing agency. Providers to notify parents of health and safety violations and prominently post citations that result in disciplinary action and inspection reports on the premises, with exceptions. That providers with Class I violations in the previous year be denied program eligibility, with exceptions. The bill establishes new criteria that DCF or a local licensing agency must consider before deciding to issue a Class I violation to a provider of the School Readiness program or VPK program. The bill enhances the qualifications of child care personnel working in School Readiness and VPK programs by: Phasing in requirements that these personnel must: Be at least 18 years of age (with exceptions); Hold a high school diploma or equivalent credential (with exceptions); and Be trained in first aid, CPR, and age-appropriate practices. Requiring School Readiness personnel to complete training on the school readiness performance standards. Requiring the Office of Early Learning (OEL) to develop online training on the School Readiness program performance standards and provider personnel to complete the training. Several bill provisions effect child care regulation in general. Among other things, the bill adds failure to report child abuse as a disqualifying offense for child care employment; requires employment history checks; and prohibits licensed child care providers who have been disciplined for serious licensing violations from transferring ownership to relatives in order to avoid sanctions. Among other things, the bill reduces regulatory burdens on state agencies and child care providers by requiring Early Learning Coalitions, OEL, and DCF to cooperate in reducing paperwork and duplicative regulations; expanding DCF’s authority to conduct abbreviated inspections; and extending to large family child care homes certain protections regarding zoning, property insurance, and utility rates currently available to family day care homes. The bill has a fiscal impact on DCF due to the increased regulatory workload and provides an appropriation of $1,117,084 and 18 full-time equivalent positions to address the impact. Nonpublic schools and license-exempt faith-based providers of state-funded early learning programs may experience increased costs associated with increased health and safety regulation.The Committee members then discussed the Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA). Members had a list of questions that were used in talking with various stakeholders. Do you think FHSAA’s governance structure could be improved?Do you think FHSAA’s appeal process could be improved?Is there a possibility student-athletes could benefit from a third party appeal arbitrator?Can you share any information about how FHSAA generates revenue, and if they share that revenue?Do you know if FHSAA shares in the costs related to hosting athletic events?Do you know how much FHSAA executives are paid?We have heard that people are afraid to speak openly, freely and honestly about the FHSAA? Do you think that’s true? Why would people be afraid of them?Are there any suggestions you have for changes, or areas you think we should look into?Committee members reported responses from their district superintendents, school principals, and other relevant individuals about their opinions of FHSAA. Several members stated that those they had spoken to had generally positive things to say about FHSAA. Many other members expressed concerns, on behalf of those they spoke to, about the rigid rules, fear of retribution, and other negative impressions of FHSAA. Chairwoman O’Toole stated that the next step in the process of evaluating the Association would be to get parent and student feedback, and assigned the other committee members to investigate into the matter. House Education Appropriations SubcommitteeThere was a discussion of various funding models and performance funding programs including the Early Learning Performance Funding Pilot Project; K-12 Performance Funding & Incentives; SUS Performance Funding Model and Allocations; Colleges Performance Funding Model Proposal; and Workforce Performance Funding & Industry Certification. Superintendent Vitti, Duval School Board and Bob Crawford from Broward County testified before the committee.I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 850.577.5784. ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download