Final Minutes March 9, 2005 - California Department of ...



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President Green announced that Items 4 and 10 would be heard at the beginning of the following day, that Item 17 was withdrawn at the Department’s request, that WC-1 and W-5 were withdrawn by the petitioners, and that Item 25 would be heard at approximately 1:00 p.m.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

|ITEM 1 |STATE BOARD PROJECTS AND PRIORITIES. |INFORMATION |

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

| |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; and other matters of interest. | |

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.

|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:

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.

|ITEM 3 |High Performing Schools Seminar. |INFORMATION |

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.

|ITEM 5 |School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) Providers: Approval of 2005-06 Selection Criteria. |INFORMATION |

| | |ACTION |

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.

|ITEM 6 |Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP): Proposed Intervention for Cohort I,|INFORMATION |

| |II, and III Schools That Failed to Show Significant Growth. |ACTION |

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.

|ITEM 7 |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 |ACTION |

| |State-Monitored Schools. | |

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.

|ITEM 8 |Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Including, but Not Limited To, Update on STAR |INFORMATION |

| |Program. |ACTION |

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.

|ITEM 9 |Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Approval of 2005 District Apportionment Amounts. |INFORMATION |

| | |ACTION |

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:

o $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).

o $2.52 per student for completing demographic information and administering the CST – CAT/6 Survey.

o $2.44 per student for administering the Spanish Assessment of Basic Education, Second Edition (SABE/2).

o $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.

|ITEM 11 |California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE): Including, but Not Limited To, CAHSEE Program |INFORMATION |

| |Update on Test Administrations, Independent Evaluation, and the Senate Bill (SB) 964 Study. |ACTION |

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.

|ITEM 12 |California English Language Development Test (CELDT): Including, but Not Limited To, Update on CELDT|INFORMATION |

| |Program and Request for Proposal (RFP) Schedule. |ACTION |

Ms. Sigman presented the item.

No action was taken.

|ITEM 13 |California English Language Development Test (CELDT): 2004 Annual Assessment Results. |INFORMATION |

| | |ACTION |

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.

|ITEM 14 |No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Including, but Not Limited To, Update on California’s |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |Response to the Title 1 Monitoring Report of Findings from the U.S. Department of Education and | |

| |Action to Revise Criteria for Identifying Program Improvement Districts. | |

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.

President Green asked that CDE provide a report on several issues, including Title II Part A monitoring and data collection activities, the status of future NCLB funding, whether there will likely be carryover from this year, options for using that funding, etc.

The following individuals addressed the Board:

Sherry Skelly Griffith, Association of School District Administrators

Dick Bray, Superintendent of Hesperia Unified School District

Martha Wallace, California Teacher’s Association

Kim Shipp, parent from Oakland Unified School District

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

Peggy Barber, Los Angeles Unified School District

Holly Jacobson, California School Boards Association

Superintendent O’Connell asked the Board for help in developing a policy that could accurately target districts and schools that really need help. He indicated that California is penalized because it’s an opt-out state (i.e., permits parents to opt their children out of the state assessment system).

Mr. Flores stated that, during the following week, the SPI would be announcing the 2004 base APIs that will be the starting point for the 2005 API targets. The API base will reflect the new methodology approved by the Board at its November 2004 meeting.

President Green commented that changes to the accountability workbook were due April 1, 2005 (see Item #15) but that it was the intent of the Board to work with the Superintendent to identify some of the unintended consequences of complying with NCLB. Ms. Reiss indicated that the Secretary for Education and the Governor would continue to work with the SPI and the Board to address these issues with the federal government.

• ACTION: Ms. Johnson moved to approve the staff recommendation to use the gradespan approach as the second test in identifying program improvement districts and to notify the districts immediately that their first year of PI will start now and end June 30, 2006. Mr. Gill seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 7-1. Mr. Nuñez voted against the motion.

In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Flores reported that, of the 1.1 million students who are eligible for school choice (e.g., transfer to another school), only 319 requested transfers.

Lunch 12:25-1:15

|ITEM 25 |Adoption of the California Career Technical Education Model Curriculum Standards, Pursuant to |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |Education Code Section 51226. | |

Patrick Ainsworth, Director of the Secondary, Postsecondary, and Adult Leadership Division, introduced the item.

The following individuals addressed the Board:

Sam Hassoun, Associated General Contractors of California.

Former Senator Bruce McPherson, Author of Senate Bill 1934

Assembly Member Mark Wyland,

Assembly Member Carol Liu, Chairperson of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, Member of the Assembly Education Committee

Sherry Skelly Griffith, Association of California School Administrators

Peggy Barber, Los Angeles Unified School District

Peter Welch, California Motor Car Dealers Association

David Goodrow, Chairman of the Small Manufacturers Association

Chris Walker, Automotive Repair Coalition (ARC)

Joni Samples, Glenn County Office of Education

Barbara Nemko, Napa County Office of Education

Bob Barkhouse, Executive Director, California Automotive Technicians

Rick Bogart, California Association of Regional Centers and Programs (CAROCP)

Lisa Eidman, California Wool Growers and California Pork Producers Association

Pat Peck, Folsom High School, Home Economics Teachers Association of California (HETAC)

Hugh Mooney, Agriculture Education teacher, Galt High School

Jay Hansen, Legislative Director, California Construction Workers

Kim Shipp, parent, Oakland Unified School District

Marty Hitishaki, Advisory group member representing the information technology sector

Barbara Ross, Apple Computer

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

Senator McPherson reported that the development of career-technology standards started in earnest about 5 years ago. He thanked the advisory group and industry groups who worked to educate the public about the benefits of career technology and stated that the standards were important to the future of the state. The standards support inclusion of students with diverse languages and cultures and will reduce the incidence of delinquency by helping students become more engaged in their education.

Assembly Member Wyland stated that many members of the Assembly were very interested in the issue and that other countries already understood the importance of this kind of education. He remarked that the standards would impact the lives of many young people by keeping them in school and helping them learn to read, write, and compute.

Assembly Member Liu commented that career-technology education has long been an interest of hers. She thanked former Senators Bruce McPherson and Rod Wright for their important role in starting the development of these standards through legislation. She also thanked Superintendent O’Connell for starting the process and naming the advisory group. She indicated that these standards were an important first step in developing comprehensive standards in career technology; only the start, and not the end. She also reported that research indicates the integration of career-technology and academics improves student learning. She indicated she had established a career technology coalition and that these standards provided a framework to move on that agenda.

President Green thanked the presenters for taking time to address the Board on this issue. She urged Board members to review the standards and be prepared to act at the May 2005 meeting. She asked Mr. Ainsworth to explain why action verbs, which imply a hands-on approach, were used in some pathways like agriculture education but the words “understands” or “knows” were used in others, such as collision repair (pg 202, C3.0). She commented that there tends to be a bit of tension between the terms “hands-on” and “understands.”

President Green asked Mr. Ainsworth what he thought about the automotive repair pathway being in its own group as opposed to being included with the heavy equipment services technology. Mr. Ainsworth responded that he had initially argued that it should be separate but that the industry group argued the view reflected in the standards made more sense given the commonality of knowledge and skills required. He commented that automotive repair was probably the area with the greatest amount of change. Mr. Ainsworth indicated that the proposed standards are intended to facilitate dialogue between industry and education and should guide local advisory groups in developing local coursework standards. He indicated that many career-technology courses already satisfy the A-G requirements for CSU/UC and that the proposed standards should increase that number.

Ms. Stickel described career academies as one model that incorporates career technology and academics. The academies allow students to learn academic skills within the context of their area of interest. Academies also create small communities of learners that educators know to be successful. The courses are very rigorous and provide solid college preparatory content. The coursework also satisfies graduation requirements and, in some instances, persuaded LEAs to credit computer assisted math courses towards mathematics credit and applied science in agriculture towards science credits. In addition, career-technology courses can operate as electives.

Mr. Gill asked for comment on the Governor’s recommendation to move career-technology classes into the middle school. Mr. Ainsworth responded that the initial analysis indicated that about 300 of the standards are applicable for middle schools.

President Green commented on the need to assure balance between rigor, relevance, and application of the content standards. She asked Ms. Stickel whether incorporating the content standards into the career-technology standards created any risk of reducing the rigor of the standards that had taken so long to develop and implement. Ms. Stickel responded that the proposed standards reflected a very good balance and would provide students the opportunity to utilize the content standards learned in other classes in career technology classes. Ms. Stickel concurred that it was very important that one set of standards didn’t push out the others. She reported about a recent study that compared the rigor of technical journals with that of books used in classrooms and found that the most rigorous books were the technical books.

President Green closed the discussion by repeating her concern about maintaining the academic focus in the proposed standards and asking for more input on the automotive technology focus.

No action was taken.

|ITEM 24 |Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools, Kindergarten through Grade Twelve: Public |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |Hearing and Adoption of Updated Framework. | |

| | |PUBLIC |

| | |HEARING |

Thomas Adams, Director of the Standards and Curriculum Frameworks Division, with assistance from Norma Baker, Chair of the Curriculum Commission, and Commissioners Munger and Metzenberg introduced the item. Mr. Adams indicated that overall, the proposed math framework is viewed very positively and has received overwhelming support. He reported that the commissioners read every comment and thought through the consequences of every response. He commended Don Kairott and lead consultant, Mary Sprague, for their help with the update. He provided background by indicating that the proposed framework updates the 1999 version in a number of ways and that there are two critical differences that publishers will need to address:

1) Algebra readiness materials for students in grades 8 and above who are not prepared to take algebra; and,

2) Math intervention materials for students who are significantly below grade level in achievement, or who have gaps in their knowledge that could be addressed with supplementary materials.

Ms. Baker, chair of the Mathematics Subject Matter Committee, recalled her experience with the mathematics standards and frameworks and commented that the proposed frameworks reflect the academic content standards adopted by the Board in 1998. The most significant differences relate to algebra readiness and mathematics intervention materials. She indicated that the Curriculum Commission spent many, many hours reviewing field input, consulting mathematicians, and consulting with the math community and that Appendix E is a consensus document that represents the best thinking of the commission and the California Mathematics Council (CMC).

Commissioner Munger commented that the updated framework will result in materials that provide continuity and assist students who are struggling. He urged the Board to approve the proposed framework.

Commissioner Metzenberg reported that he was available to help answer any questions and indicated that the heterogeneity of students in need provided a tremendous challenge.

Public Hearing: opened 3:12

The following individuals addressed the Board:

Susan Musak, mathematics coach, Los Angeles Unified School District

Sarah Munshin, California Mathematics Council

Dan Findell, Mathematics professor, San Francisco Unified School District.

Steve Rasmussen, President of Key Curriculum Press

Joanie Commons, University of California, San Diego

Daniel Orey, California State University Sacrament and California Mathematics Council

Katy Early, Chico Unified School District

Lisa Usher-Stants, secondary teacher. Los Angeles Unified School District.

Scott Brand, Professor of mathematics, California State University Sacramento

Bob Lucas, Business for Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education

Catherine Banker, former curriculum commissioner

Public hearing: closed at 3:38

Mr. Nuñez asked for clarification of the role of the CMC in the updating process. Mr. Adams indicated that the CMC had worked closely with the Curriculum Commission, particularly during the development of Appendix E and that whether or not to include the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standards was the only non-consensus issue. Ms. Stickel reminded the Board that the framework doesn’t forbid use of other resources. She commented that the large number of new teachers requires the CDE and Board to be absolutely clear about what students need to learn, i.e., the California Mathematics Standards.

Ms. Johnson credited the Mathematics Subject Matter Committee with developing a high degree of consensus during the updating process and urged the Board not to be sidetracked by discussion focused on a small area of disagreement. She emphasized the success of the panel in recommending intervention materials that were desperately needed by teachers to better support student learning in mathematics.

• ACTION: Mr. Fisher moved to (1) adopt the Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools, Kindergarten through Grade Twelve, with the proposed changes presented in the last minute memorandum, subject to professional editing, non-substantive changes, corrections, and technical revisions as approved by the Board’s Mathematics Subject Area Liaison and Executive Director; (2) direct staff to review and decide upon proposed edits and post proposed edits up on the Web; (3) ask Board and Department staff to invite stakeholders to a meeting in April to review and comment on the proposed edits. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved with a vote of 8-0.

President Green thanked the Curriculum Commission, the Mathematics Subject Matter Committee, and the members of the public for contributing to the outstanding revisions to the framework.

|ITEM 15 |No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Proposed Changes to Accountability Workbook. |INFORMATION |

| | |ACTION |

Bill Padia, Director of the Policy and Evaluation Division, and Alice Parker, Director of the Special Education Division, presented this item. Mr. Padia indicated that the proposed changes include eleven technical changes in addition to the change described in the last minute memorandum.

Ms. Parker reported that, in all other accountability issues, the CDE has considered the district of residence the responsible party for the education of a special education student.

The following individual addressed the Board:

Sherry Skelly Griffith, Association of California School Administrators

• ACTION: Ms. Bloom moved to approve the proposed changes as recommended by staff, including changes included in the last minute memorandum regarding the identification of program improvement districts. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0.

|ITEM 16 |No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Approve Local Educational Agency Plans Title 1 Section |INFORMATION |

| |1112. |ACTION |

Ms. Maben presented the item.

The following individual addressed the Board:

Kim Shipp, parent, Oakland Unified School District.

• ACTION: Mr. Williams moved that the Board approve the nine LEA Plans that have met the requirements for full approval status as recommended by staff. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0. Mr. Fisher recused himself on this item.

|ITEM 17 |No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Approve Revised Local Educational Agency (LEA) Plans from |INFORMATION |

| |LEAs Identified for Program Improvement (PI) Section 1116(c)(7)(A). |ACTION |

This item was withdrawn at the request of the Department.

Proposed Consent Items (Items 18, 19, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29)

|ITEM 18 |No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Approve Additional Supplemental Educational Service |INFORMATION ACTION |

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

|ITEM 19 |Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM): Approval of Model for Determining a School’s ASAM |INFORMATION |

| |Accountability Status. |ACTION |

|ITEM 23 |2005 Follow-Up Adoption of Instructional Materials for Mathematics, Reading Language Arts/English |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |Language Development (RLA/ELD), and Foreign Language: Appointment of Instructional Materials | |

| |Advisory Panel (IMAP) Members and Content Review Panel (CRP) Experts. | |

|ITEM 26 |The Principal Training Program (AB 75): Approval of Training Providers. |INFORMATION |

| | |ACTION |

|ITEM 27 |The Principal Training Program (AB 75): Approval of Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and Consortia |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |Applications for Funding. | |

|ITEM 28 |Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program (AB 466)(Chapter 737, Statutes of 2001): |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |Including, but Not Limited To, Approval of Training Providers and Training Curricula. | |

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

| |(LEAs) Reimbursement Requests. | |

President Green asked whether any Board members wanted any of the proposed consent items acted on individually.

The following individuals addressed the Board:

Kim Shipp, parent, Oakland Unified School District

Princess Sykes Ward, parent, Los Angeles Unified School District

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

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

o Item 18: Approve 12 Additional Supplemental Educational Service Providers for the List of 2004-05 School Year Providers.

o Item 19: Approve the Model for Determining a School’s ASAM Accountability Status.

o Item 23: Appoint Instructional Materials Advisory Panel (IMAP) Members and Content Review Panel (CRP) Experts.

o Item 26: Approve One Training Provider for the Principal Training Program.

o Item 27: Approve Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and Consortia Applications for Principal Training Program Funding.

o Item 28: Approve Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program Training Providers and Training Curricula.

o Item 29: Approve Local Education Agencies’ (LEAs) Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program Reimbursement Requests.

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

|ITEM 20 |Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission: 2005 Calendar Year Goals. |INFORMATION ACTION |

Mr. Adams presented the item.

No action was taken.

|ITEM 21 |State-Adopted Instructional Materials: Approval of Termination Dates for Current and Future Lists. |INFORMATION |

| | |ACTION |

This item was withdrawn at the Department’s request.

|ITEM 22 |2005 History-Social Science Primary Adoption of Instructional Materials: Appointment of |INFORMATION ACTION |

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

Mr. Adams introduced this item and indicated that Applicant #115 had withdrawn from the list.

• ACTION: Mr. Williams moved to approve Instructional Materials Advisory Panel (IMAP) members 112 and 113, and Content Review Panel (CRP) members 114 and 117. Mr. Gill seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 8-0.

|ITEM 30 |Revised Uniform Complaint Procedures Regulations (UCP): Approve Proposed Amendments and Circulate |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |for a 15-Day Public Comment Period. | |

Ms. Maben presented the staff report for this item. She indicated that the highlight of the process was development of a user-friendly pamphlet.

The following individuals addressed the Board:

Sherry Skelly Griffith, ACSA

Martha Zaragoza-Diaz, Californian’s Together Coalition and California Association of Bilingual Educators

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

Holly Jacobson, California School Boards Association

John Affeldt, Public Advocates

Princess Sykes Ward, parent, Los Angeles Unified School District

• ACTION: Ms. Reiss moved to (1) approve the proposed amendments to the regulations; (2) direct staff to circulate the proposed amendments for a 15-day public comment period; and (3) bring the regulations to the Board for action at the May meeting. Ms. Bloom seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 8-0.

|ITEM 31 |Program Advisory on Medication Administration Pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title|INFORMATION |

| |5, Article 4.1: Administering Medication to Students or Otherwise Assisting Students in the | |

| |Administration of Medication During the Regular School Day. | |

Jan Mayer, Director of the Learning Support and Partnerships Division, provided a brief background to the item. She indicated the advisory was intended to assist districts in establishing local policies to support attendance of students with medical needs and to reduce the possibility of medication errors. Regulations for medication administration were approved in November 2003. The advisory incorporates specific language from the Education Code, Business and Professions Code, Title 5 regulations and, in addition, reflects non-binding language recommended by the medication advisory group which was deemed inappropriate for the regulations.

Ms. Bloom suggested adding advice to parents or a parent checklist to this advisory.

The following individuals addressed the Board:

Rosaline Turnball, California Parent Teacher Association

George Martinez, California Federation of Teachers

|ITEM 32 |Program to Reduce Class Size in Two Courses in Grade 9: Approve Commencement of the Rulemaking |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |Process. | |

John Merris-Coots, Consultant in the Secondary, Post-secondary, and Adult Education Division, presented the item.

• ACTION: Ms. Reiss made a motion to take the following actions: (1) approve the commencement of the regulatory process for the proposed regulations and direct staff to commence the rulemaking process; (2) approve the Initial Statement of Reasons and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; and (3) direct CDE staff to conduct a public hearing on the proposed regulations. Mr. Gill seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0.

|ITEM 33 |California State Plan (1999-2004 extended through June 30, 2005), for the Workforce Investment Act, |INFORMATION ACTION |

| |Title II: Adult Education and Family Literacy Act: Extension for One Additional Year and Approval of| |

| |Performance Goals for 2005-2006 and Related Language Changes. | |

Mr. Ainsworth presented this item.

• ACTION: Ms. Reiss moved to extend the California State Plan (1999-2004 extended through June 30, 2005) for the Workforce Investment Act, Title II: Adult Education and Family Literacy Act for one additional year and approve the proposed performance goals for 2005-2006 and related language changes as recommended by staff. Mr. Gill seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0.

Adjournment

President Green adjourned the meeting at 4:44 p.m.

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download