1
1
2
3
4
5 BEFORE THE WYOMING STATE LEGISLATURE
6 JOINT EDUCATION INTERIM COMMITTEE
7
8
--------------------------------------------------------
9 VOLUME I
10 JOINT EDUCATION INTERIM COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS
11 1:00 p.m., Tuesday
June 18, 2002
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 SENATOR DEVIN:
We are still expecting
3 Dave Miller and possibly one other
committee member.
4 But they are en route -- Doug
Samuelson, I think. But
5 Dave, at least, is en route from
Montana. So I don't
6 know that his schedule is entirely
predictable. And
7 we'll take care of a few items
before we get into the
8 report.
9 Thank you for coming.
This has been a slight
10 change in our original schedule
which we had put out as
11 very tentative, and it needed to
happen because we were
12 not able to coordinate the
schedules of people who
13 absolutely had to be at this
meeting to give reports if
14 we had it next week.
15 Now, the unfortunate part of that is, we have
16 our -- my House co-chair that
brought us into his week
17 of conflict. So he is not going to be here for this
18 meeting. But we're trying to keep future meetings so
19 that we're both available if we
can coordinate them with
20 those that we have to coordinate
with.
21 You have before you a revised schedule that
22 we've put out for this -- these
two days. Today we will
23 run through the schedule that's
listed. I think
24 tomorrow will be quite full. But I'd like to do an
25 overview of where we know we are
at this point with the
3
1 committee's work and organization for the interim and
2 what we've been charged with.
3 Dave, have you distributed that to everyone?
4 MR. NELSON:
Yes, Madam Chairman.
5 SENATOR DEVIN:
So if you take the piece
6 that starts 2002 interim studies
and school finance, and
7 then it lists them, would you mind
walking us through
8 this piece and where we're at with
the plan?
9 MR. NELSON:
Be happy to, Madam Chairman.
10 Again, it's that sheet that says
"Joint Education
11 Committee 2002 interim
studies." As you know from last
12 session, there were a number of
studies that were
13 contained within the school
finance bill. And the first
14 page, at least, primarily lists
all of those studies. A
15 lot of them are ongoing, and some
of them have just been
16 started.
17 First, voc ed.
The vocational education study
18 is under way. You will get a report on that tomorrow.
19 MPR has been contracted with by
the state department.
20 They have started working on data
collection. They have
21 started working on definitions,
criteria to determine
22 and define vocational education
programs. And that work
23 is ongoing. You will get an update and a briefing on
24 it. We did send out earlier kind of the scope of work
25 in an April mailing that gave you
some background on the
4
1 particular efforts that MPR is undertaking.
2 The second item is a reading assessment and
3 intervention program. The legislation called for the
4 development of a cost-based
proposal for that program to
5 include it within the cost-based
model. That will be
6 done and should be reported to you
at your October
7 meeting.
8 Third, special education. AIR, the American
9 Institute for Research, I believe,
was contracted by the
10 Department last interim, if you
recall. This committee
11 worked with the Department in
getting that effort going
12 to collect more specific data on
special education
13 expenditures and special education
programs. The intent
14 being to get data sufficient to
develop a cost-based
15 component. That work is undergoing. It has been going
16 since last fall. You will get an update on that
17 tomorrow, as well.
18 The at-risk study, which was a review of the
19 data and the methodology used by
MAP in the
20 recommendations that were adopted
last session, that
21 work is under way. The state department has contracted
22 with individuals to go out and
review the data and the
23 methodology used by MAP. We should get a report at the
24 October meeting on that
study. Not to say that there
25 won't be updates along the way,
but the findings should
5
1 be available to this committee in
October.
2 Small schools.
Two components of that were,
3 one, to look at a definition of
school for purposes of
4 the small school adjustment. The other part was to look
5 at data issues that were involved
in the small school
6 adjustment. You will get an update on that tomorrow.
7 The data advisory group was
requested by the state
8 superintendent to look at these
issues. My
9 understanding, they met on it
yesterday and this
10 morning. And you will get an update on where they're
11 at.
12 Continuing on the next page, the regional cost
13 adjustment. The Division of Economic Analysis has
14 entered into contract with an
economist from the
15 University of Wyoming to review
the Wyoming cost of
16 living index as used in developing
the regional -- or in
17 computing the regional cost of
living adjustment -- or
18 the regional cost adjustment. They are also looking at
19 perhaps coming up with a brand-new
instrument. So
20 again, we should get a report
sometime in August,
21 hopefully, and a final report in
October on development
22 of that study.
23 The certified staff compensation study was
24 similar to the at-risk, in that it
was a review and
25 analysis of the certified staff
component contained
6
1 within the cost-based model, a
look at the data, as well
2 as methodology used by MAP. Your co-chairs have done a
3 search on expertise in this area,
have forwarded a name
4 to the Management Council, and the
Management Council is
5 reviewing that entity, and
hopefully a contract will be
6 entered into shortly. Again, the time frame is October,
7 to get some information back to
the committee.
8 All of these are to be -- all of these areas
9 that I've just reviewed are to be
finalized in
10 recommendation form by this
committee by December to
11 report to the Management Council,
to the extent there is
12 some forwarding recommendation.
13 The last area under the school finance issue
14 is the data facilitation
forum. That has been held.
15 Two different discussions have
taken place during the
16 month of May. A final report has been assembled, and
17 you will discuss that when I sit
down.
18 The remainder of your interim will involve
19 primarily the federal education
initiatives stemming
20 from federal legislation. You will get a discussion of
21 that tomorrow. All afternoon will be devoted to that.
22 I think there will be a
significant amount of work
23 coming from that. And we also put that on the schedule
24 for your August meeting. It probably will be a big
25 chunk of your August meeting. It's Scott Marion's hope
7
1 that the Department will be able
to come back to you
2 with the beginnings of some
recommendations and some
3 requests that the committee
proceed in some areas.
4 So that pretty much summarizes your interim
5 work. There is a day held in Laramie in September to
6 meet with the University of
Wyoming and community
7 colleges to get reports from
them. And if you look at
8 this revised tentative calendar,
which was another sheet
9 that should be with you that was
handed out at the same
10 time that this study summary was
given to you, it kind
11 of gives you the dates. And the important dates --
12 they're all important.
But I feel a big date will be
13 the October 24th, 25th meeting,
because you will be
14 getting large amounts of
information to give directives
15 to me to go forward and start
working on what you want
16 to produce for this next session.
17 And again, your November, December meetings
18 will be important. But again, August will be important,
19 as well. That's 21, 22nd. We're looking
for a lot of
20 information on the federal
legislation issues that come
21 from that. So that's just kind of a brief summary.
22 Are there any questions or comments?
23 SENATOR DEVIN:
Senator Scott.
24 SENATOR SCOTT:
Madam Chairman, on the
25 certified staff compensation, did
I hear correctly that
8
1 the -- has it been forwarded to Management Council?
2 MR. NELSON:
Yes.
3 SENATOR DEVIN:
I believe there was --
4 there were three labor economists'
resumes that were
5 reviewed as to who might be able
to do that study. And
6 the contract would actually have
to be approved by the
7 Management Council. And it was those names with perhaps
8 the first choice or first
recommendation. So it would
9 be the contract issue that they
would approve, as I
10 understand it. Because all contracts have to go that
11 way. Is that --
12 MR. NELSON:
Correct, Madam Chairman.
13 It's similar to the process we used to select Dick Gross
14 for the facilitation, where we
solicited some names. We
15 contacted the state
department. We contacted the ECS, a
16 number of education organizations,
to get expertise.
17 And location was another issue, and timing. A
18 lot of the names that were given
to us just simply
19 didn't have the time to do it in
this schedule that we
20 have. So of those that came, we had -- Madam Chairman's
21 right. They narrowed it down to three and four to their
22 top choices to Management
Council. The university, by
23 the way, could not undertake
that. We did contact the
24 University of Wyoming, as well.
25 SENATOR SCOTT:
Madam Chairman, when you
9
1 look at the session laws, that
topic is specifically
2 assigned to the Joint Interim
Education Committee. It
3 would seem to me that in both the
selection of a
4 contractor and particularly in
definition of the scope
5 of work, that the Joint Interim
Education Committee,
6 rather than Management Council,
ought to be responsible.
7 SENATOR DEVIN:
Do we know at what
8 point -- I know we do not have --
as individual
9 committees, we do not have the
authority to enter into
10 contracts, I believe. But we would have the authority
11 to then meet with this individual
and define scope of
12 the work. But where are we on the contract piece with
13 that? And what -- at what point does that come back to
14 this committee, then, for
discussion in this whole
15 contract process?
16 MR. NELSON:
At this point it's before
17 the Management Council. The ballot was going to be done
18 by a postcard ballot. And that information was sent out
19 last week to council members. So that's the status of
20 it.
21 SENATOR DEVIN:
And then does that
22 individual -- I know we have a
time issue here. But
23 then does this committee have some
opportunity to define
24 the scope of work or communicate
with this individual in
25 terms of what they're working on
and what they would
10
1 like to be specific for them to
look at? Do we need to
2 do that in the interest of when
they'd be beginning? Do
3 we need to do that with a
meeting? Do we need to do
4 that with a letter? How do we get input from --
5 MR. NELSON:
What I can have sent to you
6 is the scope of work that was sent
to the Management
7 Council. And we can get that as soon as we could -- you
8 know, today sometime. Let the committee look it over
9 and go with that.
10 SENATOR DEVIN:
Would that even be
11 available so that somebody might
be able to fax it up
12 here so we can get copies for the
committee?
13 MR. NELSON:
Yes. I could get that for
14 the committee today.
15
SENATOR DEVIN: That kind of
defines that
16 scope of work.
17 SENATOR SCOTT:
Madam Chairman, I think
18 it is very important that this
committee have a crack at
19 that scope of work before it gets
set in concrete.
20 Because we're charged for doing
the study. We saw the
21 kind of mess we got in a year
ago. I really think we
22 need to have a look at that.
23 SENATOR
DEVIN: And we did visit our -- I
24 don't know -- I can't tell you who
they would settle on.
25 But all three of the individuals
were labor economists.
11
1 The group that staff and your two
chairmen felt had the
2 ability to do the work in terms of
their background and
3 do it in a timely manner, in the
time that we need it --
4 we're not going to be gone for the
entire summer on
5 sabbatical, but we won't start
until October. Well,
6 that puts us too far behind the
curve to do that.
7 That recommendation was a labor economist from
8 Boulder. So he's from
the region. Since we were not
9 able to specifically go to the
university and get it, we
10 did find he had excellent
qualifications for it and the
11 time to engage in it in a fairly
short time frame.
12 Because both of those are an issue
when you start to
13 look at these kind of people.
14 Yes, Senator Goodenough.
15 SENATOR GOODENOUGH: Madam Chairwoman, I
16 have a question on the proposed
date for the August
17 meeting. It's the day after the primary election. So
18 anybody that's heavily involved in
the primary election,
19 they would have to travel the next
day, I would think.
20 So is there any way to move that
one day away from the
21 election?
22 SENATOR DEVIN:
We have also --
23 MR. NELSON:
We could certainly go with
24 whatever the committee wants.
25 SENATOR DEVIN:
Which would be the 22nd,
12
1 23rd, would be your request. Without pulling that out,
2 I suppose that would then move it to --
3 MR. NELSON:
I think one of the co-chairs
4 had a conflict. That's why it was set for 21, 22.
5 SENATOR DEVIN:
It is. Let me say let's
6 try for that. And we'll see if -- how much conflict we
7 have.
8 SENATOR GOODENOUGH: Madam Chairwoman,
9 anybody that has a primary race or
anybody that's
10 involved with helping a candidate,
election day is
11 usually a very busy day.
12 SENATOR DEVIN:
So that would move us to
13 a Thursday, Friday. Let's try for that. We'll do our
14 best to get that moved. What we are balancing is enough
15 time to get in timely amounts for
you to work off of,
16 which is why we've eliminated the
July date. Because I
17 just don't think there is going to
be enough pulling
18 together to say that you need to
take summer time to try
19 to come together in July.
20 Because it looked like we were not going to be
21 able to be far enough on all these
points to make it a
22 valuable two days. And I don't want to waste your time,
23 because it's too hard to pull
people together. But then
24 we are coming up against all of
our group that needs to
25 be here from the districts, with
school starting. And
13
1 yet we're trying to get it after
state fair, after some
2 of the revenue committee meetings
and some of the other
3 meetings and squeeze it in there
before school starts.
4 So that's what we're along with.
5 REPRESENTATIVE LOCKHART: Madam Chair,
6 with this new schedule, we scratch
the earlier tentative
7 dates and put these in as the best
available tentative?
8 SENATOR DEVIN:
Yes. And you'll notice
9 that we eliminated a July meeting,
but we put in an
10 October meeting. Because I think it's going to get --
11 we did not have an October meeting
before. We were
12 doing that, again, trying to avoid
time that people
13 would be heavily involved in
election pieces. But I
14 think we're just going to have too
many reports coming
15 due in October.
16 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: And where will
17 that October meeting be?
18 SENATOR DEVIN:
We have not set a
19 location at this point. And that's going to depend on
20 whether -- my inclination is to
tell you I'll try to
21 keep it as central as
possible. We may have to have an
22 airport that is --
23 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: How about
24 Gillette?
25 SENATOR DEVIN:
-- easy to get into. And
14
1 we may have to have the computer
systems. I'm not sure.
2 We'll work around that.
3 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: But Gillette
4 would have the community college,
the airport,
5 everything you need.
6 SENATOR GOODENOUGH: Yeah. Let's go to
7 Gillette.
8 SENATOR SCOTT:
Madam Chairman, question,
9 because I've got to schedule labor
committee meetings.
10 Can we now regard this schedule,
as far as the time
11 goes, as pretty firm, with the
understanding that you
12 may move the Afton meeting one
day?
13 SENATOR DEVIN:
I think that we could,
14 with the amount we've worked on
it. I don't foresee a
15 great deal of changes. We've pulled the national
16 committee meetings that people
have. We've pulled as
17 many things as we could think
of. If you think of --
18 you know, appreciate your
input. If we can move that
19 one one day, I think we're close
to being there.
20 SENATOR GOODENOUGH: Madam Chairwoman,
21 even if you started at noon on the
21st, that would at
22 least give people the chance to
travel in the morning.
23 REPRESENTATIVE LOCKHART: That's Bubba's
24 district. So he's got a primary opposition. I've got
25 it, and Bill Stafford has got
it. Who else has got
15
1 primary opposition? You got it?
2 REPRESENTATIVE McOMIE: No.
3 SENATOR DEVIN:
So that was another
4 possibility. Staff, if you'll help me remember that, or
5 when you're talking with Chairman
Stafford, that if we
6 need to start that meeting at noon
in order to have
7 house chairman participate, that
would be good. That
8 will be our other option.
9 Any other questions on this?
10 REPRESENTATIVE McOMIE: Madam Chair?
11 SENATOR DEVIN:
Yes.
12 REPRESENTATIVE McOMIE:
On June the 10th,
13 Mr. Nelson mailed out to us a memo
from James Smith
14 regarding the administrator salary
adjustment. And I
15 didn't see anything in here,
unless I overlooked it, for
16 where we would have an opportunity
to discuss this.
17 SENATOR DEVIN:
Mr. Nelson, does that
18 fall under any of our studies, or
do we need to --
19 MR. NELSON:
Madam Chairman, that came
20 out from a discussion in the data
facility forum. I
21 would think that that could come
up in some of their
22 discussions if it's of
interest. That was just a
23 clarification memo of an issue
that arose, and we sent
24 it out for information
purposes. But I would think if
25 you're interested, we could
certainly discuss it.
16
1
SENATOR DEVIN: So let's walk
through
2 that. And if we need more time to discuss some of that,
3 don't let me forget.
4 REPRESENTATIVE McOMIE: Madam Chairman,
5 this has got a bunch of
qualifications to be put in
6 here. And yet we passed legislation that said that you
7 can hire retired Army officers or
retired CEOs that
8 don't have any of these
qualifications. So I don't
9 know. We may have a problem.
10 SENATOR DEVIN:
I haven't compared those
11 two. Any other questions that we have before we start
12 on the data facilitation report?
13 (No
response.)
14 SENATOR DEVIN:
Thank you, then. We'll
15 go with this. We'll try to keep it as close to this as
16 we possibly can.
17 Then I would like to welcome Mr. Dick Gross,
18 who has worked in our state since
-- well, I guess you
19 really started perhaps in
April. Our discussion started
20 quite soon after the session. And meetings then began.
21 He's held -- we attempted to
select participants that
22 had a geographic distribution, an
interest distribution,
23 a talent distribution.
24 It's amazing how hard it is to get 30 people
25 who can make two two-day meetings
or day-and-a-half
17
1 meetings in the state but have
that distribution of
2 talent. But I think for the most part we were very
3 successful in the participants
being able to be there
4 the four days.
5 And I've been reading your reports. I
6 understand there was a great deal
-- I have had people
7 call me and tell me there was a
great deal of good
8 discussion, giving their own
personal views on it. And
9 we welcome you and would like to
hear what this has
10 produced and what your thoughts
and recommendations are.
11
MR. GROSS: Madam Chair, committee
12 members, thanks for inviting
me. It's been a pleasure
13 to be part of this process.
14 Here is what I'd like to talk about today,
15 generally subject to whatever your
hopes and
16 expectations are. A little bit about my background and
17 the lawsuit I was involved in for
eight years, because I
18 think you'll find it directly
relevant, something about
19 the ground rules for doing both of the meetings, a
20 little bit about the preparation
and assessments, the
21 overriding issue and goal, the
seven issues that were
22 prioritized and for which
objectives and strategies were
23 developed, sort of the bottom line
with the
24 facilitation -- the data
facilitation group -- would
25 like to see it happen -- and then
sort of concluding
18
1 remarks.
2 These are at least sort of the areas of
3 emphasis, again, subject to
whatever questions you have
4 or suggestions in terms of going a
different way.
5 Relative to my background, although I
6 facilitate pretty much full time
now, I started out as a
7 lawyer in state government. And my first job out of law
8 school was with the legislature in
North Dakota with the
9 legislative council, which is the
equivalent there of
10 your LSO. So I served there and later headed a program
11 called Crime Victim Compensation
in North Dakota. Then
12 I was the general counsel for our
workers' comp system.
13 Workers' comp in North Dakota is
an exclusive state
14 fund. The only way you purchase workers' comp insurance
15 in North Dakota is through the
state fund. So we dealt
16 with all of the employment
injuries in the state.
17 Following that I was chief counsel for our tax
18 department and then in '85 became
legal counsel and
19 policy director for Governor Sinner
in North Dakota from
20 1985 to 1993.
21 In particular, I have been doing facilitation
22 almost exclusively for about five
or six years now.
23 Just prior to that, I headed a
national organization
24 called the Council of Governors'
Policy Advisors, which
25 is an organization of the top four
policy advisors
19
1 appointed by each governor in the
state. I lived in
2 Bismarck and commuted to D.C. and
around the country.
3 In particular, I wanted to talk -- I came to
4 the governor's office with a
background in litigation,
5 general counsel for workers' comp, chief counsel for the
6 tax department. We litigated. That's what we did. And
7 when we got into the governor's
office, a case was just
8 coming to the governor that I had
not been involved in.
9 But you'll find, I think, some of
the similarities
10 interesting.
11 In 1980 the Association for Retarded Citizens,
12 now called ARC, filed a lawsuit
against the state
13 because the governor, the attorney general and the
14 legislature refused to negotiate
on the issues. And the
15 question was on
deinstitutionalized -- deinstitutional-
16 ization of our developmentally
disabled population.
17 They were all in one facility in
North Dakota.
18 The state lost the lawsuit in 1980 in federal
19 district court, appealed it to the
Eighth Circuit, lost
20 it in the Eighth Circuit, appealed
it to the U.S.
21 Supreme Court, which denied
certiorari, remanded it back
22 to the Eighth Circuit. And in late 1984 the federal
23 district court finalized the
order, 112 paragraphs
24 detailing exactly what the state
would do, how it would
25 do it, how much money it would
spend, appointing a
20
1 master and establishing a
Protection and Advocacy
2 Division within state government
that the state had to
3 pay for.
4 So the lawsuit was finalized in federal
5 district court in 1984. Governor Sinner was elected at
6 the end of 1984. We took office. I was his legal
7 counsel. The case landed on his desk.
And he said,
8 "Dick, see that this is
implemented." I said,
9 "Governor, I just came from
the tax department. I don't
10 know anything about developmental disabilities. And I
11 have no idea about how to" --
he said, "Dick, you're my
12 legal counsel. See that this is implemented."
13 So for the next eight years, we worked on
14 implementing that federal district
court order. We went
15 back into court multiple times,
negotiated. Toward the
16 end, as I was beginning to
facilitate, I actually
17 facilitated some of the sessions.
18 In 1993 we left office, and in 1994 federal
19 jurisdiction ended. When we had taken our office in
20 1985, North Dakota was ranked
lowest in the nation by
21 almost every measure in terms of
how it dealt with its
22 developmentally disabled
population. By 1993, when we
23 left office after eight years, we
were ranked first in
24 the nation by almost every
criteria. And as I said, in
25 1994 the federal district court
ended its jurisdiction
21
1 because of what we had achieved.
2 So I am proud of what we achieved. But I also
3 share the incredible amount of frustration that I'm sure
4 the legislature shares with regard
to the lawsuits that
5 have gone on here. And the appointment of the master
6 made things much more difficult, as
did having the
7 Protection and Advocacy Division.
8 So in addition to my work as a facilitator, I
9 have some extensive legal
background, and particularly
10 in a lawsuit somewhat analogous to
the one that you
11 continue to deal with here in
Wyoming.
12 I do want to say -- and throughout this
13 process, I've had great help from
Mary and Dave and the
14 LSO. And I really have appreciated that. I also wanted
15 to say when we came in here today,
we were greeted in
16 this new building by Steve. And he shows us all of
17 these facilities and all of this
high-tech stuff. And
18 you can do almost anything with
it. And I said, well, I
19 need a flip chart. In North Dakota we aren't all that
20 high tech. At least we facilitators aren't. So this is
21 what I use. And he had to go fetch one for us, in spite
22 of all the wizardry that you have
here.
23 In terms of the ground rules, I thought I'd
24 begin -- oh, one other
comment. This is a comment
25 Governor Sinner used a lot. And it's sort of integral
22
1 to this process. I think that it actually is a quote
2 from Lincoln, who said education
is a process of moving
3 from cocksure ignorance to
knowledgeable uncertainty.
4 And I think many of participants
in processes like this
5 identify with that, that they come
to many of these
6 processes absolutely sure that
what they understand to
7 be the case is absolutely right and what everyone else
8 understands is not, and that
through these processes --
9 sometimes, at least -- they move
from what might be
10 considered to cocksure ignorance
to knowledgeable
11 uncertainty. And I hope during the processes that
12 occurred here, some of that
occurred.
13 The ground rules that I've used for sixteen
14 years in about seven to eight
hundred processes that
15 I've facilitated are these. And they're important for
16 you to understand in particular so
that you understand
17 what the participants went
through.
18 One is, I proposed that it's your show. I
19 proposed an agenda for each
meeting. But the
20 participants were able, if they
wanted, to change it in
21 any way they wanted to. The important thing about "it's
22 your show" is that this
report, as you see, has the
23 state of Wyoming seal on it. And it was suggested as we
24 talked about it that I could put
all the letterhead on
25 the report or some other specific
information about the
23
1 Consensus Council or PCI, with
whom I work.
2 But actually, this is the product of these
3 participants. I'm reporting the product of these
4 participants to you. It was their show. It still is.
5 I suggested that everyone is
equal, in spite of the fact
6 that we have some legislators as
participants. We had
7 some people who had been involved
in the school
8 education data issues for a very
long time and some for
9 a very short period of time. And for the purposes of
10 the facilitation that I do,
everyone is equal. And
11 there were no titles or name
tents. Everyone's name was
12 there. And that was all.
13 I encouraged them to bring up any relevant
14 topics that they would not have
left either meeting
15 feeling, well, I should have
brought this issue up.
16 It's important, but I just felt
bad about it or didn't
17 want to bring it up. So every relevant topic ought to
18 be brought up in processes like
this. No discussion is
19 ended until we were done, so that if people had made
20 some initial decisions during the
first day, I
21 encouraged them to be able to say,
"Hey, you know, we
22 talked about this yesterday. I have some concerns about
23 it." Or in the second meeting, they could come
back and
24 say, "You know, I had some
concerns about what we did
25 here. Let's talk about it."
And we did that.
24
1 The obvious, respect each other's opinions and
2 the time. We're there for a limited period of time.
3 And I always ask that no one
dominate and that everyone
4 respect what everyone else had to say.
5 Silence on decisions is agreement. So often
6 people don't say anything and then
leave a meeting
7 saying, "Well, I didn't agree
to that." And so I ask
8 that one of the ground rules be that silence on decision
9 is agreement. And then make sure that I write what you
10 mean, because I have to paraphrase
what people say and
11 make sure that I'm paraphrasing it
correctly. And
12 finally, I suggest as part of the
ground rules that they
13 have fun.
14 So prior to the first -- let me, then, take
15 you specifically through what is
in this report, at
16 least through the table of contents. You will see the
17 front cover, which refers
especially to the section that
18 created this facilitated
process. Inside the front
19 cover are the participants, those
who participated in
20 the two meetings.
21 In a couple of instances, as you pointed out,
22 Madam Chair, because of illness or
other reasons, a
23 couple people could not attend the
second meeting. And
24 there was, in one case, an
alternate appointed.
25 The table of contents indicates what is in the
25
1 report. First are the facilitator's observations. The
2 participants asked me to make
personal observations
3 either in the form of a cover
letter or in the document
4 itself -- and I chose to do it
within the document --
5 and then an executive summary of
what I thought were the
6 highlights of what I thought the
group had come up with
7 and then a report which gives an
assessment, what
8 happened prior to the first
meetings, the environmental
9 scan and vision statement, how the
issues were
10 prioritized, goals, objectives and
strategies that were
11 developed, other issues that were
considered and
12 concluding comments of the
participants and then a
13 summary.
14 Appendix A was the letter of invitation that
15 went out. And Appendix B was actually sort of the
16 working paper that all of the
participants received
17 after both meetings that was a
summary of the meetings.
18 And then I asked for comments on
each of them. It
19 was Appendix B, shortened and
expressed in some
20 different ways, that became the
report itself.
21 I also
numbered them. The pagination goes 1
22 through 41 so that even the
appendices are continuously
23 numbered so that if you refer to a
page, it will be a
24 continuation page. So page 21 is Appendix B. And it
25 goes on through there so that if
you want to discuss any
26
1 item there, you have a different
pagination.
2 Prior to the first meeting, I called all of
3 the participants except one. Representative Shivler was
4 on vacation, as I recall. Is it Shivler?
5 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: Shivler.
6 MR.
GROSS: I just referred to you as
7 "Bubba" the whole
time. So it's difficult for me to get
8 into the right mode here.
9 He was on vacation at the time. But all of
10 the rest of the participants I was
able to have a
11 conversation with prior to the
first meeting. And I
12 wanted to get people's viewpoints
about what they
13 thought the legislation
required. And I got all sorts
14 of diverse viewpoints on what
Section 14 meant and what
15 it was meant to accomplish.
16 And I asked them something about their
17 background, whether or not -- how
long they had been
18 involved in these issues, what
they knew about them,
19 what their expectations and hopes
were for the
20 facilitated processes.
21 I also asked all of them what kind of land
22 mines I could expect coming in from
North Dakota as a
23 facilitator. What do I need to watch out for? And in
24 that, everyone had some comments
about, there had been
25 ongoing animosities that had been
ongoing for 20 years
27
1 in various issues between large
schools and small
2 schools, more recently between the
MAP people and other
3 people, between the legislators
and the Supreme Court,
4 et cetera, et cetera, et
cetera. And so all of those
5 land mines were brought up.
6 But in many ways what the initial calls were
7 for was to give folks an
opportunity to do some venting
8 there that they might not have to
then do again with the
9 facilitated processes
themselves. So it was a great
10 process. And although some of the calls began somewhat
11 tensely, by the end of the calls,
I thought all of them
12 went very well and was very
appreciative of the time
13 that the participants were willing
to give to those
14 calls.
15 So that was the assessment phase. And then if
16 you turn to page 7. When we came to the first meeting,
17 I did what's called an
environmental scan. I asked
18 people to talk about the current
economic, political,
19 social environment in Wyoming. And they talked about
20 that extensively. And you'll see more of the specifics
21 in Appendix B.
22 And then I asked who the important
23 stakeholders were, and as
participants, went through a
24 long list of the
stakeholders. Basically they came to
25 the conclusion that all of Wyoming
really has some stake
28
1 in the outcomes of education data
issues. And so that
2 was intended to give people a
perspective of the fact
3 that they weren't there just
representing an
4 organization or entities and that
they were, in fact, in
5 many ways representing all of the
state of Wyoming in
6 the conversations.
7 After we did that and as we talked about the
8 education environment, I heard
that the most often
9 repeated phrases were those that
suggested lack of
10 trust, tensions and conflicts,
which as I indicate in
11 the report, I thought were
understandable after all of
12 these years of litigation.
13 Then in order to determine whether there might
14 be some areas of agreement among
the group, we started
15 talking about, what kinds of
values do you think ought
16 to be incorporated in education
data in Wyoming? And on
17 page 7 you see the list. Quality education,
18 consistency, independence, value
-- getting more bang
19 for the buck -- maintaining
uniqueness of each
20 community, trust and respect for
Wyoming professionals,
21 fairness and equity, et cetera.
22 Then if you turn to page 8, I then asked,
23 considering those values, if you
were going to try to
24 develop a vision statement
relative to education data in
25 Wyoming, what elements ought to be contained? And on
29
1 page 8 at the top, you see some of
the elements that the
2 participants identified. To help make informed
3 decisions, producing a quality
system, simple,
4 quantifiable results and outcomes,
undiluted, unpolluted
5 source of information, lacks
complexity, et cetera.
6 We broke into four break-out groups, and I
7 asked each break-out group to come
back with a vision
8 statement relative to education
data. And again, if you
9 refer to Appendix B, you can see
the vision statements
10 that each of the break-out groups
developed. But then
11 together we developed one vision
statement which the
12 participants specifically asked
that I emphasize to this
13 committee.
14 Wyoming has a nationally recognized education
15 data system that is uniform,
trusted, effective,
16 efficient and user-friendly. It reflects and advances
17 Wyoming values, assists a wide
variety of policy leaders
18 to make fully informed decisions
and helps provide a
19 remarkable, high quality and
equitable education for all
20 Wyoming students. That is the vision for the future of
21 the participants in this group
relative to education
22 data in Wyoming.
23 So we went then to development of issues.
24 What are the primary issues
relative to education in
25 Wyoming? And then we went through a prioritization and
30
1 grouping process. And if you look on page 9, you will
2 see -- 9 and 10, the 20 issues in
priority order that
3 were developed by the group,
Number 1 being, the MAP
4 model is too complex and growing
more complex, et
5 cetera.
6 Now, when we distilled them throughout the
7 first and second meetings, we
found that there were many
8 that really fit together, even
more than the
9 participants initially
identified. And so it really
10 came down to these seven as the
top issues that were
11 identified and dealt with in
Meetings 1 and 2.
12 And this is in shortened form, but it's Number
13 1, the MAP model is too
complex. There is concern
14 relative to how data might be
manipulated and presented
15 incorrectly or unfairly or interpreted. Education data
16 is too complicated and expensive
to collect. And within
17 that context, almost as a
subheading, outcome-based data
18 in particular is too
difficult. It's too difficult to
19 develop. It's too difficult to come up with. It's too
20 difficult to gather. And I'll talk especially more
21 about this one in particular as we
move on, because it
22 became probably the most
significant issue discussed in
23 Meeting 2.
24 The lack of common language and definitions,
25 the lack of full compliance with
education data
31
1 requests, and difficult to match questions with the
2 needed information. That is, people seeking certain
3 information, but by the questions
they ask, they don't
4 really develop the data that they
need.
5 So those
were the seven issues that were
6 prioritized. And as we began to develop -- and again,
7 we developed initial goals,
objectives and strategies in
8 Meeting 1. And then in the second meeting, we refined
9 them. We changed them so that the objectives and
10 strategies which you see beginning
on page 10, bottom of
11 page 10, the MAP model, Objective
1, to clarify
12 definitions in the MAP model;
Objective 2 in dark
13 lettering, to reduce the
complexity of the model;
14 Objective 3, to develop the plan
to address the negative
15 consequences of the model, to
explain how the MAP model
16 functions, and to examine
alternatives to the MAP model.
17 All of those were objectives developed
18 pursuant to the first issue and to
try to address the
19 first issue. And under each of those objectives are
20 potential strategies that can be implemented.
21 The second issue on page 12, significant
22 concern relative to manipulation,
interpretation and
23 presentation of education
data. The objective, to build
24 stakeholder trust in financial,
staff, facility and
25 student data. I think it's important, again, as we move
32
1 into Objectives 3 and 4, that this
committee recognize
2 that the participants felt that
the education data
3 issues went significantly beyond
financial data. And
4 staff, facility and the student
data are significant
5 issues relative to education data
in Wyoming.
6 And so the next objective, then, was to
7 develop high quality flexible -- a
high quality,
8 flexible database and objective
for developing a
9 standards-based tracking system,
again, relating to the
10 fact that what's involved here and
what the concerns are
11 go well beyond simple financial,
but extend to staff,
12 facility and student data, and
particularly in the
13 context of standards-based or
outcome-based data.
14 To create and update the current manuals that
15 explain education data would be on
-- if you're tracking
16 this, Issues 5, 6 and 7 are on
page 15. Again, each has
17 objectives and strategies. To create and update the
18 manuals, to address compliance
concerns.
19 Here one of the important aspects of this is
20 that the participants felt it was
unfair to paint all
21 districts with the same broad
brush, that most are in
22 compliance with requests for
education data issue needs.
23 But some are not. And the concentration ought to be
24 especially on those that are not in compliance, rather
25 than saying the districts in
general are not in
33
1 compliance.
2 And then to
ensure appropriate questions to
3 get the needed data.
4 Those were the specific objectives and
5 strategies relative to the seven
issues that were
6 prioritized.
7
Now the other issues on
page 16. Toward the
8 end of the meeting, of the second
meeting, references
9 had been made throughout both
meetings to the human
10 resources subcabinet, the fact
that it exists and the
11 fact that the subcabinet could
begin to explore all of
12 the state agencies that are asking
educational
13 institutions for data information
so that they could get
14 a full picture of just how many
requests for data the
15 school districts need to respond
to. And so the
16 subcabinet has undertaken,
assuming that this committee
17 agrees in particular, to undertake
that kind of review.
18 Secondly, many of the participants have
19 ongoing questions of MAP. And so between the first and
20 second meeting, they developed a
process in which
21 questions could be asked of MAP
through e-mail, and the
22 MAP folks would respond. And between the first two
23 meetings, if I recall correctly,
six questions were
24 asked by the participants, and MAP
responded to them.
25 And then during the second meeting, we talked
34
1 about how that -- whether it
worked, whether it was
2 valuable and what could be done
about that. And the
3 participants thought that by
opening that up completely
4 to other people besides the
participants, that that
5 could create even greater value.
6 Now, I understood from some comments I have
7 heard subsequent to the meeting,
that there may be some
8 concerns relative to litigation in
this regard. That
9 is, if MAP is too open or too
direct, whatever, in the
10 responses they give, that they
need to be careful,
11 because of the ongoing litigation,
in how they do
12 respond. I'm not sure about that.
And it might be
13 something that this committee
needs to consider.
14 And then thirdly, the participants also
15 advocated that there were other
areas relative to
16 education beyond education data in
terms of the
17 litigation that might be able to
benefit from a
18 facilitated process. That was on the bottom of 16.
19 If you look
at the concluding comments of the
20 participants on pages 17 and 18,
you will see how people
21 felt. And again, had you been part of the assessment
22 process and the calls that I made
to the participants
23 initially and the cynicism and
skepticism that there was
24 of many of them during those
calls, if you could put
25 that context in it and then look
at these concluding
35
1 comments -- I wrote them down as
the participants gave
2 them at the end of the second
meeting. You can read
3 them. I'll just refer to the first couple.
4 This is a
good finished product. We need to
5 continue to educate ourselves,
legislators, our
6 colleagues and the public about
these issues. I've
7 learned a lot. The information and communication have
8 been very useful. Agencies are taking on a lot of
9 responsibilities here. This has been a very good start.
10 The interchange has been
good. We need to continue
11 communications. There is a lot of energy here toward
12 common goals. You will note that all of the comments
13 are similarly positive at the end
of the second meeting.
14 Now, having done this work in a relatively
15 short time -- this was two
one-and-a-half-day meetings.
16 So the participants were together
for a total of three
17 days. And these were not explicit in the comments at
18 the end of the second day. They were what I derived
19 from what I had heard during the
first two meetings.
20 But these were all sent out to the
participants. And
21 any comments that they had
relative to them, I modified
22 if there had been any. But there weren't.
23 All of the participants apparently agree that
24 these are the seven requests that
they have relative to
25 the product that they've come up
with so far. They
36
1 asked that the JEC endorse the
data forum process that's
2 going on, endorse the agreements
in terms of the vision,
3 overall goal, objectives and
strategies, authorize
4 continuation of the process, encourage the data forum
5 participants to continue with
state agencies and other
6 organizations to implement data
forum agreements, that
7 the JEC draft the required
legislation where it is
8 required to implement their
objectives and strategies,
9 that if you have concerns with
their recommendations,
10 the hope would be that you would
go back to them and
11 say, "Here's our concerns. Would you address it, rather
12 than taking it over?"
13 Given the progress that they have made in
14 these first two meetings, they
might be able to come up
15 with responses that they could all
agree on to concerns
16 that you might have.
17 And then, authorize analogous processes in
18 other areas where they might be
appropriate.
19 Now, I'd ask you to refer back, then, to pages
20 3 and 4 in particular. It was clear during the
21 telephone calls, it was clear
during the environmental
22 scan, it was clear during ongoing
discussions that the
23 group had, that the overwhelming
and continuing issue
24 was one of trust, trust between
the participants,
25 between organizations, between
entities involved in
37
1 education data issues.
2 And so the group kept coming back to what you
3 see on the bottom of page 3, the
overriding goal, which
4 it seemed to me was intended
basically to address the
5 trust issue, that the JEC should
empower this data forum
6 or an analogous group to continue
to assist it in
7 addressing these and other
education-related issues and
8 in making recommendations to the
full legislature. This
9 kind of process should be
established to follow up on
10 and assist with progress in all of
the areas agreed to.
11 All or many of the current
participants in the data
12 forum would be appropriate for a
longer-term effort.
13 They have, in fact, agreed tentatively,
14 pending your agreement, to meet
again in Casper on
15 October 10th and 11th to see what
kind of progress there
16 has been made relative to the
objectives and strategies
17 that they've developed and the
vision.
18 The LSO and Wyoming Department of Education
19 staff could provide ongoing
assistance for such an
20 effort. And during subsequent meetings, the group could
21 hear from representatives of all
of the working and
22 strategy groups that are
recommended below to determine
23 their progress and provide
appropriate assistance.
24 Finally, my
observations. And I'm not going
25 to detail them. They're on the first two pages,
38
1 facilitator's observations. My initial observations as
2 a result of the initial telephone
calls, the land mines,
3 which I've already referred to,
that in spite of
4 cynicism and skepticism and
concerns, the group came
5 together very willing to work hard
on the issues that
6 interestingly, as I point out at
the end of the first
7 meeting, I said I'm not advocating
this. But are there
8 people who are not part of this
process that ought to be
9 at the next meeting?
10 And the participants felt that it was
11 essential to have been part of the
discussion in the
12 first meeting, to have begun to
develop the
13 relationships that had been
developed and that that
14 should continue and that new
participants should not
15 come in at a second meeting.
16 And in spite of the history and contentious
17 nature of the issues involved and
their misgivings, the
18 participants came to these two
meetings determined to
19 accomplish something.
20 The surprises, on the next page, I already
21 indicated, in particular, the
whole point about
22 outcome-based, standards-based
data requests and needs
23 and how difficult that was and
that a new emphasis and
24 priority needed to be put on
them. And then as I
25 observed, another surprise was
that some of the
39
1 participants who seemed most
skeptical of the process
2 during the interviews became some
of the strongest
3 advocates for the process by the
end.
4 Future perspective and continuing value, those
5 are, again, personal comments.
6 I'd like to just conclude with a story that I
7 told the participants which is
true. And I think it has
8 a lot to do with processes like
this. When I was in the
9 governor's office -- and this
would have been fourteen
10 years ago -- I attended a
conference called "Jobs for
11 the Future," about 1988, at Wingspread, a place
designed
12 by Frank Lloyd Wright in
Wisconsin. I'll never forget
13 it. It was a unique site and unique meeting.
14 We had three days of presentations from people
15 talking about the need for adult
education, continuing
16 education, and even at that time
technology, and even
17 beginning to talk about what would
be needed in the
18 future and what would happen in
the future in terms of
19 computerization, et cetera.
20 However, the only session that I remember
21 vividly was the last one that I
attended. And my
22 recollection, which is somewhat unclear
over the years,
23 was that a professor from the
University of Tennessee
24 was presenting. He said they had done a ten-year
25 longitudinal study of 500 people,
white collar, blue
40
1 collar, all walks of life, men and
women, minorities,
2 500 people, ten years, to
determine who was successful
3 in the work that they were doing.
4
And they obviously
developed criteria,
5 financial advancement, happiness,
fulfillment,
6 advancement in jobs. And he said after ten years and
7 500 people, we determined that it
all came down to three
8 things, relationships, relationships and relationships.
9 And I think those are integral to processes
10 like this. And I think that it was true of this group,
11 that in spite of their cynicism
and skepticism and
12 concerns about what was intended
here, what the
13 legislature intended to achieve,
that they felt very
14 good about the beginning of the
development of
15 relationships that they accomplished. If nothing else,
16 it seems to me, had been
accomplished in those two short
17 periods of time, that would have
been a lot, given the
18 history here and the concerns that
people had. But they
19 came up with a lot more than that.
20 So I counted at least seven or eight of the
21 participants, aside from
legislators, who were there as
22 participants or as observers who
are here and may have
23 additional comments and can
straighten me out on some
24 things, as well. So I assume that you want to engage in
25 some sort of a conversation with
all of us. And I think
41
1 we're all willing to do that.
2 SENATOR DEVIN:
Thank you. You've made
3 several good points. And I must say I can affirm nearly
4 every one of them, in that there
was enough skepticism
5 going into this, that I think
people even considered
6 whether it would accomplish
anything and whether to
7 attend. And so the positive comments I started to get
8 back in terms of how people felt
about what was being
9 achieved were, I think, very
rewarding for everyone to
10 hear, most especially, probably,
the people who
11 dedicated their time.
12 And there was a letter that went out, thanking
13 them. But that's kind of small.
There really is a
14 profound thanks to this group for
beginning to pull this
15 together. Because I think there are a number of
16 eye-openers that will come from
this. There are a lot
17 of beginnings that probably can.
18 But it was a tremendous learning process for
19 all involved. And for those of us who have an
20 opportunity to read the reports
and carry on some of the
21 work, I think we have been so
fragmented over this
22 process from the time the court
decision began and the
23 antagonism, probably, that
preceded that court decision,
24 that it is really one of the first opportunities that
25 we've had to try to begin to pull
all our work back
42
1 together.
2 We've had various
committees working on their
3 piece here and their piece here
and their piece here,
4 which have had tremendous
contributions to get us this
5 far. But we've not had a broader spectrum of
6 representation, which we've tried to get here.
7 Now, you mentioned that this committee,
8 particularly the overriding
request, was that we allow
9 these groups to continue to meet
to support that work
10 and that they, as a group, be able
to come back together
11 in October to refine some of these
pieces. And that
12 would be one thing this committee
needs to discuss.
13 Another issue you said you might go into in a
14 little more detail that did come
out was not just the
15 financial piece, but the broader
data piece. Can you
16 expand any, or is there anyone
else you would like to
17 have expand for this committee on
what might need to be
18 achieved there? What are the difficulties, and what
19 might we need to look at to begin
to address it and any
20 methods? I think that's something that we may not have
21 heard much detail on.
22 MR. GROSS:
Madam Chair, first relative
23 to the October date, let me
suggest that, depending upon
24 the extent to which you want this
group to continue and
25 have something available for the
next session, October
43
1 may be too late. You may want to think about, say, an
2 August and October meeting as
potentials if the
3 participants would be available
and willing. Again,
4 given your legislative time line,
you would have a
5 better perspective of that than I
would.
6 Secondly, relative to the standards-based and
7 particular information and
outcome-based -- page 14 in
8 particular -- well, 13 and 14 both
refer to education
9 data. And generally it's too complicated and expensive
10 to collect. And doing so is taking resources from the
11 classroom. And then the objective is to develop a high
12 quality, flexible database that
will be able to respond
13 to most data questions quickly and
accurately while
14 respecting confidentiality.
15 And you will see a list of the strategies that
16 the group believed are
necessary. And in addition, in
17 particular relative to the
outcome-based data, the
18 JEC needs to develop legislation
to support a new
19 standards-based tracking system, a
committee led by
20 WDE, school superintendents,
including legislators, tech
21 experts and other relevant state agency
people, a
22 research and recommended uniform
model system by the end
23 of September or early October of
this year. And the
24 WDE should then prepare a
supplemental budget request to
25 pay for such a system.
44
1 There was discussion suggesting that each of
2 the 48 states did not necessarily
need its own tracking
3 system and that a centralized or
regional tracking
4 system might be able to be
established. And then the
5 State Board of Education must
modify the accreditation
6 group rate. We have several superintendents and others
7 in the audience who may be able to
add response or wish
8 to add response to any of that.
9 Any folks back there?
10 SENATOR DEVIN:
If you'd introduce
11 yourself, we still have our court
reporter in this
12 committee, so we need to --
13 MR. BECK:
I'll try to get close enough
14 so he can hear. Since I was in the back of the room, I
15 was picked to respond to
this. Greg Beck,
16 superintendent, Fremont County 25
in Riverton.
17 One of the pieces that we struggle with as
18 school districts is tracking
student results on
19 standards, the bench marks, right
on down to the item
20 level. There isn't a software package out there that
21 does it the way that our model is
set up in Wyoming. We
22 all try to jury-rig and make other
systems do it.
23 And for the most
part, we're trying to get
24 grading systems to track
standards. They are uniquely
25 different kinds of systems. The systems don't talk to
45
1 each other. So I have a student management system known
2 as SASI. I try to integrate Abacus, which is a grading
3 system that doesn't really track
standards, and make the
4 two work. They don't work. And this has to occur all
5 the way down to the craftsman
level.
6 So what happens is, your teachers also have to
7 now become experts at manipulating
and trying to make
8 software do something that it
doesn't do. It eats up an
9 inordinate amount of time, and we
don't get good results
10 out of it. I think I speak for probably most
11 superintendents, most curriculum
people, people trying
12 to track standards. We need a system for the state that
13 does what the state's model wants
done, and we can
14 supply the data.
15 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: Madam Chairman,
16 can I ask him a question?
17 SENATOR DEVIN:
Yes.
18 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: Sitting on the
19 Wyoming-South-Dakota line, I have
been hearing a great
20 deal about the problems that South
Dakota is having
21 dealing with all of this, also
dealing with what the
22 federal legislation is mandating
now. Are they going to
23 be -- are they going to be
something we can mesh, or are
24 we in for a big boondoggle with
trying to meet the
25 federal standards and then trying
to do what we're
46
1 already mandating you to do? Do you know?
2 MR. BECK: From my perspective, what the
3 State of Wyoming wants done and
how we want to track
4 things in many ways exceeds the
level which the federal
5 government wants it. And if nothing else, they've
6 copied our model. I really think a lot of the pieces
7 they want for us to show student
growth impact on
8 student achievement and so on.
9 Wyoming's model works very well and is
10 probably better than most that
exist. But we don't have
11 a good system for tracking that
within the state.
12 The comment about perhaps making some
13 adjustment in the rubric scoring
on accreditation right
14 now, I cannot tell you that every
student in Riverton
15 has met every standard, every
bench mark, every
16 component, and track it. Teachers can give you a pretty
17 good perspective, but I can't
prove it to you. I can't
18 give it to you in that format,
because I don't have a
19 way of actually being able to
track all that
20 information.
21 Yet that's what I'm going to be required to
22 do. I don't have a problem with doing that. But I need
23 methods and means to be able to
accomplish that and get
24 that done, or I, too, am going to
have challenges on
25 this system when it comes to
graduation time.
47
1 SENATOR DEVIN:
Let me paraphrase and see
2 if I'm understanding what you're
saying. What you're
3 saying is, you need a system designed that is user-
4 friendly, that fits the Wyoming
requirements and
5 hopefully then the federal
requirements, not having to
6 do a duplicate. But you need something that's designed
7 specifically to address those
issues that could perhaps
8 be academic, addressing the
standards. It could be
9 financial. But you need a package that could be used
10 statewide that is not difficult to
use, that each
11 district does not have to do their
own?
12 MR. BECK:
Right.
13 SENATOR DEVIN:
And you're telling me
14 that essentially there's really
not one out there?
15 MR. BECK:
That's correct.
16 SENATOR DEVIN:
You're trying to buy
17 market pieces. So if we were to -- what you're asking
18 is the investment to have that --
to get our request
19 clear what we want and then have
it designed, piloted
20 and so forth to try to bring these
two together so that
21 districts have that as a tool
instead of the size of
22 burden it is right now.
23 MR. BECK:
Absolutely. And also, we're
24 giving you the information in the
way that you want it,
25 because the system is designed for
that. A software
48
1 manufacturer is not going to come
into Riverton, Wyoming
2 and design an assessment system
for me to use to track
3 student assessment, for
example. The costs are too
4 prohibitive. It's a
very small market. They're going
5 to sell one license. They're not going to do that.
6 But if the state were to go into it and we do
7 it for 48 districts, I think we'd
probably get a lot
8 better results and probably get
somebody who would be
9 interested in preparing a model
for us to use.
10 SENATOR DEVIN:
And so in the absence of
11 that, are we spending money in
each of the 48 districts,
12 trying to do some form of this now
and kind of piecemeal
13 it together?
14 MR. BECK:
Yes, each of us are. And as a
15 sideline, it's not in the
model. I take money from
16 something else to try to make this
work.
17 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: Madam Chair?
18 SENATOR DEVIN:
Representative Shivler
19 and then Senator Sessions.
20
REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: Madam
Chair, I
21 think being on that committee, one
of the things that
22 was clear to me is that the state
actually has a very
23 good financial model, and all of
the districts use it.
24 The problem seems to be with the
staff, the facilities
25 themselves, which we are trying to
handle now or will
49
1 handle in capital construction, as
part of that edict
2 that we get a facility model. But then the student and
3 faculty information is different
at every district.
4 Every district keeps it
differently. There's no
5 interface with the state.
6 Another thing that was brought out to me and I
7 think to the other members was how
time-consuming this
8 is for the districts. Because when we're in legislature
9 and, you know, we want to know something about a
10 district, who knows where we're
coming from. They might
11 call and say, "How many
left-handed, blue-eyed students
12 do you have?" Well, somebody has to sit down and go
13 through this.
14 So what we were proposing is that we come up
15 with a system that handles all of
the pertinent data and
16 at the same time protects the
individuality of the
17 student, that has all the pertinent data, with every
18 district using the same system.
19 And this was one of the things that came out
20 of the committee, that we would
try to -- or we would
21 propose that we come up with some
software that every
22 district use. And I think that will be a lot simpler,
23 because then it can be answered at
the state level,
24 rather than at the district level.
25 Because what happens now -- and this was
50
1 brought out. It comes from all over the United States.
2 I mean, graduate students write letters. "I need this
3 information for my
thesis." The federal government
4 calls us. The State of Colorado calls us. There's all
5 kinds of information being
disseminated. And it's not
6 necessarily in the same format.
7 So this is one of the things we felt was
8 important. And I agree with that. I think we need a
9 common, I guess, program for
collecting this data.
10 SENATOR DEVIN:
Senator Sessions.
11 SENATOR SESSIONS:
Madam Chairman, on
12 page 14 of that, under
"strategies," that second one
13 right there that's dotted, I think
that a process -- and
14 I have to say, my impressions of
this process -- and
15 I'll have to say, the first day
that I sat there in
16 Senator Scott's place, at the end
of that half a day, I
17 was pretty discouraged. I thought, you know, we're not
18 going to be able to do this.
19 By the end of the last day, I thought, yes, we
20 are going to be able to do
this. And this is the
21 process we need to do it, instead
of this continual
22 confrontation which, in essence, what I think -- what
23 I've seen is, it's very
detrimental to districts and to
24 students. Because you've got teachers who are taking
25 time away. And it would be interesting to ask them how
51
1 much time is taken away from
preparation and student-
2 teacher contact to try to come up
with this kind of
3 stuff.
4 But the thing about it, too, was that we
5 talked about that there are --
we're not going to start
6 this just cold, that there are
states that have started
7 this process and that there are
some good programs out
8 there, that if we form a committee
like this, that they
9 can start the exploration, and
they can start the
10 process -- the discovery process
down the road and then
11 come back to the entire
legislation or to an entire room
12 of people and say, "Will this
work for us? Will this
13 not work for us?" that kind
of a thing. And I think we
14 can do it. I mean, I think that this probably makes
15 more sense than about anything
I've heard.
16 And also, it might dovetail -- and I think it
17 will -- on this Issue 4 at the top
of page 15. It will
18 dovetail into that so that our
concerns with the MAP
19 model, if we get a basis of
something that we all
20 believe in, then we -- then our
MAP model will be -- I
21 mean, we've got a basis for
working that MAP model that
22 makes sense to everybody, instead
of the continual
23 problem with it.
24 And so I've got to say, I think this is
25 probably the key piece to go
forward, in my opinion.
52
1 SENATOR DEVIN:
Well, I appreciate your
2 comments, because I just cannot
believe this is an
3 insurmountable problem that we
cannot come together with
4 enough experience to begin to
figure out. But we have
5 been in such a state of flux with
the changes of
6 legislation, the court takes this
piece, puts this piece
7 back in our lap. You know, we keep going back and
8 forth. We're gaining steadily on the stability that we
9 might actually be able to work
something out here.
10 Then, what I'm really hearing is, we might
11 need a couple of things. We probably need -- if it's
12 the committee's desire to pursue
this, we probably need
13 to bring together a group that is
going to be able to
14 design -- don't go too far
away. You might need to say
15 yes or no.
16 MR. GROSS:
Have a seat up here.
17 SENATOR DEVIN:
We need to be able to
18 bring together a group that would
not be the technical
19 designers of this system but would
be able to
20 communicate with the technical designers to say, "This
21 is the kind of product we
need. This is what we need
22 the product to do. This is what we" -- "these are the
23 pieces we need."
24 In other words,
whether it be some
25 legislators, some educators --
probably a combination of
53
1 the various departments and so
forth. But we need
2 somebody within the state, a group
to interact with
3 whoever would design this, with
some real front-line
4 expertise and some ability to
communicate that, then, to
5 the necessary parties that have to
coordinate work with
6 them.
7 And then we need to begin to get a handle on
8 some analysis of what we're
talking about in the
9 magnitude of who could do it and
what would it cost
10 before we could proceed. I see those pieces. But if
11 you don't see those pieces, say
so. I'll go back to
12 Dick's rule. Silence is agreement. So if you don't see
13 those pieces and if you see other
pieces --
14 MR. BECK:
Madam Chairman, I think that's
15 exactly right. And we do have a group of sorts within
16 the state, some technology people
in the state. But up
17 to this point, they've been looking
at existing pieces.
18 I don't know that we've actually
been looking at going
19 out and saying, let's get
something designed and made
20 that's going to work for us.
21 And I think that we feel that that's really
22 where this needs to go. The process you're describing,
23 I think, is exactly what needs to
occur. We need the
24 people who have the problem, who
understand the problem,
25 to sit down with people who have
technical skills, who
54
1 can begin to start pulling some of
that together and set
2 up specifications and seek
somebody to design a system
3 for us.
4 SENATOR DEVIN:
Dr. Bohling, did you have
5 a comment?
6 MS. BOHLING:
I do. Madam Chairman,
7 members of the committee, I'm
Annette Bohling, director
8 of standards for the Wyoming
Department of Education.
9 The districts do have a great need
to have some type of
10 system, whether it be optional or
whether it be
11 mandatory, that they have a way to
track the standards.
12 This has been an ongoing
challenge.
13 Three years ago I jumped out ahead, trying to
14 find a way for them. And because I wear three hats at
15 the state department -- soon to
take on a fourth hat
16 when Joe Simpson leaves -- I knew
the needs they have
17 are great.
18 So wearing two hats -- one in state
19 accreditation, the other one, I'm
the state director for
20 the North Central Association for
School Improvement --
21 I started three years ago trying
to develop a piece of
22 software to track the standards,
because I am the
23 director of standards, and I know
what they need. And I
24 know how it has to fit.
25 And as a teacher for eighteen years, I also
55
1 know that learning as we track it
in a grade book is not
2 the same as proficiency on the
standards. There's just
3 no way, because it doesn't work
like that.
4 SENATOR DEVIN:
And we're trying to make
5 that conversion, but we're
probably slower here than
6 everybody else.
7 MS. BOHLING:
We're trying to take that
8 round hole and get that square peg
into it. And that is
9 what they're trying to do.
10 So over these three years, I have been meeting
11 and working and crafting and
finessing and massaging
12 this development of this
software. And it has been one
13 of the longest, sometimes
frustrating pieces. Because
14 as we have evolved with the
standards and the graduation
15 requirements, some things would
change.
16 So then I would go back to them. And just as
17 we were almost ready to bring it
out, I would say, let's
18 change it a little bit here,
because now we're using a
19 compensatory model, which means
one's doing well on one
20 might offset another. So in the long run, I'm glad that
21 it took a little longer, because I
know they need it.
22 Now, here's where I'm going with this. What
23 I've been working on, we have 80
percent -- NCA has 80
24 percent of all the schools in the
state and all the
25 institutions. But what I've been designing is only a
56
1 short-term solution for a
long-term problem. Because it
2 would help a teacher at the
classroom level, definitely.
3 It would help a district,
definitely.
4 But it is not a statewide storage, because I
5 don't and didn't have and wouldn't
have had the
6 authority to mandate that they use
it. It would get
7 them through. We're going to have it out by this
8 September, because we're getting
ready to beta test it
9 now this summer, this month of
July. And we'll be
10 giving it out to them in
September.
11 So in the short term, it's going to help them.
12 But they need a long-term
solution. And we've talked
13 about this. We've talked about it at the Department.
14 How can we help them? Because we know the needs are
15 there, and it is a big need. Because there are two
16 pieces to this. On one side, you have to track
17 individual student achievement for
graduation on the
18 standards. For accreditation, you have to track groups
19 of students.
20 So you have to be able to disaggregate. And
21 you have to be able to integrate
the standards. And
22 they go across the
curriculum. That's what makes this
23 more difficult. Because you can take health standards,
24 and they can be in the science
class, or they could be
25 in the health class, and you can't
track them through a
57
1 grade. And that wouldn't probably work, anyway, because
2 there are other things that go
into that grade than just
3 proficiency.
4 SENATOR DEVIN:
And beyond that, then, I
5 would assume that we need
something that's going to have
6 some flexibility to it, some
fluidity to be able to be
7 modified and changed.
8 MS. BOHLING:
Yes. And that's what I
9 want to say, is, we actually are
going to have a bigger
10 head start on a statewide system
because of this model
11 that I've been working on.
12 So I guess what I want to say is, we wouldn't
13 be starting from ground zero. I didn't know that they
14 were going to be coming with this
suggestion. But I'm
15 proud that they are, because it is
needed. But we
16 didn't have any authority in the
Department, of course,
17 to do such a thing. And Mike, Mike Hamilton, our
18 director of data and tech in our
department, has just
19 been out on his own, trying to work with the district's
20 curriculum directors to see what
their needs were and
21 what they needed.
22 So at the Department, we've just been like
23 these scouts from years ago when
they tried to scout the
24 mountains and help people blaze a
path. But we didn't
25 really have the backing to do
it. We've just done it
58
1 because we knew the need was
there.
2 SENATOR DEVIN:
And from that standpoint,
3 I guess, committee, it raises two
issues. One, I guess
4 I would ask the -- those who have been
good enough to
5 come for their input. But Dr. Bohling raises the
6 question that was in my mind when
I first saw this. And
7 that is, if we proceeded down this
track, I think we're
8 probably looking at a fairly
substantial financial
9 commitment, and we're looking at a
time commitment. So
10 what that's going to ask of
districts, at least on the
11 initial phase, is the input of the
time commitment to
12 get this thing right from your input.
13 The other is, do we think you could get
14 agreement out there among the 48
districts that you'd be
15 willing to use one system, or
would that be seen as
16 tremendous control being imposed on you? Because we do
17 hear this raised by legislators.
18 And I sure don't want to put a whole lot of
19 time and effort into this and then
see the torpedo
20 coming, and then, well, this is a piece of local control
21 going. But sometimes if it's going to take away a
22 headache, it might worth it. But --
23 MR. BECK:
Yes, Madam Chair, if you go to
24 Bullet Number 2 and you follow the
suggestion -- I'm
25 sorry. Page 14. In terms of the
participation so that
59
1 all 48 districts have an
opportunity to participate and
2 send their people, will they? Yes.
This is a big
3 enough headache that
double-strength aspirin will be
4 well received.
5 But they have an opportunity to participate,
6 have their issues worked into the
solution. I think
7 this will be very successful. If we go off unilaterally
8 somewhere and develop a system
that imposed on
9 districts, I'm sure there will be
some problems with
10 that. Because the system needs to be able to address
11 their issues, as was the case in
the participation of
12 the data process. People were able to come, express
13 their issues, find out what the
other issues were, what
14 the problems were and reach some
agreement. And I think
15 that would work well in this case.
16 SENATOR DEVIN:
Dick, what suggestions do
17 you have here? Now, we're talking 48 districts. And
18 then we've got state departments
that need to be
19 included for -- I mean, we've got
all kinds of pieces
20 out here of other people who want
data that need to be
21 in this interaction process. That's clearly a group
22 larger than you recommend. I mean, you said 30 is
23 pretty tough. 25 is better.
24 How do we achieve what we just heard with the
25 input and also not get an unworkable group, get
60
1 everything we need? If we were going to go down this
2 trail, what do we need to look at?
3 MR. GROSS:
Madam Chair, committee
4 members and folks in the audience,
let me express a
5 concern that I had initially about
the time frame,
6 because it becomes directly
relevant to how I respond
7 here.
8 This legislation was passed in March. In
9 April you, in particular, and LSO
staff put together the
10 group. By May we had the two meetings.
So the people
11 who were invited had very little
notice, and in spite of
12 the fact, were asked to come
basically for four
13 different days in May.
14 So everything was in an incredibly compressed
15 time frame. Had I been given this with an open-ended
16 time frame to do, I would probably
have recommended that
17 this -- just this process to here
would have taken
18 something like six normal
meetings. And in that way, in
19 that kind of a process, we could
have taken a whole lot
20 of the recommendations here and
tried to do more to
21 integrate them.
22 In that context, I would suggest -- and I know
23 this is a difficult task for this
committee, especially
24 just looking at this report, to
try to think of some of
25 these strategies and objectives in
an integrative way so
61
1 that what you don't come up with
-- and certainly you
2 have every right to do what you
want -- but so that what
3 you don't come up with is sort of
oversight over one
4 committee and another committee
and another committee, a
5 possibility, for example, assuming
that you felt that
6 the participants did what you
asked them to do here and
7 were a good cross section, and the
participants
8 themselves in this process did feel that they were,
9 it -- it might be the overall
policy kind of group that
10 might establish a working group
under its auspices that
11 some of the participants might be
part of or all of
12 them.
13 And they could also devise a process that
14 would involve all 48 districts or
representatives of
15 them or people who were so
representative of 12 of them,
16 or whatever, that they would
easily fit in a process
17 like that, rather than trying to
bring representatives
18 from all 48 together.
19 Let me also say this, though. Part of my
20 concern about involving no more
than 30 people had to do
21 with the fact that we were only
having two meetings. We
22 had to accomplish a great deal in
that period of time.
23 I have facilitated processes from 8 people to
24 120 people. It is possible to do it. You just need
25 more time to design the process
right and to make sure
62
1 that you have the right
participants.
2 So all of that having been said, I would also
3 guess that there are participants
in the process that
4 might have some additional
thoughts on that. But my
5 urging here is that you try to do
what we weren't able
6 to do because of two short
meetings and try to think of
7 this more integratively and not
develop multiple
8 separate committees to do various
pieces of it. That's
9 a thought, at least.
10 SENATOR DEVIN:
One more piece I want to
11 just bounce off of you. I also get the sense -- and
12 committee, let's kick this around
a little bit. But I
13 get the sense that what we really
need to think about
14 doing is getting very clear our
request for design.
15 Rather than sit here in state as
people who don't design
16 software on a daily basis, trying
to do it, that we get
17 very clear on what we want and
what we need, and we get
18 that refined, and we go with
somebody who does this for
19 a living, with a reputation, who
has to come in and fix
20 it if it doesn't work, and train
people to use it.
21 I'm getting "yes." Okay. If there's
22 disagreement to that -- but I just
see people -- I know
23 Dr. Bohling's frustration with
getting a short piece out
24 there, a stopgap. I know there hasn't been anything.
25 And we always try to fill those
holes for each other.
63
1 But also, if you're wearing four hats, you
2 probably don't need a fifth
one. And it takes me half
3 the time to do something that I've
done for a living as
4 it does somebody else to come
learn it. It takes me six
5 times as long to do something that
somebody else who
6 does it every day. So are those the kinds of things we
7 need to discuss?
8 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: Madam Chairman?
9 SENATOR DEVIN:
Yes.
10 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: I don't know
11 whether to put it in the form of
an amendment or a
12 request. But I think that you go back to page 18 and
13 look at the summary, and these
people are apparently
14 very willing to continue to
work. They're asking that
15 we incur -- that we, as the JEC,
get them to continue to
16 work with the state agencies in
order to implement some
17 of these agreements, and then they
would bring us back
18 some formal data, formal
agreements.
19 If you could get the group that was already
20 hung together and let them pick up
some more
21 superintendents or other people
who are having this data
22 information problem, maybe they
could come back to us
23 in, say, October with a request
for funding and a way to
24 get this thing done.
25 I think you've got a group that he's put
64
1 together, that you've put
together, that has come to
2 some very good consensus
here. They're working well
3 together. They're asking we let them stay
together. I
4 don't know what the cost is of
that. But we can go to
5 Management Council if it needs
some more money, or if
6 there is more cost or if we need
some more money for our
7 facilitator.
8 But I think you better look at page 18, and
9 let's, as a committee, let them do
some of the work,
10 because they're the ones on the
ground doing it. We
11 don't need to go out and hire somebody tomorrow to do
12 the data stuff. Let's see what they can come up with as
13 their goals, their objectives,
their strategies for what
14 they need as a group. They're the ones dealing with it.
15 SENATOR SCOTT:
Madam Chairman.
16 SENATOR DEVIN:
Senator Scott.
17 SENATOR SCOTT:
And I think if you do
18 that, then the job of that group
is to try to define the
19 parameters in terms of, what do we
want the system to
20 do? And then you go hire the people to actually design
21 the system, come back to that
group and say, "This is
22 our design. Will it do what you need to have done?"
23 And you probably need to go
through that process a time
24 or two before you actually develop
the system.
25 I would, Madam Chairman, comment on a couple
65
1 of things relevant to that. First, I think you're going
2 to need to broaden the group
somewhat. I thought at the
3 end of the first meeting, that we
needed to have
4 representation particularly from
the business community,
5 as a user of the output, and was
persuaded that, for the
6 purposes of the second meeting,
that somebody that
7 hadn't been there for the first
meeting was going to be
8 too far behind.
9 But I think if you proceed, you need to really
10 go recruit a representative or
several from the business
11 community. And there are some that are interested in
12 this particular process.
13 SENATOR DEVIN:
I certainly accept that
14 suggestion. And it was probably our oversight, trying
15 to get so intent on representation
in the education
16 community. And I did hear that, too. And it was our
17 error.
18 SENATOR SCOTT:
And I think that perhaps
19 as a user or recipient, if you
will, of the final
20 product, especially as you start
talking about outcomes
21 data, same comment probably
applies to somebody from the
22 higher education community.
23 Another point I would make, Madam Chairman,
24 especially as you get into the
outcome data, Natrona
25 County School District is quite
far along on dealing
66
1 with some of that. I have some very strong feelings --
2 this committee has heard
presentation from them at least
3 once with regard to use of their
growth assessments.
4 I would strongly recommend that we go recruit
5 somebody from Natrona County who is knowledgeable in
6 that particular area from our
school district, as we
7 really are quite a ways
along. And I have some pretty
8 strong feelings as to what's
needed in that particular
9 area.
10 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: Madam Chairman, I
11 would go back to the initial and
make a recommendation
12 that we incorporate Charlie's
suggestions and go with
13 the summary on page 18 and ask
these people to stay on
14 board with an expanded group. And if it's going to
15 require money, then the
committee's chairman should go
16 talk to Management Council.
17 But I think for a
change, we're going down the
18 right direction. And when you start talking -- I've
19 been involved with MAP from the
get-go. I've been very
20 dissatisfied with them. I think every time they come in
21 and sit down before us, we just
complicate it more. And
22 we've got to the point where small
schools, small
23 districts, big schools, nobody is
doing everything the
24 same way.
25
And I just recommend in
the form of a motion
67
1 that we go with this group's
summary on page 18, and we
2 ask them to increase their group,
like Charlie
3 suggested, and let them go to work
and hopefully bring
4 us something in October.
5 REPRESENTATIVE McOMIE: Madam Chairman,
6 do you need a second, or can I
make some more comments?
7 SENATOR DEVIN:
I think you can make some
8 more comments at this point. Why don't we discuss it.
9 REPRESENTATIVE McOMIE: I would like to
10 suggest one thing, that we don't
decide who this
11 software person -- these people
should be, that these
12 people will be the ones that will
be doing all the
13 research, putting it all together
and have more
14 knowledge than I believe this
committee would have on
15 who to choose. And they could come recommend to us who
16 they think would be best.
17 That doesn't necessarily mean we even have to
18 go out of state. But I'm just saying that I think
19 they've all worked that way, and I
think it would be a
20 good idea if we could give them
that ability to look at
21 that part of it, too.
22 MR. HAMILTON:
Madam Chair, committee
23 members, thank you. I'm Mike Hamilton, data and
24 technology director at the
Department of Education. And
25 this is great when Dr. Beck stood
up, because I'd like
68
1 to say, this always happens. When somebody has a good
2 idea, I can say that we've already
done it. There may
3 be some disagreement from this
group. But in this case,
4 we actually have. And Dr. Beck was on the committee and
5 was able to attend the first
meeting.
6 We do have a group of folks that have come
7 together, superintendents --
actually, not very many
8 superintendents, a couple
superintendents, curriculum
9 directors, technology directors
and teachers, about 25
10 folks we have asked to come up
with basically what it is
11 that you need in a system that
satisfies body of
12 evidence requirements, that
satisfies standards-based
13 grading.
14 And once we develop this list of
15 functionalities, we take the list
of functionalities --
16 and we haven't done this yet. But we basically have the
17 list of functionalities. We have compiled a list of
18 what we need in a system that
could handle standards-
19 based grading.
20
The next step that we're
looking at doing is
21 actually bringing in folks that
actually do some of the
22 work already. SASI, for example. Power School is a
23 player in the state. Have those folks come in and
24 present to us, looking at those
functionalities and
25 saying -- and addressing those
functionalities, showing
69
1 what their product does to address
these
2 functionalities. And I don't think there's anything
3 right now in the state that will
actually cover those
4 things. But in that way we can see what the gap is.
5 The second thing this does is gives us
6 leverage. For all the folks that use SASI in the
state,
7 rather than go to one system,
perhaps those folks that
8 use SASI in the state can leverage
SASI to make those
9 changes and meet those functionality requirements that
10 we have.
11 Certainly if there's a group of folks in the
12 state that the WDE helps to
facilitate and get the
13 discussion and get the players at
the table, we have a
14 better chance of leveraging those
folks that are doing
15 work already to improve their
product and cover the
16 things that we need to have.
17 Now, certainly if that doesn't work, the next
18 step would be to use that
functionality list and go to
19 somebody who could possibly design
this, put out an RFP.
20 The State would not put out an
RFP, but we would help
21 coordinate one on behalf of the
districts. And you
22 could have somebody possibly
design that.
23 So a lot of the things that you're saying
24 today, we're starting. We're in the process of doing
25 that. And I wish I had brought the information with me,
70
1 who the group was, our
purpose. We established our
2 purpose in the first meeting. We're doing those things
3 or attempting to do the things
that I think this group
4 has talked about and that Dr. Beck
brought up.
5 So I just wanted to bring that to bear in this
6 discussion. I'd be glad to provide any other
7 information that I can to this
group and to other folks
8 as to what that group will be
doing and certainly invite
9 other people to be there. But I think we have the right
10 kind of people at the table. And certainly the purpose
11 is to do what this group is
talking about.
12 SENATOR DEVIN:
What group is that?
13 MR. HAMILTON:
What we did is, we
14 basically invited folks to be a part of this group, to
15 talk about what it is that we need
for body of evidence,
16 what it is that we need for
standards-based grading.
17 And like I said, there's a number
of curriculum
18 directors that are on this
committee. We brought that
19 group together. I had about fifteen folks that had
20 talked to me and spent a lot of
time -- for example,
21 Mark Mathern -- help me with the
curriculum director.
22 MS. BOHLING:
Jim Lowham.
23 MR. HAMILTON:
Jim Lowham, Mark Mathern,
24 those folks from Natrona said, you
know, the State -- it
25 would be great if the State would
help us out, help
71
1 facilitate this discussion, bring
enough people to the
2 table that we have some leverage,
we have economy of
3 scale, and we can perhaps either
make something happen
4 with existing vendors or be able
to find -- bring
5 somebody in that can actually do
something for us.
6 So that's how this all started.
7 SENATOR DEVIN:
Would all districts
8 perceive that they have adequate
representation in this
9 group?
10 MR. HAMILTON:
Our hope was that by
11 keeping the group very small --
the group has grown to
12 25. Per recommendation of different folks at that
13 original meeting, we brought in --
I think we had two
14 teachers that were in the
group. We're now up to four
15 or five. So we
brought in more teachers. We're not
16 only thinking about the end result
and being able to
17 have something that we can report
and say, this is how
18 our students are doing -- as Dr.
Beck said, here's how
19 our students in Fremont County are
doing on this
20 particular standard, but we're
also trying to help the
21 classroom teacher out, as well, to
be able to have them
22 use a tool, have an interface they
can use to record
23 this information. And they can also use that as a
24 diagnostic tool in their
classroom.
25 SENATOR DEVIN:
One question here to
72
1 Dick.
2 Dick, as we look at this structure, I'm
3 hearing what we've got is a very
front-line technical
4 group here designing one aspect --
to deal with one
5 aspect of the system. If that group -- is it feasible
6 that that group that's been pulled
together with
7 districts having the opportunity
to put their input into
8 it, could they act as technical
advisors on this
9 particular group to the big data
group that
10 Representative Simons talked
about, with that data group
11 taking the more integrated -- the
group that you had
12 taking that more integrated
approach?
13 Because certainly they've covered in detail
14 one piece of this. But I think maybe it's one piece.
15 MR. GROSS:
And Madam Chair and committee
16 members, I know nothing about
this. Craig, you were on
17 both. You might have a better observation than I would.
18 MR. BECK: I
really don't want to
19 dominate your meeting here.
20 SENATOR DEVIN:
That's all right. We're
21 here to get it done.
22 MR. BECK:
The group that was being
23 discussed does exist. I think that would be a good
24 group to work with and provide
some input. But the
25 direction at this point has been
to take existing
73
1 software and somehow come up with
those systems and make
2 them work.
3 The frustration that we're all feeling in the
4 districts is, they don't
accomplish that. I think
5 you're going to find that outside
of this smaller
6 group -- and you're talking about technology
people who,
7 they enjoy the challenge of
sitting down and fiddling
8 with this stuff and making it
work. That is not the
9 case of most users of the
software.
10 And we think that that opportunity needs to be
11 looked to be expanded beyond
that. This is the group of
12 people to help us facilitate. There's no question about
13 it. They can get to the issues for us.
14 SENATOR DEVIN:
My hesitation is that
15 if -- in trying to make current
systems work, that we
16 don't -- I'm not looking to spend
more money than we
17 have to. But I don't want to undershoot what we need to
18 do and end up with another frustrating piece out there
19 that doesn't work. In other words, if we need to
20 clarify clearly and get it
designed, we're going to go
21 for it and say this is what's
really needed. I guess
22 I'd rather go for the piece that's
really needed, is my
23 personal feeling.
24 MR. HAMILTON:
If this group decides --
25 basically the group that's
designing functionality, it's
74
1 not a technical group. It's tech directors. It's
2 curriculum directors. It's teachers. It's those folks.
3 It's some superintendents. We didn't get a lot of
4 superintendents that wanted to
participate in the group.
5 So what we have is, we have a fairly
6 representative group of folks in
the front lines that
7 are there at the local site that
need this information.
8 And they're designing the list of
functionalities. What
9 does this have to do -- what does
this software have --
10 what does it have to complete?
11 It's not a talk
about the technical issues.
12 We're not talking code. We're not talking about
13 databases. We're talking about, this is what we need.
14 And so if that doesn't work, if
SASI can't come up --
15 step up to the bar, if Power School can step up to the
16 bar, then you have a list of
functionality that you can
17 take to your vendor, and you're
ready to go.
18 SENATOR DEVIN:
Representative Shivler.
19 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: Madam Chair, I
20 think we're missing the point
here. At least we're
21 missing the point the way I
understood it. I think if
22 we go through this process, what
we're going to have is
23 a very good system for finance,
which we already have.
24 And we want to have a very good
system for assessment,
25 which this program would give us.
75
1 But again, we've got two systems that don't
2 work together. And I see the assessment as a small part
3 of this. Because when we're talking about data on
4 students and on faculty and issues
like this, that's a
5 far-reaching program. And a good portion of the
6 information we're asked for comes
from social services,
7 comes from colleges, comes from
people that have nothing
8 to do with assessment. It has to do with how many
9 at-risk kids you have, how many
whatevers.
10 And that's the information I think we need to
11 have all encompassed in this
program. And I think --
12 well, it is a very complex
program. But I think if we
13 can get that to every district,
the districts won't have
14 to answer a thousand questions a
year.
15 And one of the things that we talked about --
16 and I certainly like this process
-- is if every
17 district has the same information
and it goes to the
18 State, our information request can
come through the
19 State, rather than the
districts. Because they're
20 spending an awful lot of time
doing things that have
21 nothing to do with educating
children, just answering
22 questions. So I'd rather see the information
23 disseminated at the state level, rather than district
24 level.
25 SENATOR DEVIN:
Would you see that data
76
1 group that's been functioning,
then, as maybe the
2 overall -- as was suggested
earlier, the overall group
3 that would coordinate this with
the input from these
4 various sectors?
5 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: Certainly the
6 assessment portion of this would
be important. But I
7 see that as a portion of this data
bank, not the whole
8 thing.
9 As I say, if we go with this, then we're going
10 to have two different programs,
one being the financial
11 and the other being the
assessment. And then when we
12 need the student data, we're going
to end up with three
13 or four different ones. And what we really wanted to do
14 was try to get one system that
accomplished all of this.
15 It's going to be expensive. That's one of the issues we
16 talked about. It's not a cheap process. But in the
17 long run, I think it would
be. It saves us time.
18 SENATOR DEVIN:
I promised our reporter a
19 break here, and I've overrun the
time. Do you have a
20 comment?
21 REPRESENTATIVE McOMIE: I have a quick
22 comment. We studied an audit. We
decided we didn't
23 need an audit. And all of a sudden it became apparent
24 that apples weren't apples. We were comparing apples
25 and oranges.
77
1 This is what we're talking about right here.
2 And I know local control is
important. But if we're
3 going to spend the money to
develop something like this,
4 we need to spend the money, and we
need to finance this,
5 and we need to put it into the
school systems and say,
6 "This is what you're going to
use."
7 Because one of
the things that we lack, and
8 MAP complained about it, and we as
a committee and as
9 legislators did not have the same
information coming
10 from all the school districts.
11 So I think that
this group is already the one
12 to come up with these great
ideas. And I think they
13 should be the ones to say,
"Okay, we want to have a
14 go-round and gather the input from
these people." But I
15 think that's who I'd like to have
reporting back to this
16 committee and running this thing
myself.
17 SENATOR DEVIN:
Let's take a fifteen-
18 minute break.
19 (Hearing proceedings recessed from 2:50
20 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.)
21 SENATOR DEVIN:
We have several pieces
22 here that are outlined of work
that can proceed, of
23 strategies and so forth. I've talked with our staff.
24 And up to this point in the two
meetings, one of the
25 things that we did was make MAP
available to be at the
78
1 meetings and to answer questions
and so forth.
2 Neither the staff nor myself, on first blush,
3 see that MAP would need to be
involved in these next
4 pieces that we've been talking
about. And in that case,
5 I think that we could do --
probably have the budget to
6 do two meetings with the data
group, at least, to
7 continue their oversight.
8 Now, that wouldn't mean other small groups
9 couldn't work in between. But that would mean that we
10 probably have the current budget
for them to do the
11 October meeting they requested and
then either an August
12 or September meeting.
13 And
then, I guess, staff, a question I didn't
14 ask you, if you were to get some
of their pieces by
15 October, is that soon enough for
us to pull together
16 what we would need to go forward?
17 MR.
NELSON: Yeah.
18 SENATOR DEVIN:
The one other piece that
19 I see, I guess, out there that I'm
now beginning to hear
20 maybe some questions on that I --
I just want to be
21 really clear what people's
perceptions are. If we, as a
22 Joint Education Committee, proceed
down this road and
23 commit the meetings to developing
this and commit to
24 analyzing what it's going to cost
and perhaps a piece of
25 legislation, I thought I saw all
yeses when it's like,
79
1 do you believe, then, that this
then becomes a state
2 piece that we put the money into,
we put the investment,
3 we've designed it, and we'd be
depending on the reports?
4 And is it a big enough pain in the
neck that it's
5 willing to come to a uniform
piece? And I have some
6 questions.
7 If you throw it out there as optional, that
8 you're going to get much
legislative enthusiasm to put
9 this kind of money to it. So I don't see it as being an
10 optional piece if we go
forward. It's going to be
11 agreement -- now, it wouldn't mean
somebody couldn't use
12 something else of their own. But I don't know -- I
13 guess when you say a yes, it's got
to be -- it may not
14 be -- it might be your system
instead of mine that
15 eventually gets adopted. Or it might be a mixture of
16 the two. But we may not get all of our own pieces. But
17 is it still worth proceeding?
18 MR. JOHNSON:
Madam Chairman, Frank
19 Johnson from Kemmerer. I certainly can't speak for all
20 48 school districts. I can speak for myself and a long
21 history of going down this data
collection trail. And
22 before we even went on line,
before we had our
23 electronic reporting forms now
that are really
24 wonderful -- 48 districts are so
fragmented. And
25 they're coming from different
directions. They're on
80
1 different platforms. They're on different everything.
2 The only way the State will ever
get it unified is to
3 mandate it. You just
have to say, "This is what we're
4 going to use. You must use it. No choice."
5 Because if you leave just a little bit, a
6 district, for whatever their
reasons, not intentionally
7 or historically or the people they
have -- their staff
8 may not be PC-oriented. They may be MAC-oriented. And
9 they're going to say, "We
don't want to lose these
10 people. So we want to do it on a MAC." And a MAC'S
11 going to be a little bit different
than a PC. .
12 But just to get it uniform, to get the apples
13 to apples to apples, we all have
to do it the same way
14 on the same platform at the same
vehicle. And it just
15 has to be mandated, in my
mind. You just have to close
16 your eyes and grit your teeth, and
say, "Sorry, guys.
17 This is the way we're going to do
it." And then we'll
18 have it. And if
you don't, we'll never get there.
19 SENATOR DEVIN:
I think a piece of what
20 I'm asking is, do you feel that
you could go back to the
21 business managers, and the
superintendents could go back
22 to their organizations and -- I
mean, it necessitates
23 your selling it to your
colleagues, to say this is worth
24 doing if we do it right.
25 MR. JOHNSON:
Personally I think it would
81
1 be very simple. It would be welcome. Because we're
2 struggling with it, have struggled
with it for years. I
3 think every district here is
struggling with that
4 question. They're struggling with the software
vendors.
5 They promise you software. They promise you support.
6 It doesn't happen. They get it to you. They come up,
7 charge you $3,000 to do it. You work with it for two
8 months. All of a sudden someone changes a file, or your
9 network manager changes your
system somehow in a server,
10 and it all locks up, and no one
knows why. And teachers
11 are frustrated. Everyone's frustrated. They would
12 welcome something that we had in
the state.
13 I would go further and suggest that the State
14 buy the proprietary software, have
it developed, train
15 the people from the state
department to service it, not
16 local districts. And we can get that service in-house
17 statewide. Everybody goes to the same place. That's
18 where it's coming from. That
would be my suggestion.
19 But I'm just one person.
20 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: Madam Chairman, I
21 just don't think that we have any
other choice at this
22 point in time. We
have forced so much on the school
23 districts through MAP and have
struggled so much with
24 all of the things. And now the federal legislation is
25 going to pop some more stuff onto
them, of different
82
1 kinds of tests they want them to
take. Whether we have
2 them already in Wyoming or not,
I'm not all sure.
3 But I think that it's up to us as legislators
4 to try to get them to facilitate
something that we can
5 go to the legislature. And I'll even come down and
6 lobby and help you. Because I think that it's our
7 obligation to give them the tools to do what we forced
8 on them.
9 SENATOR DEVIN:
Yes, you had a comment?
10 MR. STEPHAN:
Madam Chair, I'm Dan
11 Stephan, superintendent Laramie 1
in Cheyenne. Again,
12 the statements and the items that
we discussed today, I
13 would still say the data forum
group is a key group.
14 As you mentioned earlier, I think we take this
15 back to the superintendents'
group, get the bubbling-up
16 aspect of 48 school districts
through the Wyoming School
17 Board Association. It's been stated time and time again
18 today that, yes, we know the
mandates. We know the
19 graduation requirements and the
student data
20 accreditation. All of these items are there. And we
21 know that we're responsible for
them. We're where we
22 are because we're where we are.
23 And I don't think there's too many districts
24 that's going to show much
resistance, because we all are
25 scratching our heads on where we
need to go next. So I
83
1 think if we work with the data
group, back through our
2 own groups, as you stated earlier,
not to be torpedoed,
3 and get a commitment from all 48
districts, I think it
4 can work well.
5 SENATOR DEVIN:
Senator Sessions, you had
6 a comment?
7 SENATOR SESSIONS:
Madam Chairman, just
8 what Dan said about going back to
the different entities
9 involved in schools, you know,
your principals, your
10 curriculum directors, all your
people. And that would
11 be the data facilitators --
facilitation group's
12 responsibility. They need to build that consensus. And
13 I think that that's the group of
people to build it and
14 then to take in with the stuff
that we know that's being
15 worked on with the state
department and so forth and
16 work through them, work with them.
17 But we've got to stop the adversarial
18 atmosphere if we're going to go
with long-term planning
19 for our students in this
state. And that's what I'm
20 seeing is what's happening to
students. And I think
21 that after sitting with that
group, I think they can do
22 it. I think they can build a consensus that we need.
23 And one other thing.
On page 18 at the bottom
24 of the page -- and I know that
this was not in the
25 original legislation. But it was brought up as
84
1 something that this group and
several members and other
2 people involved would like to see
and what they felt.
3 We're at a point now with a
lawsuit where we're just
4 kind of sitting there and
waiting. And I know we had
5 this discussion in the education
committee. If you will
6 give us the chance to try to fix
what's going on, maybe
7 we can keep from going back to
court.
8 And I think the consensus was, in talking to
9 several members of this group, also, that not only could
10 we use this group -- because I
think that they've come
11 together, and it's the right mix
of people with the
12 respect for other's views. And I'm not saying that we
13 didn't have our words once in a
while in that group.
14 Because, I mean, it was not all --
everybody didn't
15 smile all the time. But that's what a group -- I mean,
16 that's what you want.
17 But what I would like, too, down the road as
18 part of this is, I would like to
see at some point
19 sitting down and agreeing upon
what we can agree upon as
20 districts and legislators and lawyers
and so forth and
21 then trying to reach consensus on
the other part. I
22 think that we have really -- we
have lost a lot. And
23 I'm an advocate of the
lawsuit. I'll say that right out
24 now. Because I saw no other way to do it, after 30
25 years of watching the rich and
poor and the large and
85
1 small districts and trying to come
to a meeting where
2 all students' needs are met.
3 But I think it's time to sit down with a group
4 like this or this group with the
facilitator and work
5 and try to agree. And if we disagree on points, agree
6 to disagree on those and work
toward some solution,
7 rather than the court
solution. And that came out in
8 that meeting, too. And I know that we were very
9 hesitant to bring that out because
we -- that was not
10 the charge of the committee. But I would like us to
11 start to think along those lines,
too. Because let's
12 put the money into the classroom
instead of into the
13 lawsuits. And I think it's time to try to do that.
14 SENATOR DEVIN:
Senator Scott.
15 SENATOR SCOTT:
First off, I'd like to
16 endorse what Senator Sessions just
said. I think that's
17 really our best chance to deal
with some of the problems
18 with our school finance. Use the same kind of process
19 on that set of issues, try to get
the major players
20 there, superintendents and board
people without their
21 attorneys.
22 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: Charlie, you're
23 no fun.
24 SENATOR SCOTT:
It's like the North
25 Platte litigation. You got to get the attorneys that
86
1 are making a buck out of it. Clarification on what
2 we're talking about here with the
data. We're talking
3 about trying to construct a system
that deals with both
4 the financial data and the
outcomes data. Am I right,
5 thinking that's what we have in
mind?
6 SENATOR DEVIN:
That's my understanding
7 of the group. And then the general data that -- of
8 voucher-student population that
show those --
9 SENATOR SCOTT:
Those sets of things.
10 Okay. I just wanted to make sure about that.
11 SENATOR
DEVIN: And trying to give
12 thought to the integrated sort of
approach that Dick
13 reminded us of that this group
keeps bringing up.
14 SENATOR SCOTT:
And I would suggest to
15 the group that to think about
developing the system,
16 that one of the things you
probably need to do to get
17 the buy-in from everybody is --
and I'm not enough of a
18 computer guru to get the right
language -- but to get
19 kind of an open system where
people can add on options
20 that they want to to accommodate
their particular local
21 management needs.
22 And I think that's just a matter of how you
23 design the system, that it is open to having options
24 like that added to it. And that will be quite important
25 politically to getting the kind of
buy-in that we've got
87
1 to have from everybody.
2 SENATOR DEVIN:
And the suggestion has
3 been made, then, that we need to
add the consumer groups
4 of higher ed and business to that
group as they were.
5 I had a comment from -- we're kind of going
6 back and forth, which is a little
unusual. But I think
7 maybe it contributes to the
discussion. I'm trying to
8 keep from leaving anybody out.
9 MR. CARRIER:
Madam Chairman, I'm Jeff
10 Carrier. I'm the superintendent of schools of Crook
11 County. And I had two areas I'd like to comment on that
12 you've been talking about.
13 First of all, last week the Department of
14 Education had a meeting on ESEA,
the new federal
15 legislation for
superintendents. And at the end of that
16 meeting, as a member of the
facilitation committee, I
17 did make a report to them in
regard to this issue on
18 student data, outcomes data,
letting them know what the
19 committee was going to be
reporting and Mr. Gross was
20 going to report to you-all.
21 At that time 90-plus percent of the
22 superintendents in the state were
at the meeting. All
23 of them endorsed, on page 14, the
recommendation that
24 the accreditation group recommend
measures at the
25 present time be modified and that
it -- they were all
88
1 having the same problem you've
heard today, of really
2 meeting the accreditation
standards, in reporting of
3 those measurements of the
standards.
4 Those rubrics are hard.
They are set at a
5 high level, and they're there for
a good reason. And we
6 want to be able to report that
data. Our problem is, we
7 don't have good systems to do that
with. So I can tell
8 you the input I got back from the
superintendents'
9 meeting last week. They were very much open to the idea
10 of coming up with a statewide
system.
11 Many of us don't have the resources in our own
12 districts to develop it. So we're struggling and
13 wanting to meet the accreditation
standards very
14 strongly.
15 The other comment I had was on page 18, in the
16 summary, Number 7. And I know that at one point the
17 committee that I was on, the data
facilitation committee
18 with Mr. Gross, struggled with
this between the two
19 meetings. But Number 7 says that the JEC encourage and
20 authorize an analogous process or
processes to address
21 other issues, other educational
issues.
22 And on page 16, under "other facilitative
23 processes," I believe it
speaks to what Senator Sessions
24 was talking about. And that is in regard to trying to
25 get the litigants together and try
to get a statewide
89
1 solution to our own problem.
2 I know we did have discussions on it. I
3 think -- and I don't mean to speak
for the whole group,
4 by any means. But my impression was that there was a
5 little bit of a hesitancy for --
at least these first
6 two initial meetings, for the data
facilitation group to
7 dive into some of the
recommendations.
8 The highest priorities, which were on -- as
9 Senator Scott will remember from
discussions, Issue
10 Number 1, the model is too complex
and growing more
11 complex. It's creating errors and confusion and cost
12 and expenditures. There are other options available.
13 Examine alternatives to the MAP
model was one of the
14 recommendations.
15
I would read Number 7
under the summary as
16 allowing this committee to oversee
a group, possibly of
17 the litigants that Senator
Sessions was talking about,
18 to get them together, whether
they're with their
19 attorneys or not with their
attorneys. I don't know the
20 best solution to that. I almost feel like you almost
21 have to have the attorneys there
to get them to quiet
22 down and to move through the process.
23 But I think until we, as Wyoming, sit down
24 together and go through that and
really try to resolve
25 those problems -- and I think we
can. I think we can
90
1 very well in a facilitative
process. I think that's the
2 final solution. We've been at this for nine years. And
3 I've been involved since day one
with it, as a small
4 school representative.
And it hasn't gotten any better.
5 Actually, it's gotten more complex
and gotten worse.
6 Thank you for your time.
7 SENATOR DEVIN:
Thank you. We've really
8 got two issues flowing here. Let's see.
Did I see
9 someone wanted to comment over
here?
10 REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Yeah. Madam
11 Chair, I had my hand up. You were talking about other
12 participants in this group. You mentioned the business
13 community. And what I'd like to see is that that person
14 actually represents the taxpayers,
also, that it comes
15 from one of the large tax-paying
groups. Because they
16 have a stake in this, also.
17 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: Vested interest.
18 SENATOR DEVIN:
So perhaps look at a
19 taxpayer type group and also then
a consumer of the
20 graduate who may be --
21 REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Madam Chair, we
22 may want two. But I'm not sure we'd want that many
23 bodies in the group.
24 SENATOR
DEVIN: We could try to discuss
25 that. But I have heard those. I
have had notes to the
91
1 effect that we did not consider
those groups. And it
2 was probably my oversight and my
co-chair's oversight,
3 that we were so intent on trying
to get other
4 representation in this data piece,
of the people that
5 use the data and work with the data
every day, that we
6 didn't -- we did overlook those
groups and probably
7 should not have. Because they have been involved all
8 along our process when we've done
standards and so
9 forth. And they've taken the time to show up.
10 REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Very good.
11 SENATOR DEVIN:
Senator Scott, I think
12 you were next.
13 SENATOR SCOTT:
What I'm going to suggest
14 is, I think the lines that Mr.
Carrier and Senator
15 Sessions were talking about is
really a separate
16 facilitated group, probably
facilitated by this
17 committee, as opposed to an add-on
to the data forum
18 that we're talking about. Kathryn, am I right in
19 thinking that's what we have in
mind?
20 SENATOR SESSIONS:
Senator Scott, just
21 after what I saw was accomplished
-- or what I saw could
22 be accomplished -- and we talked
about it amongst these
23 people that were there -- that it
is a forum that we
24 should go forward with to try to
solve the other issue.
25 And I think that once we start
working on the data, I'm
92
1 thinking that part of the problems
with the other issue
2 are going to start to become -- to
be able to work out
3 some of those other things,
too. Because I think we're
4 at a point where we either do it
or else. What kind of
5 future have we got if we don't use
it, if we don't try
6 it?
7 SENATOR DEVIN:
If we come back to the
8 data piece, what we've been
talking about, the concept
9 on supporting the data
facilitation group -- or the data
10 forum group going forward with a
couple more meetings
11 with the kind of mission that
we've been talking about
12 here, to come up with additional
discussion of where the
13 problem areas are, what they need
the system to look
14 like, do you think that fits the
essence of what they
15 are requesting?
16 MR. GROSS:
Madam Chair, the essence of
17 what who is requesting?
18 SENATOR DEVIN:
The data forum group that
19 you met with. In other
words, they requested, on page
20 18, several that we endorse. And do you think what we
21 have discussed here in terms of
the task we are talking
22 about turning over to them with
one or two more meetings
23 meets what they asked us to
support?
24 MR. GROSS:
Madam Chair, I think that it
25 does. How that's done may vary.
I think Senator Scott
93
1 has given one potential
suggestion, Senator Sessions
2 possibly another. One, that it be under the auspices
3 of. Another, that it be a separate kind of process. I
4 can tell you, though, that depending on how much you
5 load onto this group, two meetings
between -- I mean,
6 just --
7 SENATOR DEVIN:
I'm not talking about
8 their issue at this time. I'm talking about the issue
9 of data that they were originally
charged with, which is
10 a system to design the financial
piece, which seems to
11 be in better shape than anything
else, the general
12 student data and this student --
what is the correct
13 term?
14 MS. BOHLING:
Standards tracking system.
15 SENATOR DEVIN:
That they continue to
16 come to -- by the end of October,
come to us with that
17 recommendation of what that needs
to look like so that
18 we can get some cost figures on it
so we can bring forth
19 legislation. Does that fit -- separate from the
20 settlement of the lawsuit, because
that's a separate
21 issue. But do you think that we have, in essence,
22 understood their request for where
they'd like to go
23 with their work?
24 MR. GROSS:
Madam Chair, committee
25 members, yes, I think you're right
on track with what
94
1 they were suggesting. I just have concerns about how
2 much -- even separating the
lawsuit or litigation
3 issues, how much can be
accomplished by how much you
4 want before the session in two
meetings, it's just
5 adding a lot. I mean, it's what they asked for.
6 Nevertheless,
it may require working groups of
7 the committee or task forces or
add-ons to work between
8 those kinds of meetings. I haven't thought that through
9 enough. And I think the participants would have to have
10 input on that, as well.
11 SENATOR DEVIN:
And it may mean working
12 groups of other groups --
13 MR. GROSS:
Correct.
14 SENATOR DEVIN:
-- that would bring
15 pieces to them?
16 MR. GROSS:
Yes.
17 SENATOR DEVIN:
But I guess worst-case
18 scenario would be that they came
to us in October and
19 said, "We haven't had time to pull this together
20 correctly."
21 MR. GROSS:
Madam Chair, exactly.
22 SENATOR DEVIN:
In which case, we would
23 have to then try for the authorization
for them to keep
24 working. But it would delay that our schools not have
25 this piece for probably another
year.
95
1 MR.
GROSS: Correct.
2 SENATOR DEVIN:
But that would be what I
3 would see as worst-case
scenario. They would say it
4 couldn't be done in that time
frame.
5 MR. GROSS:
Madam Chair, in addition, if
6 it can't be done, here's another
way it could be. Maybe
7 a couple additional meetings or
whatever would be
8 required, yes.
9 SENATOR DEVIN:
And if it's simply -- you
10 get these big problems and, well,
if it's simply a
11 matter of money, right? But if we need more money for
12 them to have a third meeting, that
is another issue,
13 versus just that the time won't
allow them to get it
14 done. Because we could go make that request.
15 MR. GROSS:
Madam Chair and committee
16 members, from what I understand of
the funding that was
17 initially made available, there
would be plenty of funds
18 left for three meetings if that
were necessary.
19 REPRESENTATIVE LOCKHART: Madam Chair,
20 part of this will be piling
on. But I had the chance to
21 attend one of the meetings in
part. I didn't last to
22 conclusion. But I think they've developed a collegial
23 relationship between a very
diverse group. So I'm just
24 piling on and saying that this is
the group to continue
25 to keep together to move this
forward.
96
1 And it looks like there's a clear pattern that
2 needs to be probably at the next
meeting, and that's to
3 get this additional input from the
other groups, the
4 superintendents' organizations and
so on down, and then
5 have them come up with a way. But I thought with the
6 progress they made in two
meetings, starting from a dead
7 start, to now an up-and-running
organization, I think
8 they can probably make our
October.
9 I don't think we want to let them off with an
10 extended program. Because I think it's going to be a
11 lot easier with 20-some of these
people who now know
12 each other. They've got a bit of a trust relationship.
13 I'm proud of all of the people who
spent time working on
14 a difficult issue to come to some
pretty concrete
15 approaches to an answer.
16 And the other thing that I think is worthwhile
17 mentioning and then asking it continue
is, I heard more
18 acceptance by districts on a
statewide program than I
19 think I've heard in any other
forum I've been in. And
20 we've been in a lot of them. So how that's happened, I
21 just want to thank people for
doing it. Because I think
22 that's how we have to go. I'm a local control guy
23 myself. But I think we need to have a common statewide
24 platform for all of this to come
into. And I think at
25 least the seeds are planted and
growing a little bit in
97
1 that area.
2 SENATOR SCOTT:
Madam Chairman?
3 SENATOR DEVIN:
Yes, Senator Scott.
4 SENATOR SCOTT:
I would comment that
5 there is an obvious interplay
between work this
6 committee has to do with the State
Department of
7 Education on, how do we deal with the new federal
8 legislation and this data
effort? And that -- they may
9 be delayed by the fact that we've
got to make a bunch of
10 policy decisions before they could
proceed on some of
11 the things.
12 So that might cause a bit of a delay in a
13 third meeting. That's something that we're going to
14 have to give careful consideration
to. And I think the
15 state department is going to come
up with a strategy
16 which we can either accept or
modify. So I think as I
17 read our schedule, we'll, in
reasonable time, get
18 something there. But there's going to be an obvious
19 interplay.
20 MR. GROSS:
Madam Chair and Senator
21 Scott, just to add to that,
they'll have the additional
22 factor of dropping some people,
the MAP folks in
23 particular, and adding other new
people. And that will
24 certainly change the dynamics for
a period of time. It
25 will take some catching up to
do. So all of those are
98
1 factors that have to be
considered.
2 SENATOR DEVIN:
And I fully realize that.
3 I guess I also want to keep the
urgency to this issue
4 that we've got the momentum going
at this point with
5 this group. And these people have a lot of commitments.
6 And if we can keep doing that, I
think it's to our
7 advantage.
8 Also, if we are going to have to come forward
9 with something of magnitude in a request here, the
10 current revenue picture is going
to be better than a
11 downturn revenue picture to do it
in. We keep moving
12 out. We know that our cycles will take us through that.
13 So that's just the reality piece,
that I don't want to
14 do it slipshod. But I don't want to leave the door open
15 and say you maybe have forever,
either.
16 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: Madam Chairman,
17 did anyone ever second
Representative Simons' --
18 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: Yes, it was
19 seconded. I asked for the question on my
recommendation
20 before.
21
SENATOR DEVIN: I guess
Representative
22 McOmie asked if he should make a
comment or second. And
23 I think I had him comment
instead. But can we consider
24 it both?
25 REPRESENTATIVE McOMIE:
Yes.
99
1 SENATOR DEVIN:
We'll now consider it --
2 if not seconded before, it is now.
3 Senator Scott.
4 SENATOR SCOTT:
No. I had exactly what
5 Representative Shivler said.
6 SENATOR DEVIN:
Committee, do you need
7 any further discussion before you
would vote that we
8 endorse this facilitative process,
continue with the
9 direction that our discussion has
taken today, to try to
10 come to some firm recommendations
by October in what a
11 system needs to look like, so that
we can begin to get
12 financial estimates and draft
legislation?
13 (No response.)
14 SENATOR DEVIN:
Okay. All those in
15 favor, aye.
16 (Members
present voted aye.)
17 SENATOR DEVIN:
Those opposed, no.
18 (No response.)
19 SENATOR DEVIN:
Motion carries.
20 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: Madam Chairman,
21 I'd like to thank the folks that
were on the committee.
22 And several of them are here. Dwight's here from
23 Weston, and Jeff Carrier is here
from Sundance. Dan is
24 here from Cheyenne. Let's see.
Oh, Pam is here from
25 the Department of Audit, and Larry
from Education. I
100
1 think I missed somebody. Mary Jo Lewis is from Powell.
2 And these folks were instrumental
in this.
3 REPRESENTATIVE McOMIE: Dr. Beck.
4 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: Is he here? His
5 name is far too complex for me to
bring up. At any
6 rate, yes. I'm sorry, Craig.
7 MR. BECK:
That's all right.
8 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: And they did a
9 great job. Admittedly, when that process started, there
10 was some suspicion in the
room. And Dick Gross allayed
11 some of that with his jokes. I wish you would have told
12 us one before you left, by the
way.
13 REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Excuse me, Madam
14 Chair. I've been through Dick's jokes before. And I
15 can't have any more.
16 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: It was a great
17 group. And I certainly appreciate their efforts.
18 SENATOR DEVIN:
I appreciate your
19 participation and Senator Scott,
Senator Sessions. It
20 takes time and commitment to do
that.
21 SENATOR SCOTT:
Madam Chairman, coming
22 back, I would add to the motion to
Senator Sessions'
23 suggestion on a facilitative
effort on dealing with the
24 lawsuit and the MAP model
issues. I'm going to move
25 that this committee have developed
a specific proposal
101
1 to start such a facilitative
process. And I suspect
2 this is going to be something
we'll have to take to the
3 full legislature. So we're really talking about the
4 first step in developing
legislation to touch off the
5 process.
6 SENATOR DEVIN:
A drafted form of
7 legislation?
8
SENATOR SCOTT: Yes.
9 REPRESENTATIVE McOMIE: I'll second that,
10 Madam Chairman.
11 SENATOR DEVIN:
That's been moved and
12 seconded. And then areas we would certainly have to
13 explore would be something I'm
certainly not an expert
14 on, but legal standing, what our
latitude is, how we do
15 that.
16 REPRESENTATIVE McOMIE: Madam Chairman,
17 the reason I seconded the motion is that it's been my
18 experience in my political life
when we have problems
19 such as we've had with this
legislation -- and this was
20 when I was mayor -- if you could
get all these
21 participants together in one room
as facilitator and
22 make them sit down, and they'd
start talking about the
23 issue, all of a sudden some of
these things that have
24 horns and tails will fall apart,
and they'll start to
25 recognize their common interests.
102
1 And they know how much more it costs to
2 educate a student in a small
school than it does a large
3 school. As taught to me today, you still have to have
4 the same size gym. There's various other type things
5 that go on. What better people would know than the
6 people from the districts?
7 Probably should have been done to start with.
8 But that wasn't the way that the
legislature perceived
9 the court's talking. Nobody's going to go back to court
10 if all those 48 districts
agree. And I think -- that's
11 why I think that Senator Scott's
motion probably is
12 very, very important. And I would have wished that
13 we -- somebody else had been smart
enough to include it
14 in the last legislation.
15 SENATOR SCOTT:
Madam Chairman?
16 SENATOR DEVIN:
Yes.
17 SENATOR SCOTT:
If the motion should
18 pass, what I would suggest was
that one of us -- and
19 I'll volunteer, unless you want to
appoint somebody
20 else -- in consultation with you
and Senator Sessions,
21 develop a bill drafting
instructions that are aimed at
22 touching off the facilitation process. Not at dictating
23 a solution, but at starting the
process that we could
24 then discuss at the next committee
meeting. And so it
25 would be, really, instructions to
the staff that we
103
1 would discuss to modify, and then
we'd proceed to the
2 bill draft stage.
3 SENATOR DEVIN:
I guess drawing on your
4 expertise, Dick, having
facilitated a number of
5 different types of things of this
nature, the comment --
6 while I see this committee having
a role, I can't -- we
7 have a hard enough time just all
getting our piece in.
8 I can't see us as being the
facilitator.
9 But how do these things work? How have you
10 seen them work successfully? Maybe that's the question
11 I want to ask. And how do they proceed? Do they need
12 to proceed with the attorneys
present? Do they proceed
13 with the attorneys not
present? At what point does the
14 committee come in, versus other
parties? Can you give
15 me any concept on that?
16 MR. GROSS:
Madam Chair, committee
17 members, that would be tough. I don't know that I've
18 ever been involved in a process
exactly like this, that
19 is, where there have been multiple
Supreme Court
20 decisions, where there is clear
animosity between the
21 legislature and the Supreme Court,
at least judging from
22 the footnote of the last session.
23
SENATOR DEVIN: That's probably accurate.
24 MR. GROSS:
Just who ought to be
25 involved, what might be the best
way to generate it,
104
1 how, if at all, the Supreme Court
itself might have
2 represented -- initially the
thought would be that it's
3 doubtful that they would.
4 But I know that I did a process in North
5 Dakota that involved a
victim-witness bill of rights and
6 other issues. And we put together a group of 30 people
7 that developed 21 pieces of
legislation. And because of
8 the variety and the stature of the
group, all 21 pieces
9 of legislation were passed. We had representatives that
10 the Supreme Court appointed who
actually were lawyers,
11 not Supreme Court members
themselves or staff.
12 So I think that
the potential variation is
13 almost infinite. And it depends so much on just where
14 you are in every kind of process,
who the proponents and
15 opponents are.
16 My guess would be that involving the attorneys
17 within the process themselves
would be really difficult,
18 the attorneys for the
litigants. But possibly --
19 possible, maybe not
impossible. There would be so many
20 things to think through. I think Senator Scott's
21 proposal that legislation be
developed is a good one.
22 And you're going to have to talk
it through at the next
23 meeting and the meeting after that
to make sure that it
24 is appropriate, given your current
circumstances, where
25 you are under Supreme Court
jurisdiction right now and
105
1 who the players are.
2 There's also, I understand, another potential
3 suit brewing, which is another
aspect that complicates
4 this even further. And so I'd say for me at this point
5 to give you any specific
suggestions would be the height
6 of folly right now. And I'd really have to do a lot
7 more talking and thinking with
people who know better
8 than I what the current situation
is.
9 SENATOR
DEVIN: And the thing that's
10 difficult for me to bring together
in my mind is, we've
11 got two parallel systems
here. Because having worked,
12 certainly, in the governor's
office as legal counsel,
13 you know that there's the process of what's going on in
14 terms of the legal piece, the
state and the Supreme
15 Court, and that piece
interacting. And then over here
16 is the legislature and the school
districts, and we're
17 trying to interact and keep things
moving forward. And
18 the two systems aren't necessarily
moving in parallel.
19 MR. GROSS:
And, Madam Chair, you have an
20 election, too, which will change
things a lot in terms
21 of who the governor is --
22 SENATOR DEVIN:
And who is the
23 legislature.
24 MR. GROSS:
-- and the legislators, et
25 cetera. And all of those need to be part of the dynamic
106
1 in your considerations here.
2 SENATOR DEVIN:
Which might be why we
3 tackle the piece that we thought we could do something
4 with on the first go-round. But I do -- I have a
5 natural inclination to like to
solve problems that way.
6 So it has a lot of appeal. I don't have as much
7 expertise in making the legal
calls of where that puts
8 us if you do this action, versus
that action.
9 Senator Scott.
10 SENATOR SCOTT:
Madam Chairman, what I'm
11 envisioning is that our legislation would be to set up a
12 process that would try to resolve
the issues. And I
13 think if we could get enough of
the stakeholders at the
14 table in a process very much like
what was used this
15 time, we might ultimately have to
either change the
16 statutes or amend the constitution
before we're done.
17 But if we can get something the various
18 parties in interest can buy off
on, then you can get
19 that kind of thing done. So I think it's worth a try,
20 rather than going down the road
we're going down, which
21 seems to be just more litigation
and more complication.
22 SENATOR DEVIN:
So your motion would be
23 to develop drafting
recommendations for the committee to
24 look at for the next meeting?
25 SENATOR SCOTT:
Yeah.
107
1 SENATOR DEVIN:
Mr. Atkins.
2 MR. ATKINS:
Madam Chairman, Al Atkins,
3 Wyoming School Board
Association. Is the committee
4 aware that the governor attempted to do this about four
5 years ago by calling a meeting in
Casper with certain
6 representatives, and I happened to
be one of them? And
7 we had one meeting at the state
department. And the
8 next scheduled meeting before
that, we got a letter from
9 the state attorney, saying,
"Nothing discussed in this
10 meeting would be allowed to be
used in a lawsuit.
11 Please sign below."
12 Our attorney recommended that I do that. And
13 I did that and turned in it. But half the people would
14 not do that. And therefore, that whole thing dissolved
15 before it got off the ground.
16 SENATOR DEVIN:
Thank you for that
17 reminder. Because I was aware of that. But I had
18 forgotten it. And there are little nuances like that.
19 I really can't sit here and say to
the committee, this
20 is an option we've got, and we can
go down this path.
21 I'm not real clear on what all
that is. But it doesn't
22 hurt us to explore that.
23 Senator Sessions.
24
SENATOR
SESSIONS: Maybe I have too
25 something of a view of this whole
thing. And I still
108
1 think -- I truly believe the key
is with the districts.
2 Because let's just put it down on
the most basic level.
3 If we can come up with an
agreement on those issues that
4 are out there amongst the
districts and the people
5 involved in the districts, who
controls the money that
6 pays the lawyer? It's the districts. And I know we can
7 get -- I know, because I've been
told, we can get WEA as
8 the third litigant to step into
this process and to sit
9 down at the table. And I've been told that.
10 So maybe that's too much of a grounded level.
11 But if we could sit down as
districts and solve it, then
12 who's going to go back to
court? And I don't know what
13 kind of binding agreement you have
to -- you can't tell
14 somebody they're not ever going to
go to court again in
15 the whole world. I know that. But maybe we can come to
16 a tentative thing that we can go
forward with just to
17 see if it's going to work. I don't know. But I think
18 it's worth a try, because we
certainly haven't gotten
19 anywhere for eight years.
20 SENATOR DEVIN:
Well, we certainly can
21 look at the pieces -- well, there
is -- I guess when you
22 say we haven't gone anywhere,
there's a great deal more
23 money in education.
24 SENATOR SESSIONS:
That's true.
25 SENATOR DEVIN:
There have been a lot of
109
1 gains in many areas. We're still frustrated terribly.
2 But I think there's been an awful
lot of good work that
3 has taken us a long way. And I guess the caution I
4 would have is, if we do this,
let's not let it set other
5 things aside and that we don't
continue to make
6 progress. Because no matter what we do, we're still
7 going to have vocational ed
issues. We're going to have
8 at-risk issues. We're going to have size issues. And
9 to back away from them because it
says, well, we might
10 not have to -- we might do
something different, it's not
11 going to be there -- I mean,
they're always going to be
12 there.
13 SENATOR SCOTT:
We're almost, Madam
14 Chairman, proceeding on two
tracks.
15 SENATOR SESSIONS:
Yeah. And, Madam
16 Chairman, I will say this. Maybe it won't work. Maybe
17 when we sit down to try to work it
out to try to even
18 form the group, it won't
work. Maybe it won't. But at
19 least as a legislature, I guess we
can say, as an
20 education committee or as people
who are sincerely
21 interested in solving this, we tried. I don't know. To
22 me, maybe it would be worth the
try.
23 SENATOR DEVIN:
And one other caveat
24 here. And I would have to ask for more legal opinion --
25 experience than mine. But I have been told that the
110
1 issue can be raised by any
individual student or parents
2 of any individual student who
feels that in any of these
3 areas their student did not get an equal opportunity.
4 Because it is a constitutional
issue. So districts
5 alone are significant but not the
total limit of who can
6 bring that suit, from what I have
been told.
7 You had a comment, Mr. Carrier?
8 MR. CARRIER:
Madam Chair, just quickly,
9 I think the times have
changed. I think the time's
10 right. The data facilitation participants, many of them
11 have been involved with districts
on all sides of
12 litigation with the state. Certainly litigants have
13 changed sides over the last four
or five, eight years.
14 I would hope that somehow a
process could be developed
15 where a memorandum of
understanding could be developed
16 coming out of that.
17 There may be pending legislation to get things
18 corrected. But there's some positive action taken by
19 the districts throughout the
state, working with the
20 state department and working with
many branches of
21 government that need to be there,
the governor's office,
22 whoever. Those are the big players in it. We get
23 together, and we sit down and just
see. We've had many
24 starts and stops. But I don't think we should quit
25 trying.
111
1 SENATOR DEVIN:
Mr. Atkins.
2 MR. ATKINS:
Madam Chairman, having made
3 my negative comment, I'll make a
positive. I think the
4 time is right. I agree with Jeff. Having spent two
5 years chasing committees around,
looking into finance, I
6 know even our attorneys don't want
to do this anymore.
7 They're sick of it. The Supreme Court is sick of it.
8 The legislature is sick of it.
I as a board member am
9 sick of it. And I'd like to sit down and solve it.
10 SENATOR DEVIN:
Any further discussion?
11 The question before us is that we
have drafting
12 instructions developed to try to
form a facilitated
13 group to come to some resolution
on the bigger picture.
14 All those in favor, aye.
15 (Members present voted aye.)
16 SENATOR
DEVIN: Those opposed, no.
17 (No response.)
18 SENATOR DEVIN:
That motion carries. Any
19 other issues from the data
facilitation group on -- or
20 from this forum that we have not
discussed or addressed?
21 MR. GROSS:
Madam Chair, not that I know
22 of. Maybe if any of the other participants have
23 comments. I think you've been very thorough.
24 SENATOR SCOTT:
Madam Chairman, one thing
25 that was not really in the report,
and it was really
112
1 more of an offhand comment by one
of the superintendents
2 at the meeting but something this
committee ought to be
3 very aware of. We're talking about the degree to which
4 the data demands and some of the
other demands of
5 various things we're doing were impinging on the
6 classroom and starting to take
resources away from the
7 classroom.
8 And the remark was made that in that
9 particular district -- I think it
was one of the
10 medium-sized ones -- that the
average teacher was 20
11 days a year out of the classroom,
with a substitute, and
12 almost none of that was
illness. It was all the various
13 state and other requirements, with
data really only
14 being a relatively minor part of
that.
15 And, Madam Chairman, if that's true across the
16 sweep of the districts, we really
need to start thinking
17 about what's going on and what
requirements we need to
18 trim out. Because in the nature of things, a
substitute
19 cannot be as effective as the
regular classroom teacher
20 who knows the students, knows the
subject matter.
21 And if we're doing things or the accreditation
22 process is doing things that are
causing that kind of a
23 removal of the regular classroom
teacher from the
24 classroom, we're starting to do
considerable harm to the
25 education of our students.
113
1 And I don't know quite where to take that.
2 But I think it's something this
committee needs to be
3 aware of. We need to start asking in our own
districts,
4 is this sort of thing going on,
and what can we do about
5 it? Because it sounds to me like all the various
6 requirements we put on things are
maybe starting to
7 cause some real trouble.
8 And I don't know whether that's an isolated
9 case or whether it's a broad
thing. I suspect it may be
10 more of a problem in the small to
medium-sized district
11 than in the large ones, simply
because in the large
12 district, we've got more teachers
available to sit on
13 all the various committees. So the burden on each one
14 might not be as great. But it's something I think the
15 committee needs to take very
seriously. Because if
16 that's where our reform efforts
are getting us, we're
17 starting to do some harm.
18 SENATOR
DEVIN: And I guess I would be
19 interested, linked with that, if
the development of some
20 sort of efficient user-friendly
data system for those
21 teachers would cut this piece down
somewhat, and it
22 would help.
23 SENATOR SCOTT:
I think it would help.
24 But I think the
"somewhat" is important there, too.
25 Because I think the data
requirements were part of that,
114
1 but only a part of it. And there are some requirements
2 that are being policed by the
accreditation system that
3 are causing quite a burden, too.
4 SENATOR DEVIN:
Then if -- and that would
5 be good to visit with your
districts about that and see
6 if you can get as specific answers
as possible.
7 If that covers the work of this group, then I
8 think I can only echo the thanks
that's been expressed
9 for the tremendous strides that
were made. And Dave
10 does have a copy of the contract,
I believe, that we are
11 looking at.
12 MR. NELSON:
I'll pass that out, Madam
13 Chairman. One additional statement. Larry Biggio from
14 the state department is prepared
to go ahead with his
15 report on implementation if you
want to do that before
16 you adjourn. Or would you -- he can do either.
17 SENATOR DEVIN:
That would be the first
18 item tomorrow, which might shorten
tomorrow up a little
19 bit.
20 MR. NELSON:
Right.
21 SENATOR DEVIN:
What I'm going to ask is,
22 Dave is going to hand out that
contract. If you'll
23 review it tonight, in terms of
what's been asked for in
24 the compensation study -- it's
much like the contract
25 with Mr. Gross. We read through -- Dr. Gross, I think
115
1 it is. Right?
2 MR. GROSS:
No. I'm an attorney, not a
3 doctor. My apologies.
4 SENATOR DEVIN:
I think all of these
5 individuals were Ph.D.
economists. I've got different
6 resumes going through my mind.
And then consultation
7 groups -- or consulting groups
have various
8 qualifications.
9 But look at these tonight. We proceeded in
10 selecting the data facilitator
because we wanted to get
11 that group under way. We proceeded to try to go through
12 the resumes of the recommendations
that we had on the
13 compensation study to try to get
that piece under way.
14 And significantly changing these
requirements is
15 certainly your prerogative. It might mean that we go
16 back to the drawing board, and
this gets delayed
17 somewhat, because it has to be put
out again. That's
18 just a reality.
19 But it shouldn't -- if you've got a burning
20 issue of something that's greatly
wrong, then that
21 certainly should still be your
option and your
22 prerogative. Because I don't think anything has been
23 signed at this point. Is that correct, Dave?
24 MR. NELSON:
No. We have not signed
25 anything. That's right. It's been sent to council, and
116
1 we've gotten some responses.
2 REPRESENTATIVE LOCKHART: The vote's out
3 on these candidates in this
contract.
4 SENATOR
DEVIN: It is, yes. Management
5 Council has -- this is the
contract that the candidates
6 have been offered. The candidates are aware that this
7 is what's being requested. This is what they have
8 agreed to do if they were contracted with. Management
9 Council has the postcards and has
been asked to vote.
10 Now, they would still have the prerogative, I
11 guess, to say, "Well, we're
going to hire them, anyway."
12 But if you have a burning issue
with something that is
13 not included here or that is
included, bring it back
14 tomorrow. But there is a time issue if we're going to
15 get it moving. And that is one reason we did not
16 consider at least one of the
parties, is, because they
17 wouldn't start on it until late
fall. And we didn't
18 feel that they could get the work
to us. It definitely
19 would be clear into another year.
20 Okay. I guess my
inclination would be to go
21 ahead and have Larry Biggio start
and work until 5:00
22 today, rather than make tomorrow
quite so long, if
23 that's agreeable to all of you.
24 SENATOR SCOTT:
Madam Chair?
25 SENATOR DEVIN:
Yes.
117
1 SENATOR
SCOTT: On this one, the key
2 item, obviously, is the scope of
work. And it appears
3 that there's an Attachment A that
is the tasks that are
4 described -- there it is. I'm sorry.
I didn't see it.
5 It's there. I'm sorry.
6 SENATOR DEVIN:
And I didn't bring
7 resumes of any of the individuals.
8 MR. GROSS:
Just one other point of
9 information. I will be available here tomorrow morning.
10 Be leaving from here to Denver and
on from there. So I
11 hope to be here until noon. So if I can help in any
12 other way --
13 SENATOR SESSIONS:
Madam Chairman, I
14 guess I'd just like to take a
chance and thank
15 Mr. Gross. In watching it the first time and observing
16 it the first time and being part
of it the second time,
17 I just think -- I'd just like to
thank him, because he
18 pulled it together. And he just kept us working until
19 we were able to come
together. And I think that's quite
20 unusual. And maybe it doesn't happen all the time, but
21 it did with this group. So I'd like to say thank you.
22 MR. GROSS:
Thank you. Appreciate it.
23 SENATOR DEVIN:
Yes, thank you to
24 everyone who contributed on
it. It was a good piece of
25 work. I hope we can make good use of it.
118
1 Larry, I will just ask you to come forward and
2 pull a chair up. And do we have pieces that we need
3 to -- we've --
4 MR. BIGGIO:
Madam Chairman, there's no
5 handouts.
6 SENATOR DEVIN:
So this is essentially
7 Item Number 2 on tomorrow's agenda
that we're going to
8 go ahead with?
9 MR. BIGGIO:
Yes. Madam Chairman, my
10 name is Larry Biggio, and I'm with
the Wyoming
11 Department of Education. Dave asked me to talk to you
12 about four items, funding model
implementation progress,
13 small school study, hold harmless
and a kindergarten
14 error payment.
15 First of all on model implementation, we began
16 working on this issue back at the first of the year. We
17 used a draft legislation that you
folks put forward and
18 began working then to assemble a
team to outline the
19 various tasks that were required
and how those tasks
20 would be handled, as well as the
appropriate parties to
21 be involved in that process, the
department, who in the
22 department, the districts, who in
the districts, the
23 Data Advisory Committee's role,
other roles that were
24 needed, contractor roles in this
process, as well.
25 That effort went well into May and culminated
119
1 with a training session for the
business managers in
2 Casper in May. In February MAP trained the department
3 staff and LSO on the model. And following that
4 training, we met with the
districts, the business
5 managers on the proposed
legislation, provided them an
6 overview of the new model, as well
as the legislation.
7 In March we met with the Wyoming Association
8 of School Business Officials at
their meeting in
9 Cheyenne, as well as the School
Data Finance Advisory
10 Committee. Topics included such things as updates to
11 the model at that point. And that included changes to
12 the original legislation and to
the model -- changes to
13 the federal quarterly grants
reporting, those are things
14 we do internally with the business
managers -- data
15 collection for the district
adjustments for school
16 administration and for central
administration staff,
17 data gathering for classified
staff adjustment, which is
18 a new piece of the model, as well,
and a number of
19 accounting manual changes for school
level accounting.
20 We discussed the roles of the department, the
21 Data Advisory Committee, the
districts and the
22 implementation of the new model
and agreed to those
23 roles among us all. We also agreed that the Data
24 Advisory Committee would be the
first point of contact
25 for the department with the
districts for implementing
120
1 the model and any suggested
changes to accounting
2 methods.
3 Following the close of your session, we
4 identified any final changes of
legislation that were
5 needed and began our efforts to
modify the tools that
6 were needed to continue to the
next point, which are the
7 tools that we used for reporting
with the districts and
8 for estimating funding and
entitlements and recaptured
9 payments for the districts.
10 All of our tools are electronic. We don't use
11 paper and pen. Everything we do is electronic. So we
12 ask them to report
electronically. We provide them with
13 the electronic tools to come back to us.
14 In April we met again with the Data Advisory
15 Committee to finalize the actions
that we had begun
16 earlier with them. We previewed the first tool that we
17 would use, which is the WDE 100,
for estimating
18 revenues, entitlements and
recaptured payments.
19 At that point the Data Advisory Committee
20 agreed they would be the
front-line testing group for
21 that WDE 100 as soon as it was
available from us to
22 them. We tried to change that form up a bit. In the
23 past, the WDE 100 has been kind of
a stand-alone tool
24 that we used to estimate those
revenues and entitlement
25 payments. But this time we changed it up, and we
121
1 incorporated it with the
model. So we made the model
2 and that tool one functioning
piece. So in a sense, it
3 works as a front end to the
model. So it's all tied
4 together to the model. And they can see the entire
5 process from start to finish as
the funding goes through
6 the model.
7 We also asked the districts to provide us with
8 updated information for the model,
for example, changes
9 that would need to be made for the
school or for the
10 admin salary adjustments and also unduplicated accounts
11 for the at-risk kids. And we then updated the model for
12 those revised numbers.
13 In May we finalized our work on that model in
14 the WDE 100 and other end-of-year
forms, tested those
15 forms with the districts and
finally put together our
16 training session and held our
training session for the
17 folks in Casper in the middle of
May. We also had a
18 number of other items on the
agenda that were training
19 but not necessarily related to the
modeling, accounting
20 items, accounting manual, those
sorts of things. We
21 also talked to them briefly about
"no child left behind"
22 and the financial implications
with that and the funding
23 levels of that, as well.
24 Since that time, we've been working with the
25 districts pretty closely. As problems are encountered,
122
1 we work on those. Some of those problems are ours, and
2 we fix them. Some are the districts, and we work
3 through those, as well.
So I think we're doing a good
4 job with the districts to try to
finalize those and fix
5 all those problems.
6 As of this date, we've only asked for one data
7 collection form to be backed, and
that's the one dealing
8 with ADM, average daily
membership, and that was due
9 June 15th. Again, we worked through all the problems
10 there, and we think we have some
pretty good data coming
11 in.
12 Last week MAP came in and trained us, the
13 Department of Audit and LSO on the
workings of the
14 model, gave us a manual on the
model itself. And we're
15 going to use that manual and that
training, then, to
16 expand to our training with the
districts. We're going
17 to go back in September and do a
much more detailed
18 training with the districts on the
model and how the WDE
19 100 fits together with that model.
20 A September date was chosen at the request of
21 the districts. Because they said their time schedule
22 was pretty tight this summer and
asked us to hold off
23 until September to do that
training. So we said
24 certainly we would do that.
25 Also, we're working with the districts on
123
1 gathering the data for the
classified salary adjustment.
2 And that's another new piece to
the model this year. In
3 May we sent out the request for
the data collection. We
4 started getting that back. Over the summer, we will get
5 all the data back, clean the data,
organize it. And
6 then by the end of the summer,
we'll provide that data
7 to MAP. And then MAP will use that data to come back to
8 you folks with recommendations on
the form and method of
9 implementation for the classified
salary adjustment.
10 We're also working with the Data Advisory
11 Committee this week, as Dave
mentioned. We met starting
12 yesterday afternoon and finished
up this morning. We
13 got a start in some of our
projects. We didn't finalize
14 it. And we've been working on two primary areas
15 involving the small schools. One is the small schools
16 data collection effort that
involves identifying data
17 and the levels which it should be
collected, school
18 data, versus building data, versus
district level data.
19 And that's become
a pretty knotty problem. As
20 we went through that process, we
also had some
21 preliminary reports from MAP which
outlined their
22 thoughts on how that data should
be organized and
23 collected. And some of that we agreed with, and some we
24 didn't. So we're going to ask MAP to come back and meet
25 with us again as a group probably
towards the end of
124
1 July to iron out those kind of
difficulties and tell us
2 what their reasoning was why some
of these things should
3 be collected at the level they
felt it should.
4 The districts felt some of that data should be
5 at the district, versus the school
level, and vice
6 versa. So we'll try to iron that out with MAP and get
7 through that in July and come back
to all the folks,
8 then, with some school level accounting information that
9 we think will work to solve the
question you posed,
10 which was providing data that MAP
could use to in some
11 way verify or check the small
school adjustment.
12 That will be a year-long effort. The
13 information that we put in place
will be collected
14 starting July 1st and won't be
available in its complete
15 form until June 30 or sometime next
summer. So this
16 will be a long-term project for
us.
17 The other part of small schools dealt with
18 definitions. If you remember in your original
19 legislation, you charged the
superintendent with
20 defining small schools for the
small school adjustment.
21 The superintendent, in turn, asked
the Data Advisory
22 Committee to provide her with some
options for
23 definitions. And as we got into that, we started
24 looking at those definitions and
quickly ran into some
25 scope questions and thought we'd
pose those to you, as
125
1 well.
2 As we looked at them, some of the folks said,
3 well, geez, if we changed that
small school adjustment a
4 little bit to look like this or
this or this, it might
5 work a little better. So our question to you is, is
6 that beyond our scope? I know the legislation charges
7 you with taking those definitions
and moving to the next
8 phase. But would you want us to deal with any
9 recommended changes of the small
school adjustment? If
10 not, we'll go back and deal
strictly as it is related to
11 the model only. So that would be a question we would
12 pose to you.
13 At this point the districts are working on
14 other entity reporting. The big piece will come in
15 what's called the general ledger
report, and they won't
16 really be able to start on that
until after they close
17 the year at the end of this month.
18 We are also finalizing all the payments of the
19 kindergarten area, and I'll talk
about that a little
20 more later. If things go as they have in the past,
21 there will certainly be problems
that come up. But as
22 has happened in the past, we've
always dealt with those
23 problems and been able to work
through those. So I'm
24 confident we'll be able to
continue that this year, as
25 well.
126
1 The hold harmless was another issue that Dave
2 asked me to discuss. As we started talking about how we
3 were calculating hold harmless for
the districts, a
4 number of questions came up. As we read the statutes,
5 we felt the hold harmless was more
geared towards a
6 dollar amount, as opposed to a
process, a dollar amount
7 in the foundation for the prior
school year.
8 The districts -- and I shouldn't say all. But
9 some districts, on the other hand,
felt that the hold
10 harmless should be a process, as
opposed to a dollar
11 amount. So as the questions grew and became more
12 contentious in that issue, we
asked the Attorney
13 General's Office for an opinion on
that subject. The
14 Attorney General's Office came
back and said, in fact,
15 they felt it should be held
harmless -- or the districts
16 should be held harmless to a
dollar amount, as opposed
17 to a process.
18 And we feel this is consistent with both the
19 LSO process that was originally
proposed to you when the
20 estimates were made in all of the
initial deliberations
21 during the session and all the
cost estimates that were
22 made during the session. So we think that is the
23 appropriate way to go. We will continue to move in that
24 direction and implement the
attorney general's opinion
25 in that regard.
127
1 The last item Dave asked me to talk about was
2 the kindergarten error
payment. Following the close of
3 last session, there were a number
of questions that came
4 up regarding the kindergarten
dollar payment. And those
5 revolved around local resources
and around cash
6 reserves. And if you remember the way the foundation
7 works, is that we first determined
the guarantee, which
8 is the total dollars available to
the district. And
9 from that we subtract local
revenues, which are dollars
10 that districts collect from
primarily the six and
11 twenty-five mil, car taxes, fines
and those sorts of
12 things.
13 The difference between that amount and the
14 foundation guarantee becomes an
entitlement payment. Or
15 if it's over, if the local resources
are in excess of
16 the guarantee, then that's the
recaptured payment. The
17 question is, how do we treat the
kindergarten error
18 dollars for local resources? And also for the cash
19 reserves question, you -- if you
remember in the
20 statutes, there is also a
limitation on how much cash a
21 district can hold without penalty.
22 So we asked the attorney general for an
23 opinion on both of those
issues. The attorney general
24 came back and said that local
revenues would not include
25 the kindergarten payment. So the kindergarten dollars
128
1 will not act to reduce any of the
revenues available to
2 the districts. And the attorney general also stated
3 that the dollars should not be
included in the cash
4 reserves. So those dollars will be excluded, or in a
5 sense, carved out of cash reserves
before we apply the
6 15 percent limit test.
7 We intend to process those kindergarten error
8 payments, which are going to be
just about $13 million,
9 through the state's accounting
system on June 27th. And
10 with that processing date, they
will hit the bank
11 accounts through the ACH process,
the Automated
12 Clearinghouse process, for the
districts on July 1st.
13 And that's consistent in keeping
with the court's order
14 that the districts have those
funds by July 1st.
15 So that's my report.
The only question I
16 would ask is on the small schools,
if you want us to
17 move ahead and provide you with
our thoughts on options
18 for the small school adjustment,
as well, or stick with
19 the way the process is in the
model and define small
20 schools on that basis.
21 SENATOR DEVIN:
Before we go to that, the
22 half K error, the AG's opinion was
that it was not to be
23 considered a local revenue?
24 MR. BIGGIO:
That's correct, Madam
25 Chairman.
129
1 SENATOR DEVIN:
And it is not to be
2 considered a part of cash
reserves?
3 MR. BIGGIO:
Correct again, Madam
4 Chairman.
5 SENATOR DEVIN:
So then we're back to the
6 small school definition
issue. The legislation
7 indicates that the state
superintendent's office is to
8 define small school. Is that correct? And then the
9 work is to proceed from that point
after that is done.
10 Your question is whether or not
you have the latitude to
11 change the model.
That's the word I wrote down.
But
12 did I hear that correctly?
13 MR. BIGGIO:
Actually, Madam Chairman,
14 would you like us to go beyond the
scope of just the
15 definitions and suggest to you
potential changes to the
16 small school judgment?
17 SENATOR DEVIN:
I guess off the top of my
18 head, the questions that come into
play are, are the
19 changes that you would be
considering something that you
20 could -- that are something that
you feel could be
21 justified on a cost base reason to
change them? And I'm
22 looking for not only -- I'm
looking for credibility
23 issues for this committee. And I'm looking for legal
24 issues. Because certainly we've got to consider cost
25 base.
130
1 Also, we do not
want to get this committee or
2 the schools or ourselves in the
position of appearing
3 that we've changed the model for
something other than
4 what makes good sense in terms of
its being cost base,
5 in other words, that you have a
reason for your
6 suggestion that is valid. It is not just a position of
7 putting more money into the system
that can't be
8 documented. And I assume it is. But I have that
9 caution because we worked hard to
be careful in that
10 area.
11 MR. BIGGIO:
Madam Chairman, for example,
12 as we discussed the small school
adjustment, there's
13 three pieces to it. One is the teacher piece, where the
14 small schools are given additional
staff, teaching staff
15 and other staff, to supplement the
existing staff that's
16 provided in the model.
17 The second piece
are some dollar amounts for
18 activities and for utilities that
are based on ADM. As
19 we looked at the definition of
school -- excuse me. As
20 we looked at schools now in the
model, it uses whatever
21 basis schools are accredited on
now. And you could have
22 a building, for example, that has
multiple schools in
23 that building. As we looked at that, we felt that
24 perhaps the small school adjustment
was appropriate for
25 teachers and other staff but may
not be appropriate for
131
1 utilities.
2 So we may come back to you and suggest that a
3 building should only get one
utility adjustment.
4 Whatever we do, I think it would
be based on some
5 reasonable logic that pertained to
cost and not just an
6 issue of trying to get more cash.
7 We would also run that by MAP and our
8 attorneys to have them look at it
before we came to you
9 with it to make sure they were
reasonable.
10 SENATOR DEVIN:
And then I guess some of
11 that sounds very sensible. Can we get -- can we still
12 get to some kind of an operative
working definition, and
13 are we still going to need to get
to some kind -- I
14 would envision we are going to
need to get to some kind
15 of an operative working
definition.
16 MR. BIGGIO:
Madam Chairman, absolutely.
17 And the reason I ask this is
because if you give us some
18 latitude to deal with potential
changes to the
19 adjustment, we may come back with
one version of the
20 definition. If you say no to those changes, we'll have
21 to come back with something that
conforms to the current
22 model.
23 SENATOR DEVIN:
Committee, discussion on
24 this matter?
25 SENATOR SESSIONS:
Madam Chairman, I
132
1 would like to move that we give
Mr. Biggio that latitude
2 to explore those options for the
reason -- if we all
3 remember when the MAP consultant
sat before our
4 committee last fall and said,
"Do you have any
5 suggestions? We've broken our pen on funding small
6 schools," and privately --
the same statement was made
7 privately, also.
8 But what I'm saying is that I've always
9 believed that the people who work
with our schools in
10 our state and know the nuances in
some of the districts
11 and things can do a far -- come
much closer to maybe
12 solving some of this than someone
from outside. And I
13 would like to give them the
freedom to do this,
14 to at least look at it.
15 SENATOR DEVIN:
I wrote down two pieces
16 here, a teacher piece,
activity-utility piece, and I
17 think --
18 MR. BIGGIO:
I'm sorry. The three pieces
19 are teachers, and there are
separate adjustments for
20 utilities and activities.
21 SENATOR DEVIN:
So that's a two and a
22 three?
23 MR. BIGGIO:
Yes.
24 SENATOR DEVIN:
Further discussion from
25 the committee? Senator Scott.
133
1 SENATOR SCOTT:
I think I agree with what
2 Senator Sessions just said. But I think we do need to
3 be clear that any changes that are
made are going to
4 have to -- I think they probably require separate
5 legislation. We can't go modify -- just because it
6 makes sense, we can't go modify
something that's said in
7 the statute. We have to change the statute.
8 MR. BIGGIO:
Madam Chairman, Senator, we
9 fully understand that. We are only making the
10 recommendations to you.
11 SENATOR DEVIN:
But I guess what I'm
12 hearing you say is, part of your
ability to reach a
13 definition may depend on whether
you can make a change
14 that's currently seen as an
unfairness, something that
15 is not fair for you to -- under
the present model, it
16 becomes unfair to one building if
you define it one way
17 and to another --
18 MR. BIGGIO:
Madam Chairman, would you
19 like us to take a shot at both
options, one way under
20 the current model and another under proposed changes?
21 Would that --
22 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: Madam Chairman, I
23 would ask, then, for her to modify
her amendment to say,
24 given the option to look at all
options.
25 SENATOR SESSIONS:
That would be fine.
134
1 SENATOR DEVIN:
Any further discussion?
2 (No response.)
3 SENATOR DEVIN:
Is there a second?
4 SENATOR SCOTT:
Second.
5 SENATOR DEVIN:
I guess that, in essence,
6 is a second.
7 REPRESENTATIVE LOCKHART: Madam Chair, I
8 thought there was one other
question there. And that
9 had to do with the hold harmless,
where there was hold
10 harmless on the old process.
11 SENATOR DEVIN:
Let's finish this piece
12 and then go back.
13 REPRESENTATIVE LOCKHART: I thought it
14 was relevant.
15 SENATOR DEVIN:
This is small schools --
16 this is going forward. Right?
This vote on the floor
17 is where we go from here?
18 MR. BIGGIO:
Absolutely, Madam Chairman.
19 SENATOR DEVIN:
But the hold harmless --
20 MR. BIGGIO:
Is currently effective July
21 1. Anything we come back to you with would be dependent
22 upon what you would do with future
legislation.
23 SENATOR DEVIN:
So if we voted on this
24 piece to ask you to look at both
ways, then we could
25 come back to hold harmless as a
separate subject?
135
1 MR.
BIGGIO: Absolutely, Madam Chairman.
2 We're just going to make relations
to you, and that's
3 all. Any changes you would want to make to small school
4 adjustment are going to have to
come through
5 legislation.
6 SENATOR DEVIN:
Does that --
7 REPRESENTATIVE LOCKHART: I'll sit on it
8 until later.
9 SENATOR DEVIN:
Then the question before
10 us is to ask them to look at a
simple definition, as was
11 the charge in the legislation, or
to give them the
12 latitude to also make
recommendations in changes in the
13 model where you might use -- as
the example was, you
14 continue to use a teacher piece,
but you might have the
15 utility piece only apply to a
building even if there was
16 more than one school.
17 All those in favor of that, aye.
18 (Members present voted aye.)
19 SENATOR DEVIN:
Opposed?
20 (No response.)
21 SENATOR DEVIN:
Let's come back to the
22 hold harmless question.
23 REPRESENTATIVE LOCKHART: Madam Chair,
24 the only reason I brought it up
is, it was clear in my
25 mind -- and maybe I was alone on
that -- that the hold
136
1 harmless was on a dollar
amount. And I thought it would
2 just answer a question. Because this is sort of the
3 process here. And for that interim time, it was, in my
4 mind, a dollar amount.
5 SENATOR DEVIN:
That is what was put
6 before -- is also what this
committee was shown and the
7 entire legislature.
8 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: We were looking
9 at the dollars only with the hold
harmless to give them
10 the opportunity to come back to
us, Madam Chairman, and
11 verify or prove to us why they
need the extra dollars.
12 REPRESENTATIVE
LOCKHART: Just one sort
13 of sidebar. Except for the average student attendance.
14 There was an adjustment there.
15 SENATOR DEVIN:
Right. All districts are
16 subject to that.
17 MR. BIGGIO:
Madam chairman, we do have
18 that adjustment in the new model,
as you said, for loss
19 of ADM.
20 REPRESENTATIVE McOMIE: That was my
21 question. That's what I was going to say.
22 SENATOR DEVIN:
Mr. Johnson.
23 MR. JOHNSON:
Madam Chairman, if I may,
24 very simply and quickly. From a school district's
25 perspective, when the hold
harmless came in, even on a
137
1 set dollar amount, never for a
minute did we ever
2 suspect that they would negate
other legislation that
3 says transportation and special
education would be
4 reimbursed at its current cost.
5 When you go to the dollar amount, if a school
6 district is losing revenue, they
could have spent a
7 quarter of a million dollars more
in special education
8 because of tuition of special
needs students that just
9 came in and would not be
reimbursed one penny under this
10 current hold harmless method. Although they've spent
11 the quarter million, they won't
get it reimbursed. They
12 have to spend the quarter million
for next year because
13 they still have that student in
that same facility, and
14 there is no money to pay for
it. That's the problem, if
15 you're still with me.
16 The hold harmless, even on the dollar amount,
17 should include the difference
between the previous
18 year's expenditures for
transportation and special
19 education and the current
year's. You should be
20 reimbursed those dollars because
those are ongoing, live
21 expenditures that the district has
laid out and will lay
22 out again. And you lose that money twice under this
23 current method.
24 And the state department is just applying the
25 law in the attorney general's
opinion. But it doesn't
138
1 work financially for school
districts.
2 SENATOR DEVIN:
You know, I've read
3 through that two or three
times. And I guess I need
4 somebody to just -- I can't see
that it's not getting
5 paid. But maybe I'm -- I may need to see it in a
6 different way. I've tried to read that a couple times.
7 MR. JOHNSON:
Real quickly, if I might.
8 Let's eliminate transportation,
and let's work with
9 special education. If a district lost enrollment from
10 the last year to the present year,
that would have
11 reduced their funding a quarter of
a million dollars.
12 Then that district would be held
harmless to the amount
13 of money they received last year,
less the quarter of a
14 million. That's what it says.
15
So if that district spent
a quarter of a
16 million dollars more in the last
year than they spent
17 the previous year, their
expenditures are up a quarter
18 of a million dollars. But under the hold harmless, the
19 two numbers would be exactly the
same, if you're
20 following me.
21 If you apply the hold harmless, they would --
22 there would be no gain in
funding. You would be exactly
23 where you were last year. So you're not reimbursed the
24 quarter of a million dollars more
that you had to spend.
25 Plus, you're going to spend the
quarter of a million
139
1 dollars again the next year that
you won't have to
2 spend. You're out a half a million dollars just like
3 that with no way of coming up with
the money.
4 SENATOR SCOTT:
Madam Chairman?
5 SENATOR DEVIN:
Senator Scott.
6 SENATOR SCOTT:
Let me see if I can
7 explain it and let staff and Mr.
Johnson tell me if I'm
8 wrong or not.
9 MR.
JOHNSON: You guys help me out here.
10 SENATOR SCOTT:
As I understand it, where
11 we get in trouble is, suppose you
have a district with
12 level enrollment, so we don't have
to deal with that
13 complication. And because of the various things in the
14 MAP formula in the Supreme Court
decision, the district
15 is going to lose a quarter of a
million dollars. But
16 we're holding it harmless. So they would not lose that
17 amount in this next year, even
though the formula would,
18 in absence of hold harmless, cut
you down.
19 That makes sense.
But suppose what happens
20 is, you get one of these very
expensive special ed
21 students, comes in new, and you
wind of spending, say,
22 $100,000 that you would not
otherwise have spent,
23 because you've got this new
special ed student. If that
24 happens in a district like mine
that's not affected by
25 the hold harmless, eventually,
because we reimburse full
140
1 cost for the delay for special
education, we get that
2 100,000 back.
3 MR. JOHNSON:
Correct.
4 SENATOR SCOTT:
The district that is
5 under the hold harmless does not,
because that 100,000
6 hasn't brought your expenditures
up above what the hold
7 harmless level was.
8 MR. JOHNSON:
Correct.
9 SENATOR SCOTT:
Does that make sense?
10 MR.
JOHNSON: You're right on. That's
11 exactly what it is.
12 REPRESENTATIVE McOMIE: Madam Chairman,
13 when I said I thought about a
dollar amount, what I was
14 talking about was what we were
going to take away from
15 them on the adjustment, not all
the other stuff in the
16 middle. In my mind, that was the dollars. We were
17 going to leave those there, not
subtract off what MAP
18 said we needed to take off for
small school adjustments.
19 That was what I thought we were
messing with, not these
20 types of things. I thought they would go ahead and flow
21 in there. We just eliminate it for two years, taking
22 that money away from it.
23 So I guess when I made the statement -- when I
24 was talking about dollars, I
misspoke.
25 SENATOR SESSIONS:
Madam Chairman, just a
141
1 question. You know, we have in the law that we pay 100
2 percent -- that the 100 percent
for transportation
3 reimbursement, that's still in the
law. Right?
4 MR. JOHNSON:
Yes, it is.
5 SENATOR SESSIONS:
Then does the hold
6 harmless override that? I always thought the special ed
7 and transportation was outside of
that.
8 MR. BIGGIO:
Madam Chairman, if I might.
9 If you look at the way the model
works -- and we have no
10 ax to grind in this process. We're simply going to try
11 to implement the law. But the model does provide for
12 100 percent reimbursement to
special ed and
13 transportation.
14 What happens on these small districts is,
15 they've gotten caught in small
school adjustment and the
16 regional cost-of-living
adjustment. And they've lost
17 dollars with those two
pieces. So now their total
18 dollars are down, not because they
didn't get the 100
19 percent reimbursements on special
ed and trans, but
20 because of those other
adjustments.
21 And you came back and said, now that the total
22 dollars are down, even with the
inclusion of special ed
23 and tran, we're going to bring
them back up to the level
24 of funding in the prior year
unless they lost kids. And
25 then we'll subtract out for loss
of kids.
142
1 But the
model does have it. And to say that
2 we're not reducing it isn't
technically correct,
3 although the bottom line is, they
don't get those extra
4 dollars. But the model provides for that, that they
5 lose it in other areas.
6 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: Madam Chairman,
7 again, it's where, in my
estimation, MAP just boggles
8 your mind. Nobody knows how to work with it or what to
9 do with it. And the more you look at it, the more
10 problems we have. When we did the hold harmless, we
11 thought it was better -- I thought
it was better to do
12 the hold harmless. It's my fault, guys. You can blame
13 me.
14 I thought it was better to hold you harmless
15 than to have Saratoga lose a
million dollars or Sundance
16 to lose a million dollars or
Newcastle 800,000 or Upton
17 400,000 and Buffalo -- I can't
even remember the number
18 up here. But it was about thirteen and a half million
19 dollars, if I remember
correctly. And I'm sure that's
20 not the exact figure.
21 My feeling
in that was that the small schools
22 in this whole mess were losing,
and it was a way to hold
23 you in position for a year or two
until you could
24 justify what you're doing. And I understand the
25 catch-22 you're in. But that was the only thing I could
143
1 think of, visiting with the
attorneys and everybody, to
2 at least not make you take the big
hit you would have
3 took in July of this year. So it's my fault. You can
4 blame me.
5 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: Madam Chairman,
6 may I ask a question? Larry, you mentioned earlier that
7 MAP had given you a handbook or a
manual. Is that
8 available?
9 MR. BIGGIO:
Yes, sir. Madam Chairman,
10 we can sure make that available to
all the folks. I
11 think LSO has copies of it.
12 MS. BYRNES:
It's on the website.
13 MR. BIGGIO:
The LSO website?
14 MS. BYRNES:
Uh-huh.
15 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: Is that a result
16 of our meeting, you think?
17 MR. BIGGIO:
Actually, Madam Chairman,
18 Representative, I think it's a
result of a contract that
19 we did with them.
20 REPRESENTATIVE
SIMONS: Madam Chairman.
21 Did you ever get a full-blown
spread sheet from last
22 year?
23 MR. BIGGIO:
Madam Chairman, we do have a
24 model from MAP, yes.
25 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS: But we had a
144
1 model. But it wasn't the full-blown spread sheet.
2 SENATOR DEVIN:
You have that, and it's
3 on the website.
4 MR. BIGGIO:
Madam Chairman, it's on our
5 website. I know that.
6 MR. NELSON:
It's on LSO's.
7 REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS:
Is it the final
8 one, Larry?
9 MR. BIGGIO:
Madam Chairman, yes, it is.
10 But as I've said, we've taken that
model and added the
11 pieces that you've changed. For example, the hold
12 harmless piece has changed. The at-risk kids and the
13 duplicated count has changed. We've updated the numbers
14 for the salary adjustments for
school and other admin
15 folks. So there's lots of things in there that we've
16 changed as a result of legislation
that you put in
17 place.
18 So what we do to determine actual funding for
19 districts in the model aren't going
to be the same.
20 Because we've had to modify it per
the changes that you
21 made.
22 SENATOR DEVIN:
But the spread sheet is
23 out there with the new
legislation, the original model
24 and the modification?
25 MS. BYRNES:
Madam Chairman, the spread
145
1 sheet from MAP is on the LSO
website with any
2 corrections. The model
on the LSO website does not
3 contain the hold harmless
features. That, I believe,
4 you'll find in the WDE 100
model. That's the
5 application form. And it's a little bit different
6 application than we have seen in the past.
7 MR. BIGGIO:
And, Madam Chairman, that is
8 also available -- if you want it,
it's on our website.
9 It's a WDE 100 form.
10 SENATOR
SCOTT: Madam Chairman, off the
11 subject of the hold harmless,
there's an obvious
12 interplay between the data effort
we were just talking
13 about a little while ago and the
ongoing efforts that
14 you have to do to implement the model for this coming
15 year. I would hope that the data facilitation group
16 that we just voted to support
would be able to build on
17 what's being done and build on the
experience that we'll
18 get with the reporting that Mr.
Biggio is just talking
19 to us about. There's going to have to be an interplay
20 and a building on there.
21 I would also hope that in the implementation
22 phase, that the State Department
of Education would pay
23 particular attention to the
recommendations in this data
24 facilitation report on page 11,
the three at the bottom
25 there. One has to do with formal documentation on the
146
1 operation and spread sheet. That was something that did
2 come up in that group. And it's just, I think, key so
3 that we don't suddenly sometime
get caught out with not
4 understanding how our model
works. And I don't know the
5 extent to which there is formal
documentation now. But
6 I think it is not up to the
standards we really need
7 long term.
8 Multiple users manuals for the various
9 stakeholders, trying to get people
to understand,
10 clearly you've done some of
that. But we need to have
11 attention paid to, do we have the
appropriate manual so
12 that the various people can
understand the basics of how
13 the model works and a manageable
way to work with -- use
14 the spread sheets? Really I think the business managers
15 can say, what is the effect of
these things that may
16 happen to us, so they can predict
and develop their
17 budgets.
18 And I would just call the attention to the
19 state department to those three
recommendations. I
20 think they're very important to
the work you're doing to
21 implement.
22 MR. BIGGIO:
Madam Chairman and Senator,
23 we will follow that.
24 SENATOR DEVIN:
And as I understand,
25 Mary, on some of that, like the
documentation for the
147
1 operation of the spread sheet and
the department,
2 there's been steady progress made
on that?
3 MS. BYRNES:
Madam Chairman, the training
4 manual that MAP has delivered to
the state department, I
5 think, is a pretty comprehensive report. And it takes
6 you through line by line and work
sheet by work sheet
7 and how they're all linked. I suspect that they could
8 be developed over time as the
model moves along, as it's
9 updated annually.
10 MR. BIGGIO:
And, Madam Chairman, as we
11 move through this process, we will
be tailoring most of
12 our documentation to the business
managers and to the
13 specific forms, for example, WDE
100, they will be using
14 to make those estimates. So our training will be geared
15 towards that.
16 SENATOR DEVIN:
So you have sought an
17 AG's opinion on the half K error issue which allowed the
18 district's not to -- for it not to
be counted as local
19 revenue, which is what we thought
when we left the
20 session?
21 MR. BIGGIO:
Yes, ma'am.
22 SENATOR DEVIN:
And couldn't change in
23 the budget conference?
24 MR. BIGGIO:
That's correct.
25 SENATOR DEVIN:
And it's not counted as a
148
1 cash reserve. And then you sought their opinion on hold
2 harmless?
3 MR. BIGGIO:
That's correct.
4 SENATOR DEVIN:
And you're seeking this
5 committee's direction on small
schools?
6 MR. BIGGIO:
Yes, ma'am.
7 SENATOR DEVIN:
So that's kind of where
8 you're at on those pieces.
9 SENATOR SCOTT:
Madam Chairman,
10 clarification. My understanding, when we left the
11 session, was that the half K error
payments would be
12 counted as local resources. So the AG has reversed what
13 we thought was the position at the
time of the session.
14 SENATOR DEVIN:
That's the way I
15 understand it.
16 MR. BIGGIO:
And you're correct. The
17 AG did indicate that it would not
be a local resource,
18 and it would not be counted
towards cash balance.
19 SENATOR DEVIN:
Because we discussed that
20 in the Budget Conference Committee,
and it was beyond
21 the scope of the Budget Conference
Committee to address
22 something that wasn't on the table
unless we went to a
23 free and open committee.
24 SENATOR SCOTT:
Madam Chairman, I think
25 that one of the things this
committee needs to consider
149
1 long term -- because we're going
to have a series of
2 this kind of error -- something this complicated and the
3 number of them we've had, I think
we need to develop a
4 general policy on, how do we deal
with these things?
5 And what I'm going to suggest is, the first
6 thing we ought to do is offset the
positive areas with
7 the negative ones, because our
experience has been that
8 the errors run both ways. We overpay the district
9 sometimes. We underpay them sometimes. And the first
10 thing we need to do is offset the
one against the other.
11 And then you can say, well, maybe once you've
12 done that, you shouldn't try to
recapture from the
13 districts if there's an error that
would tend to force
14 you to do that, because you
disrupted the ongoing
15 education ahead.
16 But these are policy questions we'll have to
17 deal with developing
legislation. But I would say to
18 the committee that that's
something we ought to do.
19 There ought to be a joint bill
this next time.
20 SENATOR DEVIN:
And I'm not sure how you
21 do that. Because we had several of those last year.
22 And I don't have the list with me
any longer. But we
23 pay -- we pay teacher seniority
and the teacher
24 seniority component, and then we
pay teacher seniority
25 again for special education teachers. And that was
150
1 about seven and a half million
dollars, roughly, as I
2 recall. So we double-paid teacher seniority for quite a
3 while. But yet to go back and recapture that when
4 districts are now losing money and
-- on any kind of a
5 recomputation, that's tough,
too. That's a hardship.
6 SENATOR
SCOTT: Madam Chairman, I think
7 we don't want to go back and
recapture that kind of
8 money from the districts. But I think when we get the
9 errors the other way, we probably
need to offset those
10 against the errors that benefited
the district. And
11 we're going to have errors both
ways. And I think we
12 need a piece of legislation that
says, this is how we'll
13 handle it.
14 Because having
seen one AG's opinion that was
15 a surprise, I could very well see
them coming back and
16 saying, okay, you ought to capture
those double payments
17 from the districts. And just as protection against the
18 attorney general's opinions, if
nothing else, I think we
19 need to have a piece of
legislation.
20 SENATOR DEVIN:
That ought to be a clever
21 piece to draft.
22 SENATOR
SESSIONS: I have a question for
23 Mr. Biggio. At one point in the discussion over teacher
24 seniority, I remember the
individual told me that they
25 had taken the 20-year limit out of
the teacher seniority
151
1 issue, the 20-year limit of being
paid. If you have a
2 teacher that's taught 30 years,
they're only getting the
3 money for the 20-year
teacher. But in reading this
4 stuff, it still is at 20
years. Is that correct?
5 MR. BIGGIO:
Madam Chairman, Senator,
6 yes, it's still in place.
7 SENATOR SCOTT:
Madam Chairman?
8 SENATOR DEVIN:
Senator Scott.
9 SENATOR SCOTT:
Of the things that did
10 come up in the data facilitation
group was, as you go
11 through and try to interpret the
model to get down to
12 specific payments, you wind up
with things where the law
13 is ambiguous and not clear. And the State Department of
14 Education has to make policy
decisions. And we need
15 some kind of a mechanism to
surface those and bring them
16 back to the legislature, like,
"What did you really mean
17 by?"
18 MR. BIGGIO:
And you know, Madam
19 Chairman, we sometimes get
consumed by these small
20 items. But the bulk of the dollars in the model are for
21 teacher salaries and for other
staff salaries, and 75 to
22 85 percent of the budget for the
district, general fund
23 budget, anyway, is going to be for
salary. And we
24 really need to deal with that
one. But sometimes we get
25 so involved with all these other
smaller pieces, that we
152
1 lose sight of the larger piece.
2 SENATOR SESSIONS:
Madam Chairman, one
3 more question. When you asked for data from districts,
4 do you -- on your teacher seniority
adjustment, do they
5 just lop off seniority at 20
years, or do they send you
6 the number of years of actual
seniority in the
7 districts?
8 MR. BIGGIO:
Madam Chairman, I'd ask --
9 Steve if you could respond to that.
10 MR. KING:
Steve King. They send us the
11 real total experience. And we do the --
12 SENATOR SESSIONS:
You do the lopping
13 off?
14 MR. KING:
We do the five-year external
15 and 20-year total cap. And I supply it to Brenda Long,
16 who puts it into the 100, into the
model. We have the
17 real numbers, just in case you
change your mind.
18 SENATOR DEVIN:
Any other questions?
19 Unless you have anything else, we
can reconvene at 8:30
20 tomorrow morning.
21 (Hearing proceedings concluded 4:50 p.m.,
22 June 18, 2002.)
23
24
25
153
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3 I, RANDY A. HATLESTAD, a Registered Merit
4 Reporter, do hereby certify that I
reported by machine
5 shorthand the proceedings
contained herein and that the
6 foregoing 152 pages constitute a
full, true and correct
7 transcript.
8 Dated this 8th day of July, 2002.
9
10
11 -----------------------------------
RANDY
A. HATLESTAD
12 Registered Merit Reporter
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25