"Draft Only - Approval Pending"

Summary of Proceedings

Joint Meeting of the Management Council and the Joint Education Interim Committee

Gillette Clarion Plaza Canyon Room                                                                       October 9 & 10, 2003

2009 S Douglas Hwy.                                                                                                  Gillette, Wyoming

PRESENT:      MANAGEMENT COUNCIL:

Representative Fred Parady, Chairman;

Senators Irene Devin, Keith Goodenough, Rae Lynn Job, Grant Larson, Jayne Mockler and John Schiffer;

Representatives Pete Anderson, Tom Lockhart, Randall Luthi, Wayne Reese and Ann Robinson.

EDUCATION COMMITTEE:

Senator Henry H.R. "Hank" Coe and Representative Jeff Wasserburger, Cochairmen;

Senators Jim Anderson, Larry Caller, Robert Peck and Kathryn Sessions;

Representatives Kurt Bucholz, Liz Gentile, Becket Hinckley, Tom Lockhart, Del McOmie, Ann Robinson and Mark Semlek.

Legislative Service Office: Dan Pauli, Dave Nelson and Mary Byrnes.

Others Present:  See attached Appendix A.

ABSENT:        Senator April Brimmer Kunz and Representative Jane Wostenberg.

AGENDA:       See attached Appendix B.

*  *  *  *  *

Thursday, October 9, 2003

At 8:40 a.m., Representative Fred Parady, Management Council Chairman, called to order the joint meeting of the Management Council and the Joint Education Interim Committee.

Student Assessment/Accountability Task Force.

2003 House Bill 0078 (2003 Laws, Chapter 208, Section 201) established the Student Assessment/Accountability Task Force to review the statewide assessment system and to develop necessary accountability systems in response to the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.  The 2003 legislation requires the Task Force to report recommendations to the Joint Education Interim Committee.

Arthur Coleman, Nixon Peabody LLC, consultant to the Task Force, identified Task Force members appointed pursuant to law.  State Superintendent of Public Instruction Trent Blankenship, Annette Bohling and Jason Nicholas of the State Department of Education and Rebecca Kopriva, University of Maryland and also a consultant to the Task Force, joined Mr. Coleman in the presentation.  A copy of the presentation talking points is attached at Appendix C.  A copy of the October 2003 Task Force Report is also attached at Appendix D.

Task Force activities to date have involved six meetings occurring over a four month period to review resource information, receive briefings on testing and accountability systems and on legal, educational policy and test measurement principles, and to receive input from stakeholder groups and the general public.  Federal funds at stake with respect to NCLB implementation totaled $24 billion nationally in FY03, of which $70 million was targeted to Wyoming.  NCLB is broad in scope and shifts control to the federal government in terms of more involvement with state assessment and accountability.  However, it does appear there may be room to work with the federal government in the context of implementing NCLB requirements in Wyoming.

With respect to student assessment, states must establish challenging standards and assessments aligned with standards in reading/language arts and math as foundations for accountability decisions.  In addition, states, districts and schools must assess 95% of students annually in grades 3 through 8 and once in grades 10 through 12, including NAEP (national comparator assessment) in grades 4 and 8 every other year.

On the accountability side of NCLB, states must establish a single statewide accountability system that includes annual AYP determinations for all schools and districts.  States, districts and schools must demonstrate AYP in raising achievement for students overall and for each subgroup, disaggregated by race, national origin, poverty, English language proficiency and disability status.  AYP is demonstrated by meeting the 95% participation requirement, by meeting proficiency goals on assessments and by meeting other goals developed for academic indicators.  In addition, states, districts and schools are required to collect, report and use assessment and other data to achieve AYP, including publicly reported data comparing school and district student performance to statewide student performance and annual report cards with disaggregated data reporting student achievement.  States must establish a system of rewards and sanctions for all schools, subjecting those Title I schools failing to meet AYP for two consecutive years to required school improvements and escalating consequences for failure.  Schools are removed from school improvement status after meeting AYP for two consecutive years.  Under federal law, all states, districts and schools are required to achieve 100% proficiency by SY13-14, an expectation that has real impact on states and schools to meet AYP and an expectation which permeates all levels; i.e., state, districts, schools, students and subgroups of students.

A key component of Task Force recommendations for the statewide assessment system includes the use of multiple assessments that, when taken together, provide reliable measures of school, district and state performance with regard to individual student achievement.  The Task Force recommends the existing summative, end-of-the-year assessment (WyCAS) be modified by expanding grade coverage, aligning the assessment to the new state content and performance standards and by reducing the length of the assessment through the elimination of norm-referenced testing and the reduction of the amount of the assessment devoted to assessing writing.  The Task Force recommends the use of embedded assessments to compliment the summative assessment.  Embedded assessments would include one or more assessments administered during the school year to serve multiple purposes, which would be designed to augment local district assessment practices and would allow different structures and timing in different subject areas and in different grade levels.

The Task Force recommends the statewide accountability system be established as a blended system that includes both AYP determinations and additional state criteria that reflect student performance.  The system should include consequences and rewards for every school and district based on their performance on AYP and other state accountability criteria.  The statewide system should focus on continuous improvement in raising student achievement at all Wyoming schools and on appropriate educational interventions that can promote such improvement, rather than on punitive sanctions.  Adopted consequences should afford discretion to local districts in determining appropriate consequences, with more intense interventions and more rigidly defined requirements tied to repeated low performance over consecutive years.  Similar, escalating consequences should be promoted by the accountability system for similarly situated schools, including Title I and non-Title I schools to the extent appropriate.  A summary of Task Force recommendations on consequences by option, by year was provided and discussed, a copy of which is attached at Appendix E.

Annette Bohling presented Council and Committee members with a packet of information including the state accountability plan which received federal approval, AYP computational information and 2003 state AYP results, together with NCLB teacher quality items.  A copy of this information is attached at Appendix F.

The statewide assessment system recommendations of the Task Force must become effective during SY05-06.  Prior to that time, immediate work is necessary to address assessment design and implementation issues including the form and substance of assessments, the coverage of statewide standards and the cost and feasibility of assessment determinations.  In the longer term, additional work is necessary to address assessment system development issues including such matters as the determination of proficiency and the establishment of assessment "cut scores," as well as to evaluate the relative costs associated with task force recommendations including the costs of recommended accountability system consequences.  The Task Force will present refined recommendations on these and other matters to the Education Committee prior to commencement of the 2004 legislative session.

State Superintendent Trent Blankenship.

State Superintendent Blankenship addressed the Council and Committee on the organization of the State Department of Education and the goals behind the organizational effort, including service delivery and accountability.  Deputy State Superintendents Annette Bohling, Educational Quality and Accountability Division, and Quinn Carroll, Administration and Operations Division, joined Superintendent Blankenship in this effort.  An organizational chart was distributed, a copy of which is attached under Appendix G.

The Riverton special education office is an attempt to centrally locate field personnel enabling service delivery throughout the state, which effort will be coordinated with the Cheyenne office.  A number of special education personnel will continue to be located in Cheyenne.  The Department is in the process of converting contract personnel into full-time permanent positions, with one position to be requested over existing staffing levels.  Six vacant positions currently exist within the Department.  Departmental assessment functions will likely continue to be provided in large part through contract.

STATEWIDE EDUCATION DATA SYSTEMS.  The 2002 Legislature established a Data Facilitation Group comprised of educators, legislators and business representatives to discuss issues associated with school finance.  The facilitation effort resulted in a recommendation for the development of statewide systems for processing and reporting the enormous amount of educational data at the federal, state and district level.  Based upon these recommendations, 2003 legislation (2003 Laws, Chapter 131, Section 327) required the State Superintendent to establish a student performance data system to meet functionality requirements specified by the Standards and Body of Evidence Tracking Advisory Group (SBET).  A second component of the 2003 legislation established the Statewide Education Data System Design Team to assist the State Superintendent with the investigation, development and implementation of a statewide education data system enabling the consistent and automatic sharing and accessing of educational data among the state and school districts.

Steven King, Director of Data and Technology, reported the statewide education data system was initiated prior to commencing the SBET system effort in order to provide sufficient system design information to assist in the development of the SBET component.  Based upon an analysis of district systems, a study of infrastructure necessary to support a statewide system including training requirements, and a thorough review of system feasibility, the Design Team is assembling recommendations for consideration by the legislature to implement the statewide education data system during SY04-05.

The SBET advisory group is compiling an RFP for development of the student performance tracking system, anticipated to be completed by the end of October 2003.  Thereafter, responses will be assembled in early December, which will result in a report to the Education Committee at its December meeting.  A copy of the update report is attached at Appendix H.

EDUCATION INFORMATION ADVISORY GROUPS.  Also resulting from 2002 data facilitation efforts, 2003 legislation (2003 Laws, Chapter 208, Section 702) requires the State Superintendent to appoint necessary advisory groups to assist the Department of Education in establishing procedures governing education information reporting and collection, specifically including the data areas of student data/demographics, certified and classified personnel and technology.

Mr. King advised the Council and Committee advisory groups have been appointed and are scheduled to meet in early November.  A copy of selected membership is attached at Appendix I.  Mr. King indicated an update of advisory group activities would be provided to the Education Committee following initial meetings.

Small School Study.

2003 House Bill 0078 (2003 Laws, Chapter 208, Section 501) requires a reevaluation of the small school adjustment to the cost-based school finance model.  As directed by 2002 legislation (2002 Laws, Chapter 76, Section 10), the State Superintendent in consultation with the School Data Advisory Group (comprised of district business managers), developed an instrument to collect necessary school level data.  The instrument was completed in sufficient time for use in the collection of school year 2002-2003 data.  To add to this effort, the 2003 legislation provided for a Small School Study Advisory Group to assist MAP in reviewing collected school level data and data gathered from on-sit visitations and in reevaluating the small school adjustment.  The small school study is to be conducted in consultation with a study of the regional cost adjustment, and findings and recommendations from both studies are to be implemented during school year 2004-2005, coinciding with the expiration of the hold harmless provision.

MAP and the Advisory Group developed a list of small schools to be included within on-site visitations and the development of a visitation questionnaire.  On-site visitations were conducted during the weeks beginning April 28 through May 23 while schools were in operation during the 2002-2003 school year.  A total of 79 schools were visited at 66 sites in 13 districts, comprised of 36 elementary schools, 15 middle schools, 19 high schools and 3 alternative schools.  MAP reported findings of site visits to the Advisory Group in June, which generally found small school facilities to be well maintained and in good physical shape, with plentiful supplies and equipment and characterized by smaller classes in smaller districts.  Questionnaire responses depict a declining or stable enrollment picture, with a small number of teachers not fully certified, little evidence of excessive teacher turnover but a large number of shared personnel.  Areas of concern with teacher availability included secondary math, science, art, music and special education.  Virtually all schools visited were delivering the required basket of educational goods.

Small schools, due to their smallness, lack curriculum flexibility at the secondary level.  Unique challenges faced by small schools appear to be excessive travel time for some students, federal NCLB requirements, lack of professional development opportunities, lack of amenities within communities and problems associated with shared personnel.  Policy stability at the state level is also of concern, specifically with regard to assessment, accountability and finance.

Jim Smith and Jerry Hayward, MAP, acknowledged Advisory Group members in attendance and the work of the group in the study effort, and provided Council and Committee members with a preliminary analysis on small school data and the development of small school prototypes.  This study effort represents the third attempt to address small schools.  Funding formula changes in accordance with the 2001 Supreme Court decision have had a negative impact upon small schools through a decrease in school year 2002-2003 funding from previous levels, attributable to both formula changes and reimbursement policy.

School enrollment, district enrollment, remoteness, school at-risk populations and colocation, as appearing in data generated from school level data collections and site visitations, were analyzed by MAP as to their affect on costs associated with personnel allocation.  Prototype development was based upon regression analysis as a means to control the effects of these factors on costs.  Preliminarily, three elementary, two middle and three high school prototypes are being assembled for small schools.  The prototypes will provide greater transparency compared to the current funding formula.  Components of the prototypes were presented and are contained in the powerpoint document attached at Appendix J.

The Advisory Group is scheduled to meet at the end of October at which time the prototypes will be refined.  In addition, discussion will be devoted to treatment of very small high schools and to funding alternative schools separate from small schools.  Non-personnel costs will also be reviewed as unique challenges presented by the non-personnel data may be somewhat alleviated by refined data.  However, utility costs may require further study.  It is anticipated recommendations will be presented to the Education Committee at its November meeting, but in no event later than the December meeting.

School Facility Commission.

Jim "Bubba" Shivler, School Facility Commission Director, provided Council and Committee members a report of school district five-year facility planning efforts and the Commission's review and scheduling of school facility needs to be presented to the legislature.  The Commission has been working to establish statewide adequacy standards and facility design guidelines, which guide the five-year planning effort.  A preliminary summary of district five-year school facility needs including capital construction and major maintenance, was provided and is attached at Appendix K.

Based upon information within the five-year plans, districts have submitted roughly $822 million in facility needs over five years.  Following review of the plans and mindful of the fact that the planning process is a continual process, updated annually, the Commission's five-year recommendation is approximately $725 million, a decrease of roughly $97 million.  Of this amount, $139.6 million represents major maintenance needs.  A summary of this information is attached at Appendix L.  The Commission is finalizing the five-year planning process to enable budget preparation for the upcoming legislative session.

On the matter of the small school adjustment, Mr. Shivler emphasized financial incentives inherent in the small school adjustment are not in line with policy set by the legislature with respect to the school capital construction system.  Districts are provided incentives through the small school adjustment to operate and maintain a large number of small schools.  This presents problems when attempting to develop planning strategies under the facility design guidelines established by the Commission.  Mr. Shivler urged the legislature to review policy on collocated schools and other criteria for funding eligibility under the small school adjustment.

The issue of maintaining local district enhancements to school facilities, as measured through statewide adequacy standards and school facility design guidelines, is problematic.  The difficulty involves the ability to isolate and enforce enhancement maintenance.  The Select School Facilities Committee is scheduled to review this matter later this month, at which time the Commission will present options for addressing the problem.

Classified Personnel Adjustment.

In its 2001 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that salaries for school district classified personnel as contained within the model prototypes need to be adjusted for experience and longevity, similar to the seniority adjustment for school teacher salaries.  In subsequent model reconfiguration efforts responding to the 2001 Court decision, an adjustment for classified salaries was included within the model but was not activated due to insufficient data.  A preliminary report was submitted by MAP to the Education Committee in December 2002, but more precise data was required to refine the model component.  The December report was subsequently updated using school year 2002-2003 data, a copy of which is attached at Appendix M.

Based upon regression analysis to determine the effect of experience on salaries, dollar amounts were established by MAP for classified personnel.  The experience and longevity costs for district clerks and secretarial personnel are $228.47, and are $230.82 for teacher aides.  Experience adjustments are made relative to the average level of statewide experience.  Similar adjustments are recommended for maintenance and operations personnel salaries, which will be reported to the Education Committee at its November meeting.  A copy of the powerpoint presentation made by Jim Smith is attached at Appendix N.

Cost-Based Adjustment for Reading Assessment & Intervention.

2001 legislation (2001 Laws, Chapter 189) required districts to design and implement reading assessment and intervention programs.  To assist with this effort, state assistance was provided at a flat dollar amount per kindergarten through grade two student, funded statewide at roughly $3 million.  The Education Committee studied the program during 2002 in an effort to establish a cost-based method of funding the program through the cost-based model.  A preliminary cost-based estimate was provided which resulted in the addition of a minimum district allocation of $45,000, increasing total statewide costs by $700,000 (2003 Laws, Chapter 208, Section 601).  Continued study of early-grade literacy programs and the development of a cost-based adjustment accompanied the legislative modification to the categorical funding program.  A copy of the MAP study on the cost-based analysis of the reading program is attached at Appendix O.

Block grant model prototypes are predicated upon early intervention through inclusion of low pupil-teacher ratios, professional development costs, student assessment costs and local flexibility to properly allocate resources.  Further, the model prototypes include at-risk funding based upon the number of disadvantaged students (reading programs are identified as a primary concern for at-risk and special education students).  Prototypical model funding is augmented by federal Title I funds, federal Reading First funds and by federal and state special education reimbursements.  A cost-based funding adjustment within the block grant model would allow for coordination with all other funding sources and would avoid perverse incentives.  The report funds $94 per kindergarten through grade five ADM, with a minimum of $45,463 per district.  It is estimated the adjustment would increase statewide funding to $4.6 million.  A copy of the powerpoint presentation by Jim Smith is attached at Appendix P.

Recess.

Chairman Parady announced the Education Committee would dispose of the classified personnel salary and reading studies and recessed the Council and Committee at 4:30 p.m.

Friday, October 10, 2003

Chairman Parady reconvened the joint meeting of the Management Council and the Joint Education Interim Committee at 8:30 a.m.

At-Risk Adjustment and Summer School.

AT-RISK ADJUSTMENT.  Following 2002 reconfiguration of the cost-based school funding model in response to the 2001 Court decision, an at-risk adjustment was modeled in lieu of preexisting adjustments for limited English speaking and economically disadvantaged youth.  The adjustment resulting from model reconfiguration based the at-risk funding adjustment upon the unduplicated count of limited English speaking and free and reduced lunch students.  The legislation required an analysis of the adjustment to determine if the proxies were inclusive, appropriate and accurate as an indicator for identifying and funding at-risk students (2002 Laws, Chapter 76, Section 15).  The resulting study completed in 2002 found that the use of the proxy was preferable to individual student identification, is an effective and efficient predictor of at-risk students and free and reduced lunch counts continue to be one of the most accurate and widely used predictors of at-risk students.  Although report findings established that the proxy fairly represented the number of at-risk students being served in the elementary grades, it also found the proxy under identified middle school at-risk students and appeared to not deal with alternative schools in an equitable manner.  As such, the 2002 report pointed to a strong correlation between mobility and WyCAS proficiency, particularly at the secondary level.  2003 legislation continued study efforts to refine the at-risk adjustment proxies (2003 Laws, Chapter 208, Section 401(a)).

2003 study recommendations refine 2002 findings for mobility as a modification to the current at-risk proxy by adding the net percentages of mobile-only students (modified by the extraction of free and reduced lunch participants from new student counts as ascertained from WyCAS data) to the unduplicated count used in the at-risk adjustment.  Ruth Sommers, consultant to the State Department and author of the report, cautioned the proposal is subject to analysis and modeling by MAP.  An additional $630,000 is estimated to be added to at-risk funding, half of which is directed to middle schools and the remainder primarily to alternative schools.  This funding level is anticipated to increase as more reliable data becomes available.

With respect to adequacy issues, the study found adequacy to be more an issue of equal treatment of students by districts than a matter of adequate funding.  Compensatory programs offered throughout districts require review at the state level to determine if intervention and remediation programs for students are effective, efficient and equitably delivered.  Finally, study recommendations suggest further legislative review of the effort and associated expense required to educate limited English speaking students to proficient levels and to ascertain if these students require separate and additional funding.  A copy of the report is attached at Appendix Q.

SUMMER SCHOOL SEMESTER.  2003 legislation extending refinement of the proxy triggering the at-risk adjustment also provided for a study to design a grant program which would be available to districts to fund the costs associated with summer school intervention and remediation programs for children at-risk (2003 Laws, Chapter 208, Section 401(b)).

To assist with this design effort, a Design Team comprised of educators, administrators and policymakers expert in educational issues was assembled.  The Design Team identified essential components of a successful summer program, drafted models for elementary and secondary school levels and formulated eligibility requirements for district participation in the grant program including small class sizes, minimum instructional hours, targeted professional development, individual student learning plans and on-site classroom monitoring.  To evaluate district programs, the Design Team recommends initiating pilot studies in selected districts to analyze the effects of summer school programs on student learning.  The funding proposal provides for $500 per student attending summer school programs, not to exceed 10% of the district's total elementary and secondary student enrollment.  The program is designed to operate outside the block grant model.  If all districts participate, the total cost is estimated at $4.4 million, including administrative and program evaluation costs incurred by the Department of Education.  A copy of the report is attached at Appendix R.

Mike O'Donnell, Attorney General's Office, indicated funding outside the model is also subject to judicial review and therefore must be done in an equitable manner.  Jerry Hayward, MAP, reported funding is contained within the model prototypes for summer school programs.  Both matters are to be clarified at a later date.  The at-risk and summer school reports will be further reviewed and discussed by the Education Committee

School Finance Constitutional Issues.

The Supreme Court in Washakie declared public education to be a fundamental right.  The Wyoming Constitution is fundamental law and the Court construes the Constitution.  Under the Constitution, the legislature is to provide for the public schools.  The legislature is also required by the Constitution to create and maintain a thorough and efficient system of public schools, adequate for the proper instruction of all children within the state.

The Court has interpreted education to be a fundamental right under the Constitution.  It has also imposed the strict scrutiny standard applicable to school finance litigation.  Under this standard, the state must establish that any interference with the right to an education is forced by some compelling state interest.  Any interference must also be the least onerous means of accomplishing an objective.  Strict scrutiny is usually imposed in an area where the legislature is not normally passing laws, such as free speech.  Mike O'Donnell suggests such a burden places the state in an almost indefensible situation, resulting in a very complicated and awkward approach to school finance.

Last session, legislation was proposed which changed the standard of review from strict scrutiny to rational relationship.  Under this standard, the Court examines if there is a rational relationship between a classification made by law and a legitimate state objective.  Mr. O'Donnell suggested this approach will likely not be successful in that legislative action would be presumed valid in most cases.  A compromise was suggested which imposes a standard of intermediate scrutiny.  Under this standard, a court must find the interest served by governmental action to be important and the means adopted to achieve the state's goals reasonable, not arbitrary, and it must have a fair relation to those goals.  A copy of the material accompanying Mr. O'Donnell's presentation is attached at Appendix S.  Draft legislation has been prepared to implement the proposed amendment, to be further considered and discussed by the Education Committee.

Adjournment.

Chairman Parady adjourned the joint meeting at 10:30 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________

Representative Randall Luthi, Council Secretary