Select School Finance Committee Minutes for May 26 & 27, 2005.

"Draft Only - Approval Pending"

M I N U T E S

Select School Finance Committee

Casper College May 26 and 27, 2005

217 Stausner Student Center Casper, Wyoming

PRESENT: Senator Hank Coe, CoChairman;

Representative Jeff Wasserburger, Cochairman;

Senators John Hines, Kit Jennings, Rae Lynn Job and Phil Nicholas;

Representatives Ross Diercks, Debbie Hammons, Owen Petersen and Lorraine Quarberg.

Other Legislators In Attendance: Senator Tex Boggs.

State's Counsel for School Finance Litigation: Michael O'Donnell and Tania Hytrek;

Legislative Service Office: Mary Byrnes, Dave Nelson and Matt Sackett.

Others: See attached Appendix A.

* * * * *

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Senator Hank Coe convened the Select School Finance Committee at 10:10 a.m. Roll call of member attendance followed. There was no specified agenda as the meeting was considered a working session.

Senator Jennings moved the approval of the minutes of the April 18-19, 2005, select committee meeting. Senator Nicholas seconded the motion and the motion passed.

Dr. Lawrence O. Picus and Dr. Allan Odden.

Dr. Picus started the discussion by explaining the purpose of this meeting was to work with the select committee on the recommendations of the working draft report and the reasoning and evidence behind those recommendations. Dr. Picus indicated that he hoped the select committee would give Dr. Picus and Dr. Odden direction with regard to a few items discussed in the report and bring up any questions, concerns or comments during this meeting. Specifically, Dr. Picus indicated select committee guidance is sought on recalibration of school prototypes. The working draft report from Picus and Associates can be found at Appendix B. Table 1, which shows the summary information for elementary, middle and high school prototypes, can be found at Appendix C.

Dr. Picus and Dr. Odden jointly discussed Professional Judgment Panel (PJP) meetings, at which the proposed prototypes will be presented to members of the panels for thoughtful discussion and recommendation. PJP meetings are scheduled for June 7^th through 9^th at three locations in the state; i.e., Douglas, Thermopolis and Rock Springs.

Senator Nicholas noted after reading the working draft report, it seemed there were a lot of additions and not many subtractions to the funding model. Senator Nicholas wondered how much the costs would be increased under the working draft proposal. Dr. Odden responded the study attempts to take a dispassionate look at the prototypes and bring into the model the fuzzy areas that are currently outside the model. It will be difficult to determine the actual increase or decrease in the total cost until some data is reported and collected next fall, and the assembly of the recalibrated model begins.

Dr. Picus discussed the reasoning behind the recommendations and the purpose of an evidence based approach. Dr. Picus hoped to revise the current working draft by Tuesday, May 31^st in sufficient time for transmittal to PJP participants, enabling discussion of the evidence based approach and resulting recommendations with PJP members. In addition, the process is designed to generate comments and recommendations on resources provided within the proposed prototypes and the sufficiency of resources to provide the educational program in Wyoming.

Dr. Odden compared resources generated by the current model prototypes and the recalibrated prototypes, which is depicted on Chart 1 of the working draft (Appendix B). Dr. Odden pointed out it was unclear how the previous prototypes triggered specialized teachers. The proposed prototypes are expanded to clearly show the break out of the number of positions generated under the existing model and the proposed model. By showing the number of core teachers, specialist teachers, instructional facilitators/coaches and at-risk teachers, the recalibrated model is more transparent.

Senator Job expressed school district concern with security costs, costs which are not included within the current model and districts have to deal with increased security measures. Senator Job inquired if security costs are to be included in the recalibrated model and how, in general, security costs are addressed. Dr. Odden responded that security costs are not in the current model, but could be considered.

The select committee discussion focused on proper funding of schools for the proper classroom size and if overstaffing exists both at the district and school level. Dr. Odden indicated that through the block grant approach, districts are provided local control of resources and are free to use the resources in any way they see fit. If districts feel that they need to use resources in a certain way, they will have fewer resources to use in other areas.

The select committee discussed school configuration and size and how different school class structures affect the choices that schools and school districts make. The school class structure that is used affects class size, as well as how many specialists are needed for instructional assistance. A block grant schedule will have different resource needs than a 7/6 period day schedule, which is different than a 6/5 period day.

CoChair Wasserburger requested clarification as to the funding model to be discussed at PJP meetings, the existing funding model or the proposed model. Dr. Odden replied both existing and proposed will be discussed to some extent. The existing funding model will be discussed in combination with the evidence that has been added since 2001, the date of last recalibration, and the recommendations as they are applied to the recalibrated model. The intent is to focus on the proposed recalibrated model.

CoChair Coe directed attention to an analysis of the existing school funding model undertaken by members of the Wyoming education community, or for purposes of this analysis, the "Breaking the Code Work Group." The analysis discusses different aspects of the current school funding model. Copies were previously provided to all members of the select committee and a copy is included as Appendix D.

Dr. Odden began discussion of school configuration. A copy of the power point presentation accompanying remarks of Dr. Picus and Dr. Odden can be found as Appendix E. Dr. Odden indicated the evidence supports full-day kindergarten programs. Research and evidence suggests that for young students, and especially at-risk students, educational development is increased significantly by full-day kindergarten. The recalibrated elementary prototypes include full-day kindergarten programs.

The recalibrated prototypes can be prorated down on a proportional basis. The school may be a three section, two section or a one section school depending on the number of students. This prorationing reduces the weight of the small school adjustment, delaying application until below the number of students at a one section school.

Dr. Picus and Dr. Odden recommend increasing the middle school prototype size from 300 to 315 students and the high school prototype from 600 to 630 students. This would still maintain the 21 students per classroom ratio and makes for an easier computation of the initial numbers. The prorating of the prototypes are also much easier and transparent. Instead of having a partial FTE with the original 300 and 600 for middle school and high school prototypes respectively, this makes it an even FTE amount. This also allows for prorating up or down based on ADM for a middle school. For a high school, Dr. Odden and Dr. Picus suggested an arrangement similar to the elementary prototype but provide another delineation at 315 students, or half the original prototype. The high school prototype resources would also be prorated up or down depending upon the ADM. The select committee generally approved this approach, but expressed interest in reaction and comments of PJP members on this topic.

Senator Nicholas moved to modify the report to more accurately describe the prorating and changes in the middle school and high school class size for PJP review. Senator Job seconded the motion. The motion carried.

In response to Representative Hammons, Dr. Picus indicated a spreadsheet on the number of schools in Wyoming would be available prior to adjournment.

Dr. Picus and Dr. Odden continued explanation of school configuration. Select committee discussion focused on the delivery of the basket of goods in small schools and small schools in isolated areas, which schools continue to require specialist teachers to deliver the full basket of goods. Specialists cannot easily be shared in small schools when compared to schools in more populated areas. Dr. Odden indicated that in isolated areas, schools often need to share teachers across school levels. In isolated school cases, an elementary school, middle school and high school will continue to operate and it would probably be necessary to share specialist teachers across grade levels.

Senator Nicholas indicated concern with the schedule issue and how different class schedule programs affect the operation of the funding model. The class schedule a school uses will affect how the resources are used and this could be important to the funding model. Another issue of concern was to ensure that the School Facilities Commission (SFC) is building schools to meet the needs of the basket of goods and the class schedule. Senator Nicholas moved to add a footnote describing what the SFC was doing, that the building adequacy standards support the different schedule configurations and to show that the SFC's standards are not tied to the funding models and are not driving the decisions being made. Senator Job seconded the motion and the motion passed.

Continuing, Senator Nicholas made a motion requesting the report discuss the issues associated with the different aspects of class schedules and include a recommendation on the most effective class schedule. Representative Wasserburger seconded the motion and the motion passed.

Dr. Odden discussed teacher workdays and stated report recommendations call for lengthening the teacher workday contract from 183 days to 188 days. These additional five days would be used for professional development.

The select committee discussed the instructional facilitator position included within proposals. In response, Dr. Odden pointed out that the position is an addition to the existing model, which provides extra resources and training for this position. Inquiry was made as to the salary and required background for this position, which appears to be a costly addition to the funding model. Dr. Odden indicated instructional facilitators are usually paid the same as a teacher and most are experienced teachers who have earned the respect of their peers. Dr. Picus added that often times instructional facilitators also teach part time, or tutor, or have other duties assigned within the school.

Dr. Odden provided an in depth discussion of at-risk students. He indicated a need for more tutoring, extended-day and summer school programs to assist the at-risk students in attaining proficient levels of education performance. For young students, often times one on one tutoring is the most beneficial, while older students can be taught in small groups for longer periods of time. Concern was expressed that the additional resources being proposed for at-risk students are not sufficient to provide the proposed programs and services. Dr. Odden stressed that the additional resources for at-risk students are additive to the other resources already in the system and that all resources available must be considered. Interest in PJP member comments to the proposed at-risk component was expressed, and a suggested made for further discussion of this issue at the next select committee meeting. In response to inquiry as to a better measure of at-risk students than the current economic indicators currently used, Dr. Odden suggested that there can be many pitfalls and perverse incentives if tied to things such as grades. Dr. Picus added that economic measures allow for planning the budget, as well as for consistency.

Dr. Odden stated the current funding level for substitutes and other classroom support staff were well funded, and would likely remain at this level subject to inflationary adjustment.

Concern was voiced with school security issues. Currently, a disparity exists with what schools do now with regard to school security and the resources needed to provide that security. There is also a disparity in the county resources available to schools because of different agreements with local and county law enforcement to provide services. Dr. Picus added that these needs may not be model based and may need to be treated more like transportation, which is reimbursed at 100 percent. It was generally agreed to further discuss this issue and to request that PJP meetings include discussion of this matter and to solicit thoughts on proper handling of security issues in schools.

Senator Nicholas moved that the report be expanded to include a section on security matters, with outside model funding a possible solution. Further, the motion requested the collection of data on existing district practices and expenditures. Representative Hammons seconded the motion and the motion passed.

Following discussion of pupil support staff contained within proposed prototypes, Senator Nicholas requested pupil support personnel be broken down within the matrix contained within the report by separate position.

Dr. Odden and Dr. Picus discussed the PJP meetings and what is anticipated from PJP members. PJP meetings will be comprised of six separate panel meetings held at three locations across the state to meet with people within the education system to receive their thoughts on the proposed recalibration and the resources necessary to provide the educational program. Dr. Picus and Dr. Odden indicated they wanted to discuss with PJP members the proposed recommendations and review with them the model and conceptual framework proposed within the working draft report. Dr. Picus and Dr. Odden hoped to discuss any questions or concerns from the people that deal with delivering education on an everyday basis.

Panel composition involves school leaders (superintendents, principals, curriculum directors, business managers) and teachers, all from a broad spectrum, representative of small and large, rich and poor districts, and also representative of successful schools or exemplary practices involved with moving schools forward in some manner. The first meeting location will be Douglas on June 7^th, followed by Thermopolis on June 8^th,and ending in Rock Springs on Thursday, June 9^th. Dr Picus and Dr. Odden indicated that they will synthesize the PJP findings and recommendations for discussion at the next meeting of the select committee. The PJP schedule is attached as Appendix F. A current list of the participants invited to the PJP meeting and attendance status is attached at Appendix G.

Recess.

At 5:14 p.m., CoChair Coe recessed the Select Committee.

Friday, May 27, 2005

Representative Wasserburger, Select Committee CoChair, reconvened the Select Committee at 8:39 a.m.

Dr. Lawrence O. Picus and Dr. Allan Odden-continued.

Dr. Picus and Dr. Odden initiated discussion by addressing the number of schools which fit within certain size prototypes. This information was provided in response to earlier requests of select committee members, and provides data on the number and sizes of schools within the state. A copy of this information is attached at Appendix H. From this information, the prorating of the proposed prototypes was illustrated, depicting the reduction from a 3 section to a 2 section and to 1 section school and the corresponding reduction in the number of children and schools that need to be accounted for through a small school adjustment.

Senator Job questioned why a smaller prototype was not originally proposed as opposed to adjusting downward. Dr. Odden responded that the evidence based research supports the proposed school levels, and to prorate down from this level is a rational and easy method of accomplishing the same objective.

Dr. Picus and Dr. Odden continued by explaining the research and evidence for school administration and support. Select committee concern was voiced that relegating some quasi administrative roles to teachers leads to the need for additional aides because teachers do not have enough planning time to prepare for class. There is also an increase in administration and aides because of the high reporting requirements for Wyoming schools. Dr. Odden and Dr. Picus replied that the FTE allocated by the model should allow for classes to be the right size and allow the time needed for planning periods. Dr. Odden indicated that Wyoming has more administrative staff than most other states.

Discussion shifted to the inclusion of an athletic director within school administration. An athletic director is not included in the current model and some districts are using one of their administrative positions to employ an athletic director. Dr. Picus responded that resources are built into the model to fund activities, such as sports, and that by the nature of a block grant model, it is the decision of the district to spend resources as they choose.

Senator Jennings moved to add an athletic director position into the model and that recommendations be developed to define a point within the model at which this position is required or needed. CoChair Coe seconded the motion. Senator Job proposed amending the motion by expanding the position to include an assistant/vice principal or athletic director. Senator Jennings accepted the amendment and the original motion, as amended, passed.

Dr. Odden discussed the clerical/data entry staff resources provided within the prototypes and noted that Wyoming seems to be well staffed in this area. Discussion noted the importance of clerical staffs and their role. Also noted was the fact that clerical staffs allow teachers to remain in the classroom teaching students by easing paperwork burdens. Dr. Picus reiterated that he felt the administrative side of Wyoming's educational system seems to have a reasonable level of resources, but a block grant allows districts to use their resources in any manner they choose. It does not always guarantee they are using their resources in the best way.

Dr. Odden discussed the level of instructional materials and supplies and indicated that the resources devoted appear to be adequate. Several select committee members noted instances in which teachers supplied their own supplies for classroom use because of insufficient resources. Following discussion, Dr. Picus noted the Department of Education will be requested to provide information on how much is being spent by schools for instructional materials and supplies. Following receipt of this information, a further review will be undertaken. Addition, the matter will be a topic of discussion within PJP meetings.

Dr. Picus directed attention to special education and the possibility of integrating special education into the model through a census-based application. Dr. Picus added that the other option is to continue funding through reimbursement of actual costs. Dr. Picus did indicate review of statewide expenditures indicates special education costs appear to be well within national expenditure levels. Following some discussion, the select committee generally agreed to continue to fund special education programs at 100 percent reimbursement, but directed the census-based approach remain as an option within the report.

Dr. Odden discussed resources within the model for gifted student programs. Continuing, Dr. Odden indicated gifted students require tougher curriculums to advance capabilities. Dr. Odden and Dr. Picus added that the research indicates the best way to challenge gifted students is to move them up grade levels at a faster pace. Concerns was voiced that small districts/schools may not receive sufficient resources to fund gifted and talented programs and that, in general, there were not enough resources directed to gifted and talented students in the recalibrated model. Dr Odden responded there is essentially no cost in moving a gifted student up in grade levels, except for the identification of the student. Select committee discussion focused on increased emphasis for elementary gifted programs, review of identification practices and the need to move beyond adequate funding levels for gifted programs. Input on gifted programs from PJP members was specifically requested.

Dr. Picus discussed vocational education programs by indicating much has yet to be determined on this matter. The difficulty is to find a method to provide vocational education resources though integration into the model and provide transparency. Issues with this program include the parameters of vocational education programs recognized by the state, how to spread resources for programs into each school and do it in a thoughtful manner. One approach considered is regionalization of program services. Following discussion, select committee members generally agreed that, as vocational education is in national transition, existing funding be continued and program parameters be addressed later.

Dr. Odden discussed professional development and stressed that professional development needs to focus on all teachers in a school. Dr. Odden added that teachers working together with other teachers facilitate growth and learning. The current model allows for a total of 5 days for training and professional development. The proposal expands existing teacher days for professional development by five days to a total of 10 days. Senator Job requested information on existing federal resources which are available to districts for teacher development be provided by the Department of Education. Further, select committee members requested information on teacher contract days nationally. Finally, CoChair Wasserburger requested the department provide information on student activity expenditures.

Continuing with prototypical components, Dr. Picus reported on operations and maintenance by indicating the difficulty is trying to estimate the operations and maintenance costs across districts because of distances, size, etc. Following explanation of the general approach to resourcing this component, Dr. Picus added the proposal would be approached more formally when additional data is available. Senator Job indicated custodial resources are an issue with some districts, and requested this matter specifically be discussed at PJP deliberations.

Addressing resources for central administration, Dr. Odden indicated existing resources appear adequate, if not a bit rich. Select committee conversation focused on reporting burdens placed on districts and the ability to respond. Conversation shifted to consolidation of districts to provide adequate educational programs. A proposal to indirectly approach consolidation through decreasing resources for a central position was suggested. Representative Quarberg requested information on district demographics.

Policy of legislator attendance at PJP meetings was generally set to allow attendance, but not to allow legislator participation at the meetings. Further, PJP attendance by non-participants is to be allowed, but participation is to be restricted to PJP invitees. The select committee then discussed the location of the next meeting on June 30^th and July 1^st, and agreed to change the location from Cody to Casper. A tentative date of August 23^rd was set for the subsequent meeting.

Adjournment.

There being no further business, CoChair Wasserburger adjourned the Select Committee at 12:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________________ _________________________________

Senator Hank Coe, Representative Jeff Wasserburger,

Select Committee CoChair Select Committee CoChair