Joint Education Committee Minutes for Meeting January 28 & 29, 2008

Committee Meeting Information

January 28-29, 2008

Room 302, State Capitol Building

Cheyenne, Wyoming

Committee Members Present

Senator Henry H.R. “Hank” Coe, Co-Chairman

Representative Del McOmie, Co-Chairman

Senator Jim Anderson

Senator Kit Jennings

Senator Mike Massie

Senator Michael Von Flatern

Representative Bernadine Craft

Representative Kathy Davison

Representative Ross Diercks

Representative W. Patrick Goggles

Representative Allen Jaggi

Representative Matt Teeters

Representative Sue Wallis

Representative Kevin White

Other Legislators Present

Senator Kathryn Sessions

Representative Amy Edmonds

Legislative Service Office Staff

Dave Nelson, School Finance Manager, Brenda Long, School Finance Analyst

Matthew Sackett, Research Analyst, Josh Anderson, Research Associate

Others Present at Meeting

Please refer to Appendix 1 to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.

Call To Order (January 28, 2008)

Co-Chairman McOmie called the meeting to order at 8:30 am. The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic. Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda.

Approval of Minutes

Minutes from the December 5-6 2007 Committee meeting were approved with no changes.

Community Colleges

08LSO-0275.L2, "Community colleges-statewide levy-2."

The Committee considered "Community colleges-statewide levy-2" 08LSO-0275.L2 (see Appendix 3 for a copy of the bill. Co-Chairman Coe stated that the bill was to provide for contribution to the community colleges from the entire state and to address concerns of taxation without representation. Mr. Dave Nelson of the Legislative Service office noted that there was a provision for nondistrict participation and representation and that the service areas in the bill are identical to the service areas that exist now. Mr. Nelson noted that the option to levy the 5^th mill is not affected in the draft bill. Mr. Nelson noted that Natrona would be unaffected because it does not have a service area outside of Natrona county. Mr. Brenda Long of the Legislative Service office provided a handout to the Committee of the Estimated amounts that would be generated under the proposed bill (see Appendix 4 for a copy of the handout).

In response to a question, Mr. Nelson noted that the money generated would go into a statewide pot. In response to a question, Mr. Kevin Drumm of Northern Wyoming Community College stated that it may be appropriate to increase the number of board members and to provide that the home county would have a simple majority of the board rather than a two-thirds majority. Mr. Jason Begger of Rio Tinto noted that his company had agreed to a voluntary 1 mill increase and was concerned that under this bill the company may be dinged again for doing the right thing.

Ms. Joanne McFarland of Central Wyoming College noted that the community colleges are a statewide system with services in all counties. Ms. McFarland noted that a May special election would be a short time period to determine the new subdistricts.

Senator Jennings moved that the Committee sponsor the bill with a second by Senator Massie.

Senator Von Flatern moved that the bill be amended on page 3, line 11 by deleting "Sheridan" and inserting "Northern Wyoming". The motion passed.

Senator Coe made a motion to amend the bill by making board membership consist of 9 members instead of 7 members and any necessary conforming amendments. The motion carried.

Senator Von Flatern moved that the bill be amended on page 6, line 16 by deleting "not be less than two-thirds (2/3) and inserting "be a simple majority". The motion carried.

Senator Von Flatern moved that the bill be amended on page 10, line 13 by deleting "May 2008" and inserting "November 2008" and any necessary conforming changes. The motion carried. The Committee voted to sponsor "Community colleges-statewide levy-2" 08LSO-0275.L2 as a House Bill with a roll call vote of 10 ayes and 4 noes (vote attached with bill Draft)

08LSO-0306.C1, "Community colleges-capital construction."

The Committee considered "Community colleges-capital construction" 08LSO-0306.C1 (see Appendix 5 for a copy of the bill). Dr. Jim Rose of the Wyoming Community Colleges Commission noted that the draft bill would provide for revisions to the current statutes for capital construction. Dr. Rose noted that the bill would provide clarification of the state’s role. Dr. Rose noted that the capital construction projects were not included in the budget recommendations and that the Governor had denied approval of all funding projects. Dr. Rose stated that construction costs are escalating and that the $50,000 and $350,000 figures in existing statutes are out of date and unduly restrictive. In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that the state looks at all facilities even if they are funded locally because the state provides money for major maintenance.

In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that all of the projects that were denied were related to workforce development and were needed to service the needs for workforce in the state. Dr. Walt Nolte of Casper College provided a handout to the Committee of the requests that were made for the biennium (see Appendix 6 for a copy of the handout).

Senator Massie moved that the Committee sponsor the bill, second by Co-Chairman Coe.

Senator Jennings made a motion that the bill be amended to include projects 1, 2 and 6 from the request list within the bill.

The Committee voted to sponsor "Community colleges-capital construction" 08LSO-0306.C1 as a Senate File with a roll call vote of 14 ayes (vote attached with bill draft).

School Finance Litigation Update

Mr. Michael O'Donnell, State's Counsel provided a handout to the Committee on school finance litigation (see Appendix 7 for a copy of the handout). Mr. O'Donnell stated that after 35 years of litigation, the state has prevailed. Mr. O'Donnell noted that the Supreme Court ruled categorically in the favor of the state of Wyoming that the system was constitutional and that the Court had released its oversight and continuing jurisdiction of the litigation. Mr. O'Donnell noted that there are some issues to address into the future including funding for at-risk students and career and technical education. Mr. O'Donnell noted that for activities the Court indicated that a similarly situated child similar opportunity to engage in activities but there is not a need to have ski team at every school. For local enhancements that exceed state guidelines the Court stated that the districts need to have an equal opportunity for enhancements.

Mr. O'Donnell noted that while the facilities are funded by a constitutional structure, they may be unconstitutional in a case by case basis. Mr. O'Donnell noted that the Court indicated that review by the School Facilities Commission was the appropriate vehicle for review.

In response to a question, Mr. O'Donnell noted that the Court empowered the Legislature to provide opportunities for enhancements in both operations and facilities but that there is not a need to have absolute equality of facilities. Mr. O'Donnell noted that the message of opinion was that the Court was done with supervision and that future conflicts should use the administrative process.

Mr. O'Donnell noted that the Legislature can do work without fear of intervention, but responsibility still remains and the Constitution still speaks. He noted that there is one remaining piece of litigation dealing with rebate and recapture.

School Foundation Program Account Fiscal Update

Ms. Long provided two handouts to the Committee related to the School Foundation Program Account (see Appendix 8 and Appendix 9 for a copy of the handouts). Ms. Long noted that the Joint Appropriations Committee adopted the Governor’s recommendations for fiscal year 09-10. Ms. Long noted that a decrease in the Federal mineral royalties was the reason for the decrease in the recommendations.

School Finance

Mr. Joe Simpson of the Department of Education provided a handout to the Committee on the continuing actions of the Department of Education after the Supreme Court decision (see Appendix 10 for a copy of the handout). Mr. Simpson noted that there are 4 major areas being considered by the Department, finishing studies begun by the Joint Education Committee, preparing for recalibration, addressing the administrative hearing process and completing a technical guide of the funding model. In response to a question, Dr. McBride, State Superintendent, noted that the administrative hearing process is much cheaper than litigation.

08LSO-0270.C1, "School finance-at-risk programs."

The Committee considered "School finance-at-risk programs" 08LSO-0270.C1 (see Appendix 11 for a copy of the bill). In response to a question, Ms. Mary Kay Hill of the Department of Education noted that the definition of "at-risk" was used to determine funding, not to determine which students receive services. Mr. Simpson noted that there needs to be a continuum of services and a process of how students can get in and get out of services.

Mr. Nelson explained the bill. Mr. Nelson noted that a commission would be created with representatives from school districts, community programs and state agencies. Mr. Nelson noted that the charge of committee would be to develop a definition of "at-risk", evaluate "at-risk" programs, review the current moratorium on alternative schools and review the treatment of court placed students.

Senator Jennings moved that the Committee sponsor "School finance-at-risk programs" 08LSO-0270.C1, second by Senator Anderson. The Committee voted to sponsor the bill as a part of the omnibus bill with a roll call vote of 14 ayes (vote attached with bill draft).

08LSO-0271.C2, "School finance-distance education."

The Committee considered "School finance-distance education" 08LSO -0271.C2 (see Appendix 12 for a copy of the bill). Ms. Hill noted that the bill was based on the recommendations of the task force. She stated that the bill would require each district to be responsible for the education of each student in district and that the bill requires distance learning plans, provides funding and continues incentive for districts to offer online education programs. Dr. Larry Picus of Picus and Associates provided a handout to the Committee on distance education (see Appendix 13 for a copy of the handout). Ms. Hill noted that the bill would allow the home district to receive the ADM for the student and then pay the other district and that the bill would let the districts negotiate. Ms. Hill noted that the bill would increase the $500 student incentive to $850. Dr. Picus stated that he would recommend no incentive because it is an after the fact incentive and stated that he would suggest some type of grant program where districts could apply for funding to develop online courses.

In response to a question, Mr. Chuck Mitchell of the Department of Education noted that distance education programs are available beginning in kindergarten and that the bill would rely on the school district to make any age limit determinations. Dr. McBride noted that the distance education program addresses the home school environment and assumes there is a parent supervising the program. Mr. Roger Larsen of the Wyoming virtual school noted that a key piece of distance education is the parents in the home. Ms. Judy Catchpole of K12 inc noted that many of the activities are hands-on with a parent and that it is not appropriate for a student to be on computer for 6 hours.

In response to a question, Mr. Mitchell noted that there was some discussion on a central virtual school but that they wanted to take advantage of the uniqueness of the school districts and felt there was more benefit in a statewide network. Ms. Hill noted that the regulatory functions are the new portion of this bill.

Mr. Nelson explained the bill. Mr. Nelson noted that the bill reflected the recommendations of the task force. Mr. Nelson noted that the bill would establish statewide Department duties where the Department in cooperation with the State Board and the Teaching Standards Board would monitor and accredit distance courses. He noted that the bill would provide for individual student learning plans and that the resident district would be required to complete the distance learning plan. Mr. Nelson noted that if a resident student was in full-time distance education that student could be counted in the ADM in a non-resident district but then that non-resident district would be required to meet the requirements as if it were the resident district. Mr. Nelson noted that there was a technical correction page 11, line 10 and that the appropriate site is to 21-13-330 and not 21-13-331.

In response to a question, Ms. Hill noted that the bill was not written with home-school students in mind and that it would be up to the individual family to determine whether they wanted to participate and meet the requirements of the program or not. Ms. Susan Bennett of the Wyoming Virtual School noted that there were various other programs available and if a family did not want the government involved in their education, this is not the program for them.

Senator Anderson moved that the Committee sponsor "School finance-distance education" 08LSO -0271.C2, second by Senator Jennings.

Senator Massie mage a motion that on page 5, line 9 delete "for" and insert "appropriate to the learning capabilities of". The motion carried.

Representative Teeters made a motion on page 8 to delete and strike section (e) and make conforming amendments in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h), and section 3, paragraph (a). The motion carried.

The Committee voted to sponsor the bill as amended as a part of the omnibus bill with a roll call vote of 14 ayes (vote attached with bill draft).

08LSO-0272.C1, "School finance-instructional facilitators."

The Committee considered "School finance-instructional facilitators" 08LSO-0272.C1 (see Appendix 14 for a copy of the bill). Mr. Joe Simpson noted that the bill draft would make the instructional facilitator program a permanent program funded outside of the model. In response to a question, Ms. Hill stated that the Department was still working out the kinks in some areas and that was part of reason for including reporting requirements in the bill.

Mr. Nelson explained the bill and stated that this bill carries forward the existing program, funded off model. Mr. Nelson noted that districts are required to apply before April 15 and the application must include evidence of a research based approach and a plan for the program over time. The Department must make a decision by May 1 and determine the amount of funding. Mr. Nelson noted that although it is and off-model program, the Department determines the amount of funding by looking at the model components.

Senator Anderson moved that the Committee sponsor "School finance-instructional facilitators" 08LSO-0272.C1, second by Co-Chairman McOmie.

Co-Chairman McOmie moved that the bill be amended (see Appendix 15 for a copy of the amendment). After discussion the amendment was adopted.

The Committee voted to sponsor the bill as amended with a roll call vote of 14 ayes (vote attached with bill draft).

08LSO-0149.C1, "School finance-food services."

The Committee considered "School finance-food services" 08LSO-0149.C1 (see Appendix 16 for a copy of the bill draft). Ms. Hill noted that food services are essential in delivering the basket of goods. Ms. Hill noted that the purpose of the bill was to reduce the size of the deficit and help districts to manage their food service programs.

Dr. Picus provided a memorandum on food service to the Committee (see Appendix 17 for a copy of the handout). Dr. Picus noted that in the initial planning they had considered food service as a stand alone, break-even program where districts would bring in revenue to pay for the meals. Dr. Picus noted that districts had reported a deficit of approximately $5million and that if the deficit is real it needs to be made up. Dr. Picus stated that it was his recommendation to give districts a match of 40 cents per meal as a stopgap approach and that this issue would need to be revisited in recalibration. In response to a question, Ms. Katie Mordhorst of the Department of Education stated that the amount of money provided by the federal government has stayed approximately the same over the years and that she believes they are planning to keep the amount level. In response to a question, Ms. Mordhorst stated that she was not sure if food service has ever generated enough revenue to pay for itself. In response to a question, Ms. Mordhorst noted that if a district were to raise prices to cover costs, for a family with 5 kids it would really add up.

Senator Anderson moved that the Committee sponsor the bill, second by Senator Jennings. The Committee voted to sponsor the bill with a roll call vote of 14 ayes (vote attached with bill draft).

08LSO-0273.L1, "School finance-rebated recapture-2."

The Committee considered "School finance-rebated recapture-2" 08LSO-0273.L1 (see Appendix 18 for a copy of the bill draft). Representative Wallis stated that the November 2006 Constitutional amendment – ended rebated recapture but the Legislature failed to enact enabling legislation. Representative Wallis noted that under the draft bill at the end of current fiscal year is the enabling date. Representative Wallis noted that the bill was not attempting to address the two school years that are under litigation. In response to a question, Representative Wallis noted that the purpose of the bill was to avoid any further litigation. After additional discussion, Representative Wallis withdrew the bill.

08LSO-0274.L1, "School finance-recapture payments."

The Committee considered "School finance-recapture payments" 08LSO-0274.L1 (see Appendix 19 for a copy of the bill). Senator Massie provided a handout to the Committee comparing the payments to and from recapture districts under current law with the payments under the proposed changes (see Appendix 20 for a copy of the handout). Senator Massie noted that the bill tells recapture districts to make quarterly payments in January, March, May and June. Senator Massie noted that the state would get a portion of the money earlier than under existing law and the state would get the benefit of any interest on those funds for that time period.

Senator Massie moved that the Committee sponsor the bill, second by Senator Anderson. In response to a question, Mr. Nelson stated that the process for protested tax payments would remain the same. Mr. Don Dihle of Campbell #1 stated that entitlement districts could be in a worse position than the entitlement districts if there is a tax shortfall.

After additional discussion, the Committee voted to sponsor the bill as a Senate File with a roll call vote of 11 ayes, 3 noes (vote attached with bill draft).

08LSO-0282.L1, "School finance-district interest earnings."

The Committee considered "School finance-district interest earnings" 08LSO-0282.L1 (see Appendix 21 for a copy of the bill). Mr. Nelson explained the bill and noted that the effect of the bill would be to count interest as a local resource. Mr. Nelson provided a handout to the Committee of reported interest income from the school districts (see Appendix 22 for a copy of the handout).

Co-Chairman Coe moved that the Committee sponsor the bill, second by Senator Jennings. Mr. Kirk Schmidt of Fremont #1 noted that this bill could count all interest earnings including interest on bond funds. Mr. Schmidt noted that the job of a business manager is to maximize revenue and that it may be possible to earn money and not call it interest. Mr. O'Donnell noted that this bill would be in compliance with the Campbell IV decision as an attempt to equalize the opportunity of all districts to benefit from interest. Mr. Mark Higdon of the Wyoming School Board Association stated that he thought any advantage to a district from interest earnings is de minimus and suggested that it was appropriate to move slowly on this issue.

Co-Chairman Coe moved that the bill be amended on page 2, line 13 after “earnings on” by inserting “general operational”. The motion carried.

After additional discussion, the motion on the bill failed a roll call vote with 14 noes (vote attached with bill draft).

Call To Order (January 29, 2008)

Co-Chairman Coe called the meeting to order at 8:30 am.

The Committee considered a proposed amendment to the omnibus bill (see Appendix 23 for a copy of the amendment). Co-chairman Coe moved that the amendment be made to the omnibus bill. The motion carried.

Mr. Nelson provided a handout to the Committee on the capital construction projects approved as discussed the previous day (see Appendix 24 for a copy of the handout).

WDE Budget Overview

Dr. McBride addressed the Committee concerning the budget. Dr. McBride discussed a potential program with BYU involving the teaching of Mandarin Chinese and a program that would link Wyoming schools with Japanese high schools to exchange language and culture and noted that the Department would like to look into both of these programs. Mr. Fred Hansen of the Department of Education provided a handout to the Committee of the 2009-10 budget requests of the Department (see Appendix 25 for a copy of the handout). Mr. Hansen noted that the Tribal Council schools budget was under the Governor’s budget but it is now in the Education budget. In response to a question, Ms. Hill noted that school foundation money is not used for the Tribal Council schools and stated that the Governor designated the Department as his agent for that issue. In response to a question, Mr. O'Donnell noted that the bill last year on the Tribal Council schools was a compromise so that the state was not lending money to a school but rather the money goes to the Tribal Council to help poor students as defined by the Council.

Mr. Hansen noted that the school foundation program was increased by the external cost adjustment. In response to a question, Dr. McBride noted that the Department has not used that money under comprehensive school health very much and noted that it could be used for alcohol and tobacco use prevention programs.

Mr. Hansen provided a handout to the Committee on court ordered placements (see Appendix 26 for a copy of the handout). Mr. Hansen noted that the report was an update of 2004 study. Mr. Hansen noted that there were 617 students in residential treatment facilities from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 but noted that some students had been place multiple times and that there were 557 individual students. In response to a question, Mr. Hansen noted that when available day treatment is much better option and that although if the student is not a special education child the district would get no additional funds it may be possible to keep the student on enrolment and get the student included in the ADM count. In response to a question, Dr. McBride noted that it could be possible to do a combined report with the Department of Family Services for all court ordered placements.

Allocation-Expenditure Study

Mr. Nelson stated that this will be year two of the allocation-expenditure study and the Committee heard the findings from year 1 in June of 2007 and that there will another update next June. Dr. Picus and Dr. Allan Odden provided handouts to the Committee of the study and a technical appendix (see Appendix 27 and 28 for a copy of the handouts). Dr. Picus noted that the study allowed them to go to the school districts and see how the districts are using the resources and compare that to what is funded in the model. Dr. Picus noted that it is a block grant and that the districts can use the money however they want . Dr. Picus noted that they have data on 314 schools but that the results are based on the 300 non-alternative schools that are included. Dr. Odden noted that no other state has this kind of information but stated that the Committee should not expect that districts will use the funds according to the model. Dr. Odden stated that they basic findings are very similar to the findings that were reported to the Committee in June. Dr. Odden stated that they had seen the following five general trends:

Districts are using administrative resources at about the same level as provided in the model
Districts are employing fewer core teachers and more elective teachers than the model
Fewer tutors are used than funded in the model
Fewer library staff is employed than is funded in the model
There is a high use of aides which are not funded in the model

In response to a question, Dr. Odden noted that tutors have a teaching license but that they did not look at the qualification of aides but he would guess they are not certified teachers. In response to a question, Dr. Picus noted that aides for special education are funded outside of the model. In response to a question, Dr. Odden stated that aides are not funded because there are studies that the most effective help comes from certified teachers.

Dr. Odden noted that high schools used more staff than provided in the model which was not true of middle and elementary schools and that the Committee may want to look at that issue in the future. Dr. Odden stated that for instructional facilitators the actual number used is almost equal to the amount funded and stated that those positions are funded outside of the model. In response to a question, Dr. Picus noted that Natrona County has followed the nature of the model to a great extent. In response to a question, Dr. Picus noted that there has been a change in how libraries run but that it is hard to come to conclusions in over or under funding of resources at this time and that it would be appropriate to look at that issue in recalibration. In response to a question Dr. Odden noted that there is the beginning of a system that may be able to show the relationship between funding and student performance.

Meeting Adjournment

There being no further business, Co-Chairman Coe adjourned the meeting at 11:30 am.

Respectfully submitted,

Henry H.R. “Hank” Coe, Co-Chairman Del McOmie, Co-Chairman

Appendix	Appendix Topic	Appendix Description	Appendix Provider
1	Committee Sign-In Sheet	Lists meeting attendees	Legislative Service Office
2	Committee Meeting Agenda	Provides an outline of the topics the Committee planned to address at meeting	Legislative Service Office
3	Community Colleges	Community Colleges-statewide levy-2 08LSO-0275.L2	Legislative Service Office
4	Community Colleges	Statewide mill levy, amounts generated	Legislative Service Office
5	Community Colleges	Community Colleges-capital construction 08LSO-0306.C1	Legislative Service Office
6	Community Colleges	Legislative requests	Community Colleges
7	School Finance Litigation	School finance litigation report	Michael O'Donnell
8	School Foundation Program	School foundation program report	Legislative Service Office
9	School Foundation Program	Block grant guarantee	Legislative Service Office
10	Campbell IV Decision	Moving forward after Campbell IV	Department of Education
11	School finance-at-risk	School finance-at-risk programs 08LSO-0270.C1	Legislative Service Office
12	School finance-distance ed	School finance-distance education 08LS0-0271.C1	Legislative Service Office
13	School finance-distance ed	Distance education memorandum	Picus and Associates
14	School finance-instructional facilitators	School finance-instructional facilitators 08LSO-0272.C1	Legislative Service Office
15	School finance-instructional facilitators	Amendment	Legislative Service Office
16	School finance-food services	School finance-food services 08LSO-0149.C2	Legislative Service Office
17	School finance-food services	Food services memorandum	Picus and Associates
18	School finance-rebated recapture	School finance-rebated recapture 08LSO-0273.L1	Legislative Service Office
19	School finance-recapture payments	School finance-recapture payments 08LSO-0274.L1	Legislative Service Office
20	School finance-recapture payments	State perspective	Legislative Service Office
21	School finance-district interest earnings	School finance-district interest earnings 08LSO-0282.L1	Legislative Service Office
22	School finance-district interest earnings	Interest income reported	Legislative Service Office
23	Omnibus bill	Amendment to omnibus bill	Legislative Service Office
24	Capital construction	Capital construction amounts	Legislative Service Office
25	WDE Budget	WDE Budget requests	Department of Education
26	Court ordered placements	Court ordered placements report	Department of Education
27	Educational resources	Educational resources report	Picus and Associates
28	Educational resources	Technical Appendix	Picus and Associates