March 20, 2009 Final Minutes
CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION1430 N Street, Suite 5111
Sacramento, CA 95814
Title I Committee of Practitioners
Friday, March 20, 2009
10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
California Department of Education
State Board of Education Hearing Room
1430 N Street, Suite 1101
Sacramento, CA 95814
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Fred Balcom, Director of the Accountability and Improvement Division in CDE, welcomed and introduced CDE and SBE staff.
Debbie Rury, Interim Executive Director for the State Board of Education, welcomed the members and thanked them for their patience during the appointment process. She introduced Donna Neville, SBE Chief Counsel. Donna provided the group with an orientation on the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. A handout of the presentation and the Guide were provided. Debbie then announced that Ted Mitchell, State Board President, had appointed Karen Ryback as Chair of the Committee.
Debbie Rury asked the public in attendance if they had any questions or would like to present on any non-agenda items. No one from the public had any questions or requested to present on any non-agenda items.
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES (SES) REGULATIONS:
Martin Miller and Lana Zhou, CDE consultants, delivered a PowerPoint presentation regarding the background on SES and the proposed regulations. The March 2009 SBE board item containing the proposed regulations was provided as reference, noting minor changes made by the SBE. Questions from the Committee were responded to by the presenters.
The Committee deliberated on the proposed regulations, and approved the following items to be submitted to the SBE at the May 2009 meeting for consideration (note that the line references refer to the version of the regulations contained in Item 12 of the March 2009 SBE meeting):
Page 1 (line 18)
The group came back to this issue three times. They were concerned that the assessments were not aligned to California’s state content standards, making it difficult to determine how much progress students made towards mastering the standards.
Recommendation: The majority of the group wanted to see wording that aligned these assessments to the California state standards.
Page 1 (lines 22-24)
Discussion on the use of The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (1999) centered around the belief that this document is currently under review and it is anticipated it will be updated in the near future. The suggested wording would automatically include any superseding edition of the document.
Recommendation: Line 22, add after “(1999),” or, most recent superseding edition. (This edit would apply to all references to this specific document throughout the regulations.)
Page 2 (line 13)
Members of the committee questioned the reason why schools within an LEA that had been identified for PI were described as “ineligible applicants.” The Committee reviewed the federal guidance on SES, sections C-7 and C-8, and determined that these schools should not be deemed ineligible.
Recommendation: Remove: (2) Public schools, including charter schools not operating as an LEA, of an LEA which is in PI
Page 3 (line 16)
The Committee felt that the use of the word annual to describe an application was unnecessary and confusing.
Recommendation: Strike the word annual from the sentence.
Page 9 (line 14)
The majority of the committee felt that fiscal accountability for SES providers is important and wanted this section to remain.
Recommendation: Reinstate the deleted language: (5) Fiscal and expenditure information; and.
Page 10 (line 22)
The committee was concerned that participation alone was not sufficient. They thought it was also important to take into account the number or percentage of students that had successfully completed the program. They also expressed a concern that a mere majority of students making progress may not be a sufficient number to demonstrate the effectiveness of the SES provider. Some members suggested providing specific numbers such as 80 percent of students who attended 80 percent of the time, but there was no consensus from the group on an actual percentage amount.
Recommendation: Request CDE staff look into providing a higher percentage of students that need to complete the SES provider’s program successfully rather than a majority of students – would like an amount such as 80 percent of students taken into consideration the percentage of students who have completed the program successfully.
Page 11 (line 18)
Recommendation: Change the word from impartiality to partiality.
Page 11 (line 23)
The Committee had a discussion as to what was meant by the term “relationship”.
Recommendation: Suggest CDE staff define what is meant by relationship (e.g. family, business, etc.). It was suggested to use EDGAR’s definition of “relationship”.
Page 12 (line 6)
There was unanimous concern that any permission given would have to be in writing and that LEAs should not be allowed to favor one provider over another in doing so.
Recommendation: Rewrite the line to read, student(s) without written permission of the LEA. In addition, the LEA must provide equitable opportunity to all approved SES providers
The committee also discussed a possible change on page 7, line 11, having to do with the appropriateness of the SES provider giving the computer or other technical equipment to the student after completion of the program. Some viewed this as a potential gift of state funds. The federal guidance was reviewed and a motion was made to delete the following language from lines 11 to 13 “except that this limitation will not apply to computers or other technical equipment used as the primary tool for the delivery of SES and given to a student after completion of services.” The motion did not receive a majority of the votes.
Travel reimbursement forms were collected and the meeting was adjourned.