Skip to main content
California Department of Education Logo

July 30, 2009 Final Minutes

State of California
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor
1430 N Street, Suite 5111
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-319-0827
Fax: 916-319-0175

Final Minutes
Title I Committee of Practitioners (COP)

Thursday, July 30, 2009
10 a.m. – 4 p.m.

California Department of Education
1430 N Street, Room 4101
Sacramento, CA 95814

Call to Order

The Meeting was called to order by Madam Chair Karen Ryback at 10:03 a.m.

Members Present

Allison Adams
Jorge Cuevas-Antillon
Raul Diaz
Jim Dilday
Greg Espinoza
Zella Knight, Vice Chair
Howard Lee
Olivia Leschick
Priscilla Murphy
Balbina Rodriguez
Karen Ryback, Chair
Ceclia Wilson
Peggy Yarber

Members Absent

Ina Bendis
Erick Fineberg
Cindy Mesaros
Gail Monohon
Linda Nolasco
Kim Shipp

Staff Present

Julie Baltazar, Education Administrator I, Regional Coordination and Support Office (RCSO), California Department of Education (CDE)
Sandi Ridge, Education Programs Consultant, RCSO, CDE

The public in attendance were asked 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.

Announcements/General Discussion

Zella Knight was announced as Vice Chair and Howard Lee was introduced as the Ex Officio Member.

The minutes from the March 20, 2009, meeting were approved with no changes.

There was a brief discussion on maximizing the time the committee has each meeting to discuss agenda items. It was agreed upon that the committee will discuss agenda items in their entirety first and then create a list of issues or concerns that individual members might have on a particular item. The committee will then prioritize the list and have further discussion on the specific concerns, as needed. If it is clear that the majority of the group is in agreement on a topic, a formal motion will not be necessary, but if there are any disagreements, then there will be a vote. The committee members agreed to monitor their air time to allow everyone the opportunity to have input on a topic. The Chair asked to be addressed by first name in lieu of using Madam Chair.

Presentation of Proposed Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Regulations

Presenter: Martin Miller, Education Programs Consultant, RSCO, CDE, provided an update of the proposed SES Regulations. Questions from the members were responded to by the presenter.

Areas identified for additional discussion and recommendations to the State Board of Education (SBE) included:

Section 13075.2 Application, for SBE Approval (page 3 through 8)

Committee members were concerned that online tutors outside of the United States (U.S.) prevent prosecution of violators of applicable law, particularly those relating to child safety. Additionally, concerns were expressed with federal funds flowing to non U.S. citizens, particularly given the current economic circumstances in the U.S.

Recommend adding language to assurances that if the approved provider hires online tutors operating outside of the United States or the territories of the United States, those tutors must be citizens of the United Sates. 

Section 13075.6 Appealing SBE Termination

The committee recommends that the SBE consider the type and severity of the infractions that led to termination so a provider could, in some instances, continue to serve students while their appeal is heard by the SBE.

Recommend adding language to have the SBE consider allowing a terminated provider the opportunity to continue to deliver service while their appeal is considered, except in instances where the approved provider has been terminated pursuant to section 13075.5 (d)(6) or has been debarred, suspended, or deemed ineligible from any federally funded contract in California or any other state.

Section 13075.9 (Page 14 Line 26 through 30)

Committee members felt that providers could provide “gadgets” including hand held devices that do not necessarily serve educational purposes and only serve as an incentive to enroll with a provider.

A motion was made to strike out the words “or other technical equipment,” and add the word “instructional” before “tool.” A vote of the committee was taken: Yes 9, Nos 3 to rewrite lines 26 and 27 as follows:

The limitation of the $50 value shall not apply to computers or other technical equipment used as the primary instructional tool for the delivery of SES and given to a student after he or she completes the full program.

The committee had additional comments or concerns, but did not include a recommendation to change existing language. The comments or concerns are summarized below:

Some providers serve a special population such as alternative education students, which due to their circumstances might not complete the program. These providers would be subject to termination if they were not able to deliver the full program to 75 percent of the students assigned by the local educational agency (LEA). The committee agreed that the appeals process as stated in the regulations would be able to determine appropriate action in regards to termination.

Some committee members believe some districts are not receiving adequate monitoring in regard to providing prompted and informed notification to parents. They suggested the state educational agency (SEA) be more active in making sure there are more controls to monitoring districts for those LEAs not receiving a CPM to ensure accountability.

The committee suggested that the CDE use the 2007 Federal monitoring visit findings to help provide guidance concerning district accountability for providing information to parents in a timely manner.

There was a discussion whether to include the evaluation of effectiveness in the regulations. It was suggested the Accountability Report required by the SES providers from the past three years along with the LEAs/parents comments be used to determine effectiveness of providers. The CDE receives some Parent Survey comments from LEAs regarding provider effectiveness. The committee suggested that CDE consider posting the comments in a summary of common threads on the Web.

The committee requested updates from the SES Work Group regarding tasks they are addressing.

The committee suggested including language in the annual Accountability Report requiring SES providers to report on how they are using technology as part of their program.

Some committee members also suggested limiting online programs to students in grades three through twelve.

Non-Regulatory Guidance on Title I, Part A Waivers

Presenters: Julie Baltazar, Education Administrator I, and Doug McDougall, Education Programs Consultant, RCSO, CDE, provided an overview of Non-Regulatory Guidance on Title I, Part A Waivers. Questions from the members were responded to by the presenters.

Three waivers were presented as an item at the July SBE meeting:

  • 14-day notice for public school choice requirement for the 2009-10 school year
  • Carryover of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds
  • LEAs in Program Improvement as SES providers

Five additional waiver requests will be presented at the September SBE meeting:

  • LEAs to offer SES, in addition to public school choice, to eligible students in Title I schools in the first year of school improvement
  • Exclude Title I, Part A ARRA funds in determining an LEA’s 20 percent obligation for choice-related transportation and SES
  • Exclude Title I, Part A ARRA funds in determining the 10 percent professional development set-aside for an LEA in improvement
  • Exclude Title I, Part A ARRA funds in determining the 10 percent professional development set-aside for a school in improvement
  • Exclude Title I, Part A ARRA funds in determining the per-pupil amount for SES

The committee had questions/concerns regarding the waivers, the implications once they are approved, and other ARRA topics. This topic discussion included:

  • Current timeframe for LEAs to receive approval for a waiver; process can be lengthy. Can CDE look into streamlining the process? Otherwise, the waivers are a moot point.
  • Request that CDE develop FAQs or guidance on the use of ARRA funds.
  • Concern on the timing of the waiver for the 14-day notice of school choice options to parents will affect implementation for this school year.
  • Concern on the checks and balances for the use of ARRA funds because they are not included in the LEA’s ConApp to the SEA.

Meeting was adjourned at 2:22 p.m.

Last Reviewed: Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Share this Page

Recently Posted in Commissions & Committees