Strategic Plan Working Document July 2007 – July 2008

Goal 1

Goal 1: Ensure that all school districts successfully implement and meet Montana’s Education Standards Strategy 1a – Provide technical assistance and support school districts in their efforts to meet high education standards. Performance Measures:

Alignment of curriculum to revised Montana content standards Host MEA-MFT workshops in October 2007 Support on-going funding for curriculum specialists Support the development of regional service delivery Development of continuous education improvement (NCLB) Preservation of highly qualified teachers through licensure Data-driven decision making and short- and long-range planning Continued oversight of special purpose schools accreditation Meeting development and program oversight of MSDB Refine work on licensure to provide a future which provides for flexibility

while ensuring quality Develop pro-active approach for licensure and qualifications of those

providing services to deaf and blind children Continued participation in special purpose schools’ task force project

Strategy 1b – Provide technical assistance and support school districts in efforts in increase graduation rate. Performance Measures:

Promote accurate reporting of dropout data Support OPI data projects Identify/disseminate best practices and alternative/innovative methods to

prevent dropouts Assist in developing success indicators for full-day kindergarten Participate in discussions centering on increasing high school rigor and

relevance Strategy 1c – Address the needs of high poverty and other low performing school districts and students.

1

Performance Measures: Identify means to improve recruitment and retention of quality staff

members in high poverty/low performing schools Work with partners on identifying recruitment and retention strategies for

2009 Legislature Work toward better allocation and use of adequate resources to implement

local continuous improvement plans Encourage implementation of quality program of technical assistance and

support for low performance schools Strategy 1d – Capitalize on E-learning strategies that allow continuous education improvements. Performance Measures:

Encourage a system to provide and deliver quality professional development

Recognize expanded course offerings to Montana’s students (remedial/regular)

Identify and work toward raising the percentage of students access core curriculum and/or advanced placement courses through distance programs

Be involved with efforts to expand technology capacity Assist in developing single, uniform educational data system

Strategy 1e – Develop joint/coordinated strategies between the Board and the Office of Public Instruction. Performance Measures:

Improve professional development opportunities and coordinate these opportunities for effective utilization

Develop improved data collection system and management to “support a culture of results”

Adopt and implement quality assessment plan for Montana education with ongoing evaluation component

Promote and support successful implementation of 20-501 Research current best practices in assessment and work with OPI to

determine appropriate steps through a task force to improve Montana’s comprehensive assessment system to inform instruction

Goal 2

Goal 2: Ensure that Montana public schools have highly qualified workforce. Strategy 2a – Recognize and promote a comprehensive strategy for the recruitment and retention of highly qualified teachers, administrators, pupil services personnel, and other school staff.

2

Performance Measures:

Work with OCHE and OPI on identifying areas of critical shortage (SB2) Be aware of current and potential areas of personnel shortage Recognize programs/systems to alleviate personnel shortages Actively support necessary legislation relating to recruitment and retention Support and monitor efforts of newly formed Salish Kootenai College 4-

year program for elementary teachers Bold approach (legislation) to funding solution that addresses recruitment

and retention of highly qualified educators – 30% solution – long range plan

Research successful mentoring programs, current mentoring needs, and develop a program for Montana schools

Work with CSPAC on identifying mentoring projects Work with OPI on refining teacher discipline processes

Strategy 2b – Coordinate with Higher Education the development of a system that streamlines preparation, certification, and professional development programs for school personnel, including alternate paths for certification. Performance Measures:

Continue to develop strong working relationships with the Commissioner of Higher Education’s Office

Promote and support the continued efforts of the Board of Education work Continued coordination of K to College Workgroup efforts with all

educational partners Continued encouragement of at least two Board of Education meetings per

year, per law Revision of Chapter 57 (Teacher Licensure) Monitoring Chapter 58 modifications (Professional Education Preparation

Program) Positively marketing education in Montana and possible foundation

development Strategy 2c – Diversify education workforce with particular attention to the recruitment of American Indian teachers. Performance Measures:

Continued collaboration with MACIE Active participation in public hearings Coordination of efforts in this area with the Office of Public Instruction Coordinated efforts with the Commissioner of Higher Education as well as

the Council of Deans Continued coordination of effort with CSPAC

3

Goal 3

Goal 3: Create clear pathways for students to become life-long learners. Strategy 1a –

• Define needs for life-long learning • Articulate a vision to guide the development of pathways for life-long learning in

collaboration with higher education, business, and labor • Create awareness of and opportunities for students to pursue different pathways to

learning • Identify strategies and resources for supporting people in transitions • Explore the role of the Board in the development and implementation of early

childhood policies and programs Performance Measures:

Continued coordinated collaboration efforts Continue to explore regionalization concepts Participate in exploration of “new revenue” Participate in discussion involving efficiencies Involvement with statewide discussion on Indian dropout prevention Participate in discussions with OCHE on “leaky pipeline” Work with all education partners to apply data that will help school

districts employ strategies to retain students. (K-20) Develop and implement ONE* Montana educational strategic plan that is

results driven based on data and research (monitored based on continued improvement) *Joint direction

Promote efficiency and effectiveness through Kindergarten to College alignment. Structure such as regional services, financing, professional development, administrative, shared staffing etc. How can we be more efficient? (a) AP (b) Dual Enrollment (c) Transferability (d) E-Learning (e) Transportation (f) Others

Research impacts of kindergarten on student achievement

Goal 4

Goal 4: Work toward the adequate funding of a quality Montana public education system to ensure that students and schools achieve/perform to high academic standards.

4

Strategy 1a – • Assist in the determination of the cost of adequately funding a quality education

system • Lead discussion on the importance and link between education, economic

development, and social/civil well being • Promote effective and efficient use of current and future resources supporting public

education • Collaboration with higher education and elected officials

Performance Measure:

Continued involvement with Board of Education Active participation in work of task forces Coordinated efforts with higher education initiative Coordinate work with K to College Workgroup including its

subcommittees Expand public outreach and marketing efforts for the Board and public

education with more involvement of non-state and private sector dollars Work with new Interim Education Subcommittee on K-12 issues Participate in high school reform efforts

5

1

BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION

MEETING AGENDA

July 10-11, 2008

Front Street Learning Center 815 Front Street

Helena, MT

July 10, 2008 - Thursday 8:30 a.m. CALL TO ORDER

a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call c. Statement of Public Participation d. Welcome Visitors e. Adopt Agenda

PUBLIC COMMENT

CONSENT AGENDA

a. Items Pulled from Consent Agenda if Requested INFORMATION ITEMS

REPORTS – Patty Myers (Items 1 – 2) Item 1 CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT Patty Myers BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION APPEARANCES Item 2 EXECUTIVE SECRETARY’S REPORT 5-YEAR BPE STRATEGIC PLANNING REPORT Steve Meloy

CSPAC LIAISON - Angela McLean (Item 3) Item 3 CSPAC REPORT INTERPRETER WORKGROUP Peter Donovan

REPORTS – Patty Myers (Items 4 – 7) Item 4 STATE SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT INDIAN EDUCATION REPORT State Superintendent Linda McCulloch Item 5 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION’S REPORT Commissioner Sheila Stearns

2

Item 6 GOVERNOR’S OFFICE REPORT Jan Lombardi Item 7 STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE’S REPORT Katie Wood

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE – Patty Myers (Item 8) Item 8 ANNUAL SCHOOL NUTRITION REPORT Christine Emerson

ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE – Storrs Bishop (Items 9 - 14) Item 9 GED ANNUAL REPORT T. J. Eyer Item 10 SPECIAL EDUCATION ANNUAL REPORT Tim Harris Item 11 UPDATE ON THE FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION PLAN

(5YCEP) WEB-BASED DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Dr. Linda Vrooman Peterson Item 12 ALTERNATIVE DIPLOMA/CERTIFICATION PATHWAYS FOR STUDENTS Dr. Bruce Messinger, Superintendent, Helena Public Schools David Strong, Career, Technical and Adult Education Coordinator DISCUSSION ITEMS Item 13 REVIEW OF ACCREDITATION PROCESS AND PROCEDURES Al McMilin Item 14 DATA ANALYSIS OF THE ACCREDITATION STATUS OF MONTANA

SCHOOLS Al McMilin

DISTANCE LEARNING TASK FORCE – Dr. Kirk Miller (Item 15) Item 15 AMENDMENTS TO ARM 10.55.907 (3) AND (3) (a); ARM 10.57.102 DEFINITIONS “FACULTY”; ARM 10.57.201 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO ISSUE LICENSES; AND (NEW) ARM 10.57.437 CLASS 8 DUAL CREDIT- ONLY POSTSECONDARY FACULTY LICENSE Steve Meloy

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE – Dr. Kirk Miller (Items 16 - 17) Item 16 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND UPDATE Nancy Coopersmith Item 17 K-12 SUBCOMMITTEE AND JOINT MEETING OF K-12 & PEPB SUBCOMMITTEES Dr. Kirk Miller and Patty Myers EDUCATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT INTERIM COMMITTEE Steve Meloy

3

ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE- Sharon Carroll (Item 18) Item 18 ASSESSMENT UPDATE Madalyn Quinlan ************************************************************************************************************************* July 11, 2008 – Friday 8:30 a.m. INFORMATION ITEMS

LICENSURE COMMITTEE – Angela McLean (Item 19) Item 19 LICENSE SURRENDER (CLOSED SESSION) Kathleen Magone

ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE – Storrs Bishop (Items 20 - 22) Item 20 DISABILITY HISTORY & CULTURE: INCLUSION INTO STATE STANDARDS June Hermanson, Montana Youth Leadership Forum Lily Sobolik, Montana Transition Task Force Montana Youth Leadership Ambassadors ACTION ITEMS

PUBLIC COMMENT The public will be afforded the opportunity to comment before the Board on every action item on the agenda prior to final Board action. Item 21 REVISED TIMELINE FOR THE NOTICE OF AMENDMENT RELATING TO

CONTENT STANDARDS AND PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTORS FOR INFORMATION LITERACY/LIBRARY MEDIA AND TECHNOLOGY

Steve Meloy Item 22 ADDENDUM TO 2007-2008 ACCREDITATION RECOMMENDATIONS Al McMilin

DISTANCE LEARNING TASK FORCE – Dr. Kirk Miller (Item 23) Item 23 NOTICE OF AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ARM 10.55.907 (3) AND (3) (a); ARM 10.57.102 DEFINITIONS “FACULTY”; ARM 10.57.201 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO ISSUE LICENSES; AND (NEW) ARM 10.57.437 CLASS 8 DUAL CREDIT-ONLY POSTSECONDARY FACULTY LICENSE Steve Meloy MEETING WILL BE CLOSED FOR ITEMS 24- 26

LICENSURE COMMITTEE – Angela McLean (Items 24 - 26) Item 24 HEARING – DENIAL CASE NO. 2008-01 Steve Meloy and Kathleen Magone Item 25 PROPOSED FINDINGS – REVOCATION CASE NO. 2008-03 Beda Lovitt, Administrative Law Judge Item 26 HEARING – REVOCATION CASE NO. 2008-05

4

Steve Meloy and Kathleen Magone MEETING WILL BE OPEN FOR THE REMAINING ITEM INFORMATION ITEM

MSDB LIAISON – Patty Myers (Item 27) Item 27 MSDB COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT Steve Gettel PRELIMINARY AGENDA ITEMS July 30, 2008 – Conference Call – 2:00 p.m. Final Action – Literacy/Library Media Content and Performance Descriptors Final Action – Technology Content and Performance Descriptors September 11-12, 2008 Election of Board Officers Committee Appointments Superintendent Goals BPE Goal Review Assessment Update NCLB Update MACIE Update Material and Non-Performance Case 2008-06 (Action) Revocation Case 2008-04 (Action) Distance Learning – Proposed Adoption Notice for Review (Action)

1

BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION

MEETING MINUTES

May 8-9, 2008

MONTANA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND BLIND 3911 CENTRAL AVENUE GREAT FALLS, MT 59401

May 8, 2008 - Thursday 8:30 a.m. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Patty Myers called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. on Thursday, May 8, 2008. The Montana School for the Deaf and Blind’s (MSDB) Kindergarten Class and Lewis and Clark’s 2nd Grade Class led the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance using sign language. Ms. Patty Myers introduced the students and teachers. Mr. Steve Gettel presented MSDB pins to the Board, staff, and visitors acknowledging educator’s week. Ms. Carol Will took roll call; a quorum was noted. Ms. Angela McLean was not in attendance due to illness. State Superintendent Linda McCulloch was at the Best Practices Conference in Billings, MT. She will be in attendance on Friday, May 9, 2008. Ms. Patty Myers noted that Item 16 was withdrawn from the agenda and will be rescheduled for the July BPE meeting. Those in attendance at the meeting included the following Board members: Chair Ms. Patty Myers, Ms. Sharon Carroll, Dr. Kirk Miller, Mr. Storrs Bishop, Mr. Bernie Olson, Mr. Cal Gilbert, and Ms. Katie Wood. Staff present at the meeting included: Mr. Steve Meloy, Executive Secretary, Board of Public Education; Mr. Peter Donovan, Administrative Officer, Certification Standards and Practices Advisory Council; and Ms. Carol Will, Administrative Assistant, Board of Public Education. Ex-officio members present at the meeting included: State Superintendent Linda McCulloch, Commissioner of Higher Education Sheila Stearns, and Ms. Jan Lombardi represented ex-officio member Governor Brian Schweitzer. Visitors in attendance at the meeting included Mr. Bud Williams, Deputy Superintendent, OPI; Ms. Nancy Coopersmith, Assistant Superintendent, OPI; Dr. Linda Vrooman Peterson, Accreditation Division Administrator, OPI; Ms. Katherine Moore, Science Curriculum Specialist, OPI; Mr. Eric Feaver, MEA-MFT; Ms. Anna Green, Governor’s Office; Ms. Colet Bartow, Library Media Specialist, OPI; Ms. Gloria Curdy, Facilitator, Information Literacy/Library Media Revision Team; Mr. Darrell Rud, School Administrators of Montana; Mr. Al McMilin, Educator Quality Program Specialist, OPI; Mr. Michael Hall, Instructional Technology Specialist, OPI; Mr. Matt Clausen, Technology Revision Team; Mr. Steve Gettel, Superintendent, MSDB; Dr. Bruce Messinger, Chair, MQEC; Ms. Pam Joehler, Legislative Fiscal Division; Mr. Donald Eisenmenger, State Superintendent Candidate; Senator Sam Kitzenburg, State Superintendent Candidate; Ms. Kathleen Magone, Attorney, OPI; Ms. Katie Moore, OPI; Mr. David Ewer, Budget Director, Governor’s Office; Ms. Barbara Ross, Apple Computer; Ms. Nancy Hall, Senior Budget Analyst, Governor’s Office; Mr. Tom Kotynski, Workforce Development Facilitator, Great Falls Public Schools; Ms. Katie Kotynski, Great Falls Public Schools; Ms. Dulce Whitford, MIEA; and Mr. Kris Goss, concerned citizen. PUBLIC COMMENT There was none.

MOTION: Mr. Storrs Bishop moved to approve the agenda as revised. Dr. Kirk Miller seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Angela McLean was absent for the vote.

2

CONSENT AGENDA Items Pulled from Consent Agenda if Requested No items were pulled. Consent agenda was approved as presented by concurrence of the Board. Dr. Kirk Miller offered a word of thanks to the Board and staff for being honored as a nominee for the NASBE Distinguished Service Award as noted in the correspondence.

Items are presented in the order in which they appeared.

INFORMATION ITEMS Item 1 CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT - Patty Myers Chairperson’s Appearances

• March 13, 2008 K-12 Subcommittee Meeting • March 14, 2008 Education and Local Government Meeting • April 29, 2008 MSDB Committee Meeting • May 2, 2008 Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools & Programs for the

Deaf (CEASD) Reception Ms. Patty Myers announced the following:

• Mr. Tim Joern, science teacher at Whitefish Middle School, Whitefish, MT received the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science Teaching

• Ms. Anne Keith, math teacher at Chief Joseph Middle School, Bozeman, MT received the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics Teaching

• Ms. Anke Davis, Greenfield Elementary School, Fairfield, MT received the Montana Rural School Teacher of the Year Award

• Mr. Tom Blakely, Principal, Three Forks High School, Three Forks, MT was named the Principal of the Year by the Montana Association of Secondary Principals

Board of Public Education Appearances – Calendar provided for the months of March, April, and May 2008.

Dr. Kirk Miller

• March 10, 2008 Dual Enrollment Conference Call • March 11, 2008 DLTFII Class 8 Dual/Credit Post Secondary Education License Group • March 13 – 14, 2008 2008 NASBE Legislative Conference – Washington, DC • March 31, 2008 MASS Meeting • April 22, 2008 Subcommittee Class 8 • May 1, 2008 DLTFII Meeting

Ms. Sharon Carroll • April 28-29, 2008 OPI Assessment Conference

Mr. Bernie Olson

• April 29, 2008 MSDB Committee Meeting

Mr. Storrs Bishop • May 1, 2008 DLTFII Meeting

Ms. Katie Wood

• March 16, 2008 MASC Executive Board Meeting

3

Item 2 EXECUTIVE SECRETARY’S REPORT - Steve Meloy Mr. Steve Meloy highlighted the following:

• According to Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 20-7-101(2) “Prior to adoption or amendment of any accreditation standard, the board shall submit each proposal to the education and local government interim committee for review. The interim committee shall request a fiscal analysis to be prepared by the legislative fiscal division. The legislative fiscal division shall provide its analysis to the interim committee and to the office of budget and program planning to be used in the preparation of the executive budget.” (3) “If the fiscal analysis of the proposal is found by the legislative fiscal division to have substantial fiscal impact, the board may not implement the standard until July 1 following the next regular legislative session and shall request that the same legislature fund implementation of the proposed standard. A substantial fiscal impact is an amount that cannot be readily absorbed in the budget of an existing school district program.” Mr. Meloy stated that the Board has noticed Legislative Fiscal Division (LFD) through standard noticing procedures, but a formal letter that outlines the rule needs to be submitted directly to the LFD

• The Board continues to work with Administrative Law Judge, Beda J. Lovitt on revocation cases. These cases are costly for the agency at $84.00 per hour. Financial assistance from the legislature and/or the Legislative Services Division may be necessary

• MSDB has been audited recently by the Legislative Audit Division (LAD). During the performance audit the Deputy Legislative Auditor, Ms. Angie Grove noted the following recommendations:

- Examine the efforts required to comply with Title I of NCLB and if appropriate, take actions to ensure MSDB receives the Title I grant monies

- Secure IDEA monies for MSDB based on the poverty factor, as well as the at-risk state school funding component

- Determine relevant workload factors for outreach - Collect data on relevant activities for outreach consultants - Use existing and newly collected workload data to implement equitable workloads for

outreach consultants • NASBE invited Mr. Bernie Olson to the 2008 New State Board Members Institute being held in

Alexandria, VA on July 18-20, 2008 • Ms. Brenda Welburn, NASBE Director, will assist in the facilitation of the Board’s planning session on July 9, 2008

NASBE WESTERN AREA MEETING NASBE is in the process of developing a new strategic plan and expressed an interest in conducting a Western Region Meeting tentatively scheduled for early August to be held in Denver, CO. The meeting would include a discussion of education issues of particular concern to the western states as well as a focus session on how NASBE can best meet the needs of this region. Mr. Steve Meloy notified NASBE that the Montana Board of Public Education has an interest in being represented.

Item 3 CSPAC REPORT - Peter Donovan Mr. Peter Donovan addressed some of the following meetings along with their outcomes. In addition to this accounting, please refer to the Board of Public Education Appearances calendar.

• March 11, 2008 DLTFII Class 8 Dual/Credit post secondary education license group • March 18, 2008 Chapter 57 • March 19, 2008 School Staffing Module • March 27, 2008 DLTFII Class 8 Subcommittee Meeting • April 11, 2008 Interpreter Standards Planning Meeting • April 18, 2008 DLTFII Class 8 Sub-subgroup with Council of Deans • April 21, 2008 NASDTEC Conference Call • April 22, 2008 DLTFII Class 8 Subcommittee

4

CSPAC APPOINTMENTS (Action) Dr. Mary Susan Fishbaugh re-applied as the representative to the Montana Council of Deans of Education to serve on CSPAC. Ms. Sharon Applegate, 6th Grade Teacher from Kalispell Middle School applied as the elementary teacher representative and Ms. Patty Muir, Special Education Teacher, Laurel Public Schools applied as the specialist representative to serve on CSPAC. Mr. Eric Feaver, Mr. Bud Williams, and Mr. Bernie Olson expressed their support of either one or both of the candidates. MOTION: Dr. Kirk Miller moved to approve the appointments of Dr. Mary Susan Fishbaugh, Ms. Sharon Applegate, and Ms. Patty Muir to the Certification Standards and Practices Advisory Council (CSPAC). Mr. Storrs Bishop seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Angela McLean was absent for the vote. INTERPRETER WORKGROUP Mr. Peter Donovan distributed a memo dated April 30, 2008 to the participants of the Educational Sign Language Interpreter Standards Work Group from Dr. Douglas Reisig, Chair, Certification Standards and Practices Advisory Council (CSPAC) in regard to the initial meeting that will occur during the week of June 9-13, 2008 in Helena. The purpose of the group is to research and recommend to the Board a set of standards for Montana accredited schools to follow when employing individuals who will provide educational sign language interpreters. The group will also research options to enhance opportunities for training, professional development, and mentoring for educational interpreters. Item 4 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION’S REPORT - Commissioner Sheila Stearns Commissioner Sheila Stearns announced that there are two finalists for the Deputy Commissioner for Academic & Student Affairs and one finalist for the Deputy Commissioner of Two-Year Education. These positions should be filled within the next month. Commissioner Stearns thanked Mr. Steve Meloy for his involvement in the selection committee of the Deputy Commissioner for Academic & Student Affairs. The development of two-year education in the state of Montana was discussed along with the use of the Making Opportunity Affordable Initiative that focuses on encouraging higher education systems and institutions to be more cost-effective and collaborative with K-12 education in order to enhance student access and success, further contain costs, and introduce additional productivity improvements. Commissioner Sheila Stearns stated the goal is to have a recommendation to the Board of Regents soon to expand capacity and bolster productivity of two-year schools. The April 2008 newsletter titled Writing Proficiency in the Montana University System was presented. The Montana Board of Regents adopted the test scores of the Montana University System Writing Assessment (MUSWA) as a standard of readiness for college-level composition. As juniors in high school, students take the MUSWA and find out if they will be ready for credit-bearing, college-level composition or if they are more likely to need a developmental writing course when they enter college. A graph was included that shows the operating costs and .5 FTE for Academic Initiatives; Title II Improving Teacher Quality grants to campuses for onsite facilitators, training costs and college credits; and an estimate for the cost to K-12 schools for substitute teachers and teacher travel. In conclusion, discussion ensued around the successful work of the Distance Learning Task Force Phase II, financial aid, student loans, and the new Board of Regents’ Student Representative. Item 5 GOVERNOR’S OFFICE REPORT - Jan Lombardi Ms. Jan Lombardi provided the Board with a press release dated Wednesday, May 7, 2008 announcing Mr. Mitch Jessen from Dillon, MT as the new student regent on the Board of Regents beginning July 1, 2008. Mr. Jessen grew up in Dillon and is currently a student at the University of Montana: Western. He has also attended Universal Technical Institute and the University of Utah. He works in the Admissions

5

Office, for Facilities Services and for Safe Ride at Montana Western. At the University of Utah, Mr. Jessen worked as an orientation leader and as a resident advisor. Mr. Jessen served his LDS mission in Britain. • Mr. David Ewer, Budget Director, Governor’s Office visited MSDB on Thursday, May 8, 2008. He

addressed the Board of Public Education upon the completion of his tour. Minutes of Mr. Ewer’s comments are listed in the order in which they appeared

K – COLLEGE UPDATE Ms. Jan Lombardi provided a press release dated Friday, May 2, 2008 on the recommendations of the Distance Learning Task Force Phase II to the Board of Public Education. Governor Brian Schweitzer said, “Our high school students are competing in a global economy. That is why one of my first homework assignments to the Board of Education was to prepare our students for college and work. I am thrilled that they made this practical and important decision. Now more Montana high school students will have a chance to get a jump start on college.” Under the recommendations students will have greater access to dual-credit courses.

• Ms. Anna Green is in the process of organizing the next K-College meeting to be held on July 31, 2008

Item 7 SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION CANDIDATE - Donald Eisenmenger,

Libertarian Candidate Some points presented were: • Mr. Donald Eisenmenger stressed the fact that he offers a different perspective, which is unique to

the other state superintendent of public instruction candidates, because he is not presently in the education system. If elected he would represent the interests of parents and taxpayers

• Not pressing for any major increases in the funding of education • Noted an excessive fondness of educators and wants to be clear and objective to who are paying the

bills • Montana is not a wealthy state, but is spending approximately 125% more on education than what

most U.S. citizens are paying according to national norms. Montana’s educational system is exceptionally good, but tax payers are speaking out when they do not pass current mill levies

• Montana does not provide a level of funding and support for options to other public education systems. Montana needs to look at ways to address the 8% of students who choose not to engage in the traditional public school system

• The Libertarian party is supportive in individual decision making at the lowest level possible • Mr. Eisenmenger views that OPI needs to be more of a resource to school districts to enhance their

curriculum rather than mandate what needs to be taught • Addressed issues in regard to artificial barriers he views in licensure • Would like to see more flexibility of funding for school districts and review the accreditation standards

to determine why school districts are not able to meet them Item 6 STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE’S SURVEY REPORT - Katie Wood Ms. Katie Wood worked with Ms. Jan Lombardi on getting informational DVD’s from the various colleges around the state to have high school students review a typical college day. During the Montana Association of Student Council’s Executive Board Meeting held on March 16, 2008 in Helena, Ms. Katie Wood was selected by the MASC to serve a second term for the Board of Public Education. DISCUSSION ITEMS Item 8 NASBE 2008 LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE - Dr. Kirk Miller Dr. Kirk Miller reported on his attendance to the NASBE 2008 Legislative Conference on March 13-14, 2008, in Washington, D.C. Some items included on the agenda were: Election 2008; Briefing on Federal Issues; Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization Congressional Leadership Discussion; State Board Member Visits with Congressional Delegations; School Leadership; U.S. Department of Education Briefing; Where Do We Go From Here? What’s Next for NCLB in 2009 and Beyond; and The

6

Price of NCLB – The Cost of Education Reform. Dr. Kirk Miller had the opportunity to meet with Senator Tester, Senator Baucus, and others from Montana to converse about educational issues. Senator Tester was clear that he would not support reauthorization of NCLB because he believes it is broken. Senator Baucus intends to talk with Senator Kennedy about NCLB’s impact on Montana and other rural states. He appreciated the changes that Montana has offered forth. Representative Rehberg said he doesn’t believe that NCLB will be reauthorized under the current status. There was some discussion about broadening the tax base by expanding natural resource development to create a sustainable source of funding. Dr. Kirk Miller had the opportunity to spend about an hour with Senator Jon Tester in the Bozeman School District to discuss what is happening with education in Montana shortly after the 2008 Legislative Conference. Mr. Eric Feaver noted that the mill levies failed in Great Falls and in Billings. It makes a statement of public perception of not indicating a good sign of public support. Mill levies are an intricate part of school funding. Some characterize them as a “necessary evil”, but Mr. Feaver believes that they are a “necessary good”. It is how taxpayers invest in public schools and maintain local control.

Item 9 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND UPDATE - Nancy Coopersmith This item included information concerning the E-Grant timelines for the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) applications for funding; allocations of funds for NCLB programs; recent federal reviews of Montana NCLB programs; and recently proposed regulations for NCLB. Ms. Nancy Coopersmith was proud of the joint statement that was prepared by Ms. Linda McCulloch, State Superintendent; Mr. Eric Feaver, President, MEA-MFT; Mr. Lance Melton, Executive Director, Montana School Boards Association; Mr. Steve Meloy, Executive Secretary, Board of Public Education; Ms. Beth Verlanic, President, Montana Parent Teacher Association; Mr. Dave Puyear, Executive Director, Montana Rural Education Association; and Mr. Darrell Rud, Executive Director, School Administrators of Montana; in regard to the Montana statement on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) found in correspondence and under Item 30 State Superintendent’s Report included in the agenda packet. The detailed summary of proposed Title I Regulations dated April 22, 2008 addressed the following: • Ms. Nancy Coopersmith reminded the Board that no appropriation of ESEA Title V is available this

year • Assessments and multiple measures • Minimum subgroup size and increasing inclusion of students in accountability determinations • NAEP data on state and local report cards • Graduation rates and AYP

1. Establish a uniform definition of graduation rate by 2012-2013 2. Provide flexibility for states to propose an alternate definition of “standard number of

years” 3. Require states to set a graduation rate goal, and define “continuous and substantial

improvement” for AYP determinations 4. Require disaggregated graduation rates in AYP

• Including individual student academic progress in AYP • Strengthening state assessment and accountability systems • Limiting identification for improvement by subject or subgroup • Strengthening restructuring

1. Restructuring interventions must be more rigorous than corrective action 2. Interventions must address the problem 3. Replacing school staff may also include replacing the principal, but replacing the principal

by itself is not sufficient • Supplemental Educational Services (SES) and Public School Choice

1. Public school choice and SES notification timeline 2. Reporting how LEAs implement SES and public school choice 3. Reporting on state monitoring of SES implementation by LEAs 4. Approving SES providers

7

5. Monitoring the effectiveness of SES providers 6. Costs for outreach and assistance to parents regarding SES and public school choice 7. Unspent funds for public school choice and SES

• Highly qualified special education teachers Ms. Nancy Coopersmith noted that the Emergency Supplement Appropriation could provide $6.5 million to aging and dilapidated schools. It is her hope that this moves forward and provides some relief of facilities to our nation’s schools. Dr. Kirk Miller clarified that Title V funds continue to exist, so there is the flexibility of transfer within other Title funds. Discussion ensued around the federal review and the definition of a highly qualified teacher in Montana. The Office of Public Instruction is waiting for the final review letter. Item 10 JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE WORK OF THE EDUCATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE - Patty Myers and Pam Joehler, LFD Analyst Ms. Patty Myers presented the K-12 Subcommittee meeting agenda that was held on Thursday, March 13, 2007. One item Ms. Myers specifically mentioned was presented by Mr. Chris Lohse, Research Director, American Indian Student Achievement, NCSL, concerning the Indian Education Achievement Gap. Ms. Pam Joehler was introduced as the Board of Public Education’s LFD Senior Analyst. Ms. Joehler shared with the Board that at the Interim Committee on Education and Local Government’s (ELG) March 2008 meeting, the committee charged staff with reporting back to the committee and Chairman Laible with ideas on a process that would lead to a deliverable document that would be a set of shared policy goals by and among the following four institutions: 1) Legislature; 2) Board of Public Education; 3) Board of Regents and the staff of the Commissioner of Higher Education; and 4) Office of Public Instruction. It is also envisioned that the Executive Secretary to the Board of Public Education would be part of this process with a role in the deliverable document of larger shared policy goals. Product Deliverable During the 2009-2010 interim of the legislature, there will be developed one joint-document of “larger shared policy goals” that is comprised of the following three components: • Shared Policy Goals and Accountability Measures for the Montana University System, signed by the

Board of Regents and the legislature [no change to this document or process] • Shared Policy Goals and Accountability Measures for the K-12 Public Education System, signed by

the Board of Public Education, the Office of Public Instruction, and the legislature [additional document recommended by staff]

• Shared Policy Goals and Accountability Measures for Public Education from Kindergarten through Graduate School, signed by the BOR, BPE, OPI, and the legislature

These three components will address a broad range of education policies and be organized in a way that recognizes a distinct set of policy goals for both higher education and for K-12 that will merge into a joint set of policy goals that involve all institutions. The deliverable process was also presented along with the two subcommittees for Postsecondary Education Policy and Budget (PEPB) and K-12 Public Education Policy and Budget (KPEPB). This would create the equivalent of PEPB for K-12 and the whole committee would umbrella both entities to make decisions on the common spectrum of issues and bridge the conversation between higher education and K-12. Discussion ensued around who makes the appointments, who are the voting members, and does this KPEPB make recommendations to the ELG. Ms. Pam Joehler believed that it would be comprised of members representing the Montana Legislature appointed by the legislature, Board of Public Education members appointed by the Board, and the Executive Branch as ex-officio members including the BPE Executive Secretary, Governor, and the Governor’s Educational Advisor. The KPEPB will make recommendations to the ELG in the same manner as the PEPB.

8

David Ewer arrived at 11:55 a.m. to have lunch with the Board and visitors at the MSDB Cafeteria. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS KINDERGARTEN CLASS AND THE “FAIRVIEW READING PROGRAM” ROOM 16 - Julie Dee Alt, MSDB Kindergarten Teacher VISUALLY IMPAIRED PERFORMERS (VIP) - IMC STAGE - Sheryl Lute COTTAGE ACTIVITIES - BPE BOARD MEETING ROOM - Maeona Lee, Supervising Counselor, MSDB Cottage Program INFORMATION ITEMS DAVID EWER, GOVERNOR’S BUDGET DIRECTOR Mr. David Ewer thanked Mr. Steve Gettel and his staff for the opportunity to tour the MSDB campus. Mr. Ewer expressed his interest in continuing to meet the needs of deaf and blind students and noted how MSDB delivers services have evolved throughout the years. The Schweitzer administration wants to ensure that all of Montana’s children are prepared for life-long learning. Since this is a world of scarce resources, the Board needs to ask itself what can be done to assist Montana’s students to lead productive lives and survive the world of work in a competitive nature. Mr. David Ewer and Governor Schweitzer have been in front of the Montana Quality Education Coalition (MQEC) to address the scarcity of resources. Support needs to come from legislators, BPE, and our communities. Governor Schweitzer is committed to improving the communities of Montana and money by itself will not resolve the issues. More needs to be done than just augment the status quo. Discussion centered on the issues Governor Schweitzer wants the BPE to consider when it prepares the long-range strategic plan on July 9, 2008. Mr. David Ewer noted the declining enrollment of rural Montana and stressed that Governor Schweitzer wants the Board to ensure the efficiency of dual enrollment through distance learning, re-evaluate ANB funding, continue progress of Indian Education for All, and create a seamless system between K-12 and higher education. Mr. Ewer acknowledged that the state of Montana has a financial responsibility to fund quality education, but the state is not solely responsible as noted by mill levies that either passed or failed in the recent election. 2:08 Commissioner Sheila Stearns Departed Item 12 SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION CANDIDATE - Sam Kitzenburg, Democratic Candidate Some points presented were: • Strongest qualification is 17 years of experience in the legislature • Goal is not to join the recession in regard to education. Need to achieve the best possible education

in the state of Montana • People in North Eastern Montana are concerned about the cost of living in this great state • Need a new funding formula. Feeling the vibrations of declining enrollment. A new formula should

meet the needs of students more effectively • Healthcare is a missing element • Wants to provide more educator initiatives • As a former teacher, Senator Kitzenburg wants to empower teachers through better pay and

resources for classrooms • If elected, the new sign on the Office of Public Instruction would be, “How Can We Serve You?” He

wants to communicate more with the teachers in regard to what can be done for them, even if it means being available on Saturdays

• Noted that if he hadn’t changed political parties, full day kindergarten would not have passed • Wants to provide more computers for students

9

• Views a great future in education because the state of Montana does care about doing what is necessary to improve the education of its children

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Bud Williams introduced Ms. Katherine Elizabeth Moore as the Office of Public Instruction’s Science Curriculum Specialist from Vancouver, Washington. DISCUSSION ITEMS Item 11 ASSESSMENT UPDATE - Madalyn Quinlan In January 2008, the Office of Public Instruction (OPI) presented five recommendations to the Board of Public Education for the further development of the Montana Comprehensive Assessment System. At this meeting, Mr. Bud Williams provided an update on the progress related to the following statewide assessment recommendations since Ms. Madalyn Quinlan was on vacation. The italics are what were added to the original recommendations listed as of April 30, 2008.

1. Pilot a writing assessment for K-12 • Purpose and technical aspects of writing assessments • Panel on local writing assessments • Panel on commercial writing assessments • Testing contractors presented information about demonstrations of their writing assessment

products and services. CTB-McGraw-Hill, Measured Progress, and Data Recognition Corporation each gave a one hour presentation to OPI assessment planning staff

• Writing Assessment Pilot for grades 5 and 9 – May’s Request for Information (RFI) and August’s Request for Proposals (RFP) will follow

2. Analysis of seven years of NRT results • A letter of agreement with Brookhart Enterprises has been signed and the contractor has the

necessary materials and data to complete the project. The completion date is September 15, 2008

3. Creating interest and awareness in formative assessment • Moderated panel on commercial formative assessments • Use of NAEP Questions Tool as a resource for constructing classroom formative

assessments • Use of Smart Boards and other technology for classroom formative assessment • Formative assessment basics • CPS+CRT= Success ( NOTE: CPS are handheld “clicker” devices that individuals in a group

use to indicate an answer) • OPI will purchase copies of Dr. Jim Popham’s, Transformative Assessment, for all test

coordinators, the assessment task force, and the OPI Resource Center • 2008 MEA-MFT Educator Conference: OPI will present a moderated panel on formative

assessment, which will include participation from Montana school districts • OPI will contract for professional development modules on best practices in formative

assessment 4. Survey of school districts to identify needs for state and local assessment

• The focus groups provided input for the questionnaire. A questionnaire is being developed based on themes raised by the focus groups including writing/performance assessments, local assessment needs, formative assessment needs, and suggestions for the next generation of the CRT. OPI has signed a Letter of Agreement with WestEd to develop the questionnaire. The completion date for the results of the questionnaire is November 7, 2008

5. Form an assessment task force • The original recommendation of the survey dates has been amended so that focus groups at

the April 2008 statewide assessment conference can inform the content of the questionnaire. A letter of agreement with WestEd has been signed for the focus groups, survey,

10

questionnaire, results, and reports. WestEd will work with the OPI and the BPE’s formed assessment task force to provide input and recommendations on the questionnaire drafts. The final questionnaire will be used in a statewide survey in September 2008. A written report and recommendations will be presented to the Board at its November 2008 meeting

Mr. Bud Williams distributed a packet of information from the 2008 OPI Statewide Assessment Conference that was held on April 28-29, 2008. Discussion centered on who should be on the Assessment Task Force, the 2008 timeline, and addressed the concept of a seamless system. Item 13 REVISED INFORMATION LITERACY/LIBRARY MEDIA CONTENT AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - Colet Bartow This presentation provided for consideration the draft K-12 Content Standards and Performance Descriptors for Information Literacy/Library Media. It also included discussion of the review process, foundation resources, key issues, draft standards and related materials. Attached is the “user-friendly” document of the K-12 Content Standards and Performance Descriptors for Information Literacy/Library Media. Ms. Colet Bartow, Library Media Specialist and Ms. Gloria Curdy, Facilitator for the Information Literacy/Library Media Revision Team presented a memorandum dated April 24, 2008 in regard to the revision progress report. The Literacy/Library Media and Technology teams worked closely together and used the national experts Mr. Mike Eisenberg and Mr. Doug Johnson. Mr. Eisenberg informed the teams that the standards in the draft form should be a model and reviewed by the nation for the quality of their excellence. An additional standard was added to satisfy the need to use information safely, ethically, and legally in the growing world of technology. There is a greater clarity to the substance of these standards. Item 14 REVISED TECHNOLOGY CONTENT AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - Michael Hall This presentation provided for consideration the draft K-12 Content Standards and Performance Descriptors for Technology. It also included discussion of the review process, foundation resources, key issues, draft standards and related materials. Attached is the “user-friendly” document of the K-12 Content Standards and Performance Descriptors for Technology. Mr. Michael Hall, Instructional Technology Specialist and Mr. Matt Clausen, Team Member for the Technology Revision Team informed the Board that the technology standards have embedded two standards within the remaining four standards because the skills should be taught across the curriculum. Mr. Hall and Mr. Clausen reiterated the effectiveness of collaboration between the two teams to revise both sets of standards. Closed Meeting 3:30 p.m. MEETING CLOSED FOR ITEMS 15 – 17 INFORMATION ITEM Item 15 NOTIFICATION OF SURRENDER OF EDUCATOR LICENSE - Kathleen Magone Report to the Board of Public Education in closed session of the surrenders of two educator licenses as required by Administrative Rules of Montana 10.57.605(5): “The superintendent of public instruction shall provide notice to the board of public education of each surrender of a license and of the circumstances surrounding the surrender.” The two surrenders were identified as folio #74123 and folio #43309. ACTION ITEMS Item 16 HEARING – DENIAL CASE NO. 2008-01 BPE - Steve Meloy and Kathleen Magone The hearing was postponed until the July 10-11, 2008 Board of Public Education Meeting. Item 17 REVOCATION CASE NO. 2008-02 BPE - Steve Meloy and Kathleen Magone Open Meeting 3:52 p.m.

11

MOTION: Mr. Bernie Olson moved to revoke the license of Revocation Case No. 2008-02. Dr. Kirk Miller seconded. Ms. Sharon Carroll was recused from the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Angela McLean was absent for the vote.

MEETING OPEN FOR THE REMAINING ITEMS

PUBLIC COMMENT The public will be afforded the opportunity to comment before the Board on every action item on the agenda prior to final Board action. Item 20 K-8 TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION RESOLUTION - Nancy Coopersmith For the reasons articulated in the proposed resolution, the Montana Comprehensive Highway Safety Planning Coalition has identified several priorities to help improve traffic safety among Montana’s Young drivers and those who share the roadway with them. One countermeasure is increasing support and activities in Montana public schools related to traffic safety as a means of increasing knowledge and good experience with pre-driving K-8 children using Montana’s roads and streets. The proposed resolution was initially presented at the January 10, 2008 BPE meeting and represents one way to increase awareness of this important issue among schools, and to encourage schools to include traffic safety education and activities. In addition to this proposed resolution, other items are also being investigated. One is to develop an activity book for schools similar to the very popular “Mind & Body” activity book, but providing age-appropriate activities that improve the child’s knowledge, awareness and skills about traffic safety behaviors. OPI asked the Board to consider adopting the Traffic Education Resolution as presented.

MOTION: Mr. Storrs Bishop moved to adopt the K-8 Traffic Safety Education Resolution as presented. Mr. Cal Gilbert seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Angela McLean was absent for the vote.

Item 21 NOTICE OF AMENDMENT RELATING TO K-12 CONTENT STANDARDS & PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTORS FOR INFORMATION LITERACY/LIBRARY MEDIA AND TECHNOLOGY - Colet Bartow and Michael Hall This presentation requested action by the Board of Public Education to approve the notice of public hearing document and timeline relating to the proposed amendments to the K-12 Content Standards and Performance Descriptors for Information Literacy/Library Media, Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 10.54.6510 through 10.54.6598, and K-12 Content Standards and Performance Descriptors for Technology ARM 10.54.7510 through 10.54.7598. The proposed timeline entailed the following dates:

• May 8-9, 2008 Proposed notice to BPE • June 2, 2008 Proposed notice to SOS for notice in MAR (by 12:00 p.m.) • June 12, 2008 MAR publication out • Week of June 20-July 3, 2008 Hearing date • Date of Hearing Final public input deadline • July 8, 2008 Proposed adoption notice to BPE • July 21, 2008 Adoption notice to SOS for notice in MAR (by 12:00 p.m.) • July 31, 2008 MAR publication out • August 1, 2008 Effective Date of Rules

MOTION: Mr. Storrs Bishop moved to approve the notice of public hearing on the

proposed amendments of ARM 10.54.6510 through 10.54.6598 relating to K-12 Content Standards and Performance Descriptors for Information Literacy/Library Media. Mr. Bernie Olson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Angela McLean was absent for

12

the vote. MOTION: Mr. Storrs Bishop moved to approve the notice of public hearing on the

proposed amendments of ARM 10.54.7510 through 10.54.7598 relating to K-12 Content Standards and Performance Descriptors for Technology. Ms. Sharon Carroll seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Angela McLean was absent for the vote.

It was discussed to have two hearings on the same day, but have some time separating each one. Item 18 BPE AND BOR MEETING SCHEDULES - Steve Meloy Ms. Carol Will, BPE’s Administrative Assistant; Ms. Lynette Brown, Executive Assistant to the Commissioner and the Board of Regents; and Ms. Sherry Rosette, Former Executive Assistant to the Commissioner and the Board of Regents worked together to develop the proposed schedule to ensure that the BOR and the BPE do not overlap in meeting schedules. The proposed changes have been approved by Mr. Steve Meloy, BPE’s Executive Secretary and Commissioner Sheila Stearns. The following changes were recommended: • July 2008 BOR will move its meeting to July 8, 2008; BPE will remain on July 9-11, 2008 • January 2009 BOE will remain January 8, 2009 in the morning; BOR will meet all day on

January 7, 2009 and the afternoon of January 8, 2009 after the BOE; and BPE will remain on the afternoon of January 8, 2009 after the BOE and all day on January 9, 2009

• March 2009 BOR will remain March 4-6, 2009; BPE will move its meeting to March 12 – 13, 2009

• July 2009 BOR will remain July 9, 2009; BPE will change its meeting to July 15-17, 2009 All remaining meetings for the Board of Public Education will remain the same.

MOTION: Mr. Bernie Olson moved to accept the proposed changes to the Board of Public Education’s 2008-2009 meeting schedule. Mr. Cal Gilbert seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Angela McLean was absent for the vote.

Item 19 BPE JUNE 13, 2007 CONFERENCE CALL MEETING MINUTES - Steve Meloy Mr. Steve Meloy reviewed the two-step process that the Board of Public Education uses to: 1. prescribe the term and duties with a contract; and 2. establish the salary of the BPE’s Executive Secretary and MSDB’s Superintendent. Mr. Meloy noted that the two motions that were acted upon during the June 13, 2007 BPE’s conference call meeting read that the annual salary rate should extend throughout the length of the contract. Discussion ensued that it was the Board’s intent to establish the salary for the 1st year of the contract that was extended for both the BPE’s Executive Secretary and the MSDB’s Superintendent. The motions would read if amended:

1. MOTION: Ms. Angela McLean moved to accept the proposed salary of the Superintendent of the Montana School for the Deaf and Blind at the annual rate of $80,974.00 for the 1st year of the contract extended from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2010. Dr. Kirk Miller seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Storrs Bishop, Mr. Cal Gilbert, and Mr. John Fuller were absent from the vote.

2. MOTION: Dr. Kirk Miller moved a 3% increase in the Executive Secretary’s annual salary for the Board of Public Education for the 1st year of the contract extended from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2010. Mr. Storrs Bishop, Mr. Cal Gilbert, and Mr. John Fuller were absent from the vote.

MOTION: Dr. Kirk Miller moved to amend motion 1 and motion 2 as presented to include “the 1st year of the contract extended” for the Superintendent of the Montana School for the Deaf and Blind and the Executive Secretary to the Board of Public Education. Mr. Cal Gilbert seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Angela McLean was absent for the vote.

PUBLIC COMMENT

13

Mr. Chris Goss, Former Education Policy Advisor to the Governor, came to speak with the Board because the Board’s passion of education has continued to reside within him. Adjourned at 4:30 p.m. ********************************************************************************************************************** May 9, 2008 – Friday 8:30 a.m. State Superintendent Linda McCulloch present Deputy Commissioner Roger Barber attended for Commissioner Sheila Stearns Meeting called to order at 8:35 a.m. Item 22 ADDENDUM TO 2007-2008 ACCREDITATION STATUS RECOMMENDATIONS - Al McMilin This presentation provided the BPE to consider an addendum to the 2007-2008 accreditation determinations for all schools as recommended by the State Superintendent Linda McCulloch. These changes are due to errors identified by the Office of Public Instruction after the accreditation determinations were acted on during the March 2008 BPE meeting and the districts were notified of those determinations. The report was included. Mr. Al McMilin stated that the addendums are usually a move up in accreditation status. MOTION: Mr. Storrs Bishop moved to approve the amendments to the 2007-2008 Montana Accreditation Status Recommendations as presented. Mr. Cal Gilbert seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Angela McLean was absent for the vote. Item 23 PROGRESS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVISED 2006-2007 IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR SCHOOLS WITH ADVICE OR DEFICIENCY ACCREDITATION STATUS - Al McMilin A progress report was provided from OPI of the improvement plans to correct accreditation deviations that were disapproved at the January 2009 BPE meeting. OPI requested the BPE to approve the state superintendent’s recommendations. Mr. Al McMilin stated that 215 schools with advice and deficiency accreditation status are submitting improvement plans. The improvement plans are very labor intensive but extremely important. Discussion ensued whether or not more schools are meeting the improvement plans and what happens if they do not meet the goals presented. Mr. Al McMilin said that could be answered more accurately in July. MOTION: Mr. Storrs Bishop moved to approve the State Superintendent’s

recommendation of the Summary of Improvement Plans Submitted by Schools Receiving Advice or Deficiency Status 2007-2008 May Update as presented. Mr. Cal Gilbert seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Angela McLean was absent for the vote.

Item 24 PROGRESS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON ON-SITE ACCREDITATION VISITS FOR SCHOOLS WITH CONTINUING SERIOUS ACCREDITATION DEVIATIONS - Al McMilin The State Superintendent of Public Instruction provided annual recommendations to the Board of Public Education for accreditation status determinations for all Montana accredited schools. The continuing concern is: How does the OPI accreditation staff address continuing deviations fairly, consistently and with intention toward continuous education improvement? The State Superintendent follows the process approved by the Board of Public Education to address ongoing accreditation deviations. Included in this report was the “Accreditation Response Options for Continuing Deviations.” Letters from several schools were included to represent the tone of serious accreditation deviations. Discussion ensued that there are many variables involved that would cause a school to continue with serious accreditation deviations. When the Office of Public Instruction appears on the school’s step it provides a reality check that generally makes a significant difference. Following up with these schools seems to be the key to success. If these measures do not ensure progress, then they are asked to appear before the Board of

14

Public Education. Mr. Eric Feaver expressed his outrage that more isn’t done to ensure that these schools in serious accreditation deviations comply with the laws written by the Board of Public Education. MOTION: Mr. Storrs Bishop moved to approve the State Superintendent’s

recommendation of the Summary of Improvement Plans Submitted by Schools Receiving Advice or Deficiency Status 2007-2008 On-Site Visits Update as presented. Ms. Sharon Carroll seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Angela McLean was absent for the vote.

Item 25 ALTERNATIVE STANDARD REQUESTS – RECOMMENDATIONS - Al McMilin This presentation provided to the Board of Public Education for consideration of Initial Alternative Standard and/or Five-Year Renewal Alternative Standard Requests recommended either for approval or for disapproval by State Superintendent Linda McCulloch. Mr. Al McMilin stressed that the major consideration in determining if a proposed alternative would be acceptable is whether the proposed change or modification shows clearly how it will meet or exceed the results under the current standard(s) as written in ARM 10.55.604. 15% or 183 of Montana’s schools have at least one alternative standard. Of the 183 schools with alternative standards listed below is the breakdown by standard:

• 86 schools 10.55.709 Library Media • 88 schools 10.55.710 Guidance • 8 schools 10.55.704 Administration • 1 school 10.55.902 Basic Program

The schools that choose to use alternative standards do so because the others may not be practical, viable, or they find a “better” way to meet or exceed the standard. A PowerPoint presentation was shared of the many schools Mr. Al McMilin has attended during his accreditation visits. MOTION: Mr. Storrs Bishop moved to approve the State Superintendent’s

recommendation to renew the five-year renewal alternative standard applications in accordance with ARM 10.55.604 representing Fortine Elementary School in Lincoln County and Greenfield Elementary School in Teton County as presented. Ms. Sharon Carroll seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Angela McLean was absent for the vote.

Item 26 BASE AID PAYMENT SCHEDULE - Nancy Coopersmith As required by 20-9-344, Montana Code Annotated (MCA), the Board of Public Education must approve the distribution of K-12 BASE aid for public education. The schedule is the same as past years, approximately the 25th of each month, with the adjustment for weekends and holidays. The Board of Investments has reviewed it.

MOTION: Mr. Storrs Bishop moved to approve the 2008-2009 BASE aid payment schedule to K-12 schools as presented. Dr. Kirk Miller seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Angela McLean was absent for the vote.

INFORMATION ITEM Item 27 MONTANA QUALITY EDUCATION COALITION (MQEC) REMEDY RECOMMENDATIONS - Dr. Bruce Messinger Dr. Bruce Messinger presented the following Montana Quality Education Coalition (MQEC) remedy recommendations to the Board of Public Education as the Chair of the MQEC Remedy Committee using a PowerPoint and the March 20, 2008 Initial Discussion Draft titled, A Roadmap for Restoring Our Shared Commitment to the Children Served in our Public Schools:

1. Quality Educator Payment Increase: An increase of $7,250 per Quality Educator with an

15

estimated annual fiscal impact of $91 million 2. Special Education Costs: An increased in special education in an amount necessary to bring

the state back to its previously-demonstrated commitment to special education of 80% of costs that existed in 1989 with an estimated annual fiscal impact of $47.5 million

3. At-Risk Funding: An implementation of a flat payment of $1,000 per at risk ANB, with the designation of at-risk based on eligibility for free or reduced lunch with an estimated annual fiscal impact of $47.8 million

4. Payment for Textbooks and Supplies: A new formula component for textbooks and supplies, set at $260 per pupil with an estimated annual fiscal impact of $39 million

5. Indian Education for All: A state increase of funding for the Indian Education for All component consistent with the proposal advanced in Senate Bill 390, 2007 Legislative Session with an estimated annual fiscal impact of $4.5 million

6. School Unit Allocation for Building Operations: A state increase of funding for building operations, distributed on a school unit allocation consistent with the one time only allocation for school units under Senate Bill 2 of the May 2007 Special Session with the estimated annual fiscal impact of $29.9 million

Some additional suggestions in restoring the state’s role in funding K-12 schools were presented: • Consumer Price Index – Unit to all formula elements • + 25% local option above the BASE budget funded by the state • Implement a permissive levy above BASE for up to 4% per year, any increase beyond 4% subject

to voter approval • Track state’s progress on facilities • Reasonable phase in over time • Make appropriations for schools biennial

Discussion ensued about the repercussions surrounding bringing this coalition’s arguments back to the courts and providing results to the public of what they can expect from Montana’s schools when fully funded. 11:00 a.m. Ms. Katie Wood Departed ACTION ITEMS Item 28 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DISTANCE LEARNING TASK FORCE PHASE II (DLTFII) - Dr. Kirk Miller and Bud Williams Dr. Kirk Miller and Mr. Bud Williams expressed their thanks and appreciation for all that have been involved. Dr. Linda Vrooman Peterson presented the following DLTFII unanimous recommendations to the Board of Public Education for consideration: • Amendment to ARM 10.55.907 (3) and (3)(a) in Montana and elsewhere. Refer to the included

handout Approved by DLTFII at its January 15, 2008 work session • Amendment to ARM 10.57.102 Definitions “faculty” • Amendment to ARM 10.57.201 General Provisions to Issue Licenses • New Rule – Class 8 Dual Credit-Only Postsecondary Faculty License

The draft copy of the following rules was distributed: • 10.57.102 Definitions • 10.57.201 General Provisions to Issue Licenses • 10.57.437 (New) Class 8 Dual Credit-Only Postsecondary Faculty License • 10.55.907 Distance, Online, and Technology Delivered Learning (3) and (3)(a)

The proposed timeline for Chapter 55-57 Rules and Class 8 Licensure was presented: • May 8-9, 2008 Proposed rules to BPE for Review • July Meeting Proposed notice to BPE for authorization to publish • July 21, 2008 Proposed notice to SOS for notice in MAR • July 31, 2008 MAR publication out

16

• Week of August 25th,2008 Hearing date • August 28, 2008 Final Public Input deadline • September Meeting Proposed adoption notice to BPE for review • September 25, 2008 MAR publication out • September 26, 2008 Effective Date of Rules

The May 1, 2008 press release from the Board of Public Education, the May 7, 2008 Great Falls Tribune article, and the May 9, 2008 letter from Mr. Tom Kotynski, Workforce Development Facilitator, from Great Falls Public Schools were distributed. Discussion ensued around the purpose of the DLTFII to review and resolve K-12 education issues related to teacher qualifications/dual credit being well on its way to be completed with the quality that is expected and providing for flexibility. MOTION: Dr. Kirk Miller moved to accept the recommendation of the four amendments as outlined by the DLTFII. Mr. Storrs Bishop seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Angela McLean was absent for the vote. Ms. Jan Lombardi stated that it was exciting to see the shared enthusiasm around this work. On behalf of the Governor, Ms. Jan Lombardi commended the Board of Public Education and the Office of Public Instruction. Item 29 RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE CARROLL COLLEGE MAJOR IN HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION K-12 TEACHING ENDORSEMENT - Dr. Linda Vrooman Peterson At the Board of Public Education meeting in March 2008, the Office of Public Instruction provided information for discussion to the BPE regarding the request by Carroll College to add a Health and Physical Education K-12 Major to its endorsement areas. Carroll College’s Dr. Gloria Lambertz, Education/HPE faculty, presented additional information related to the proposed new program. The OPI reviewed the documentation submitted by Carroll College and confirms that the Health and Physical Education K-12 Major meets the Professional Educator Preparation Program Standards Administrative Rules of Montana 10.58.513 Health and 10.58.520 Physical Education as approved by the BPE. OPI requested approval by the BPE of the Carroll College Health and Physical Education K-12 Major. The major, other, and professional education program requirements were provided. MOTION: Dr. Kirk Miller moved to approve the Carroll College Major in Health and Physical Education K-12 Teaching Endorsement as outlined in ARM rules 10.58.513 Health and 10.58.520 Physical Education. Mr. Bernie Olson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Angela McLean was absent for the vote. INFORMATION ITEMS Item 30 STATE SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT - State Superintendent Linda McCulloch State Superintendent Linda McCulloch provided the Board of Public Education with her March and April highlights. Reviewed the following topics: 2008 spring yellow school bus tour; high school survey regarding math offerings and graduation requirements; Quality Educator Loan Assistance Program; acceptable use of district computers; general reminder to school board trustees; changes in reporting race/ethnicity of students; call for nominations – a working conference June 23-27, 2008; OPI statewide assessment conference; 2008-2009 MontCAS testing windows; NAEP writing results for 2007 released; and Board of Regents policy changes. The March 18, 2008 press release announcing that applications are available for the Quality Teacher Loan Assistance Program was distributed. To qualify for loan assistance an educator must be: • A full-time educator holding a valid educator license or licensed professional providing services to

students in a school district, an education cooperative, the Montana School for the Deaf and Blind, the Montana Youth Challenge Program or a state youth correctional facility

17

• Teaching in an impacted school. These schools tend to be rural and isolated, have a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and/or have greater challenges in closing the achievement gap. A list of qualifying schools is available at http://www.opi.mt.gov/PUB/PDF/Cert/ImpactedSchools_CQESRpt.pdf

• Teaching in an impacted academic area. These areas are Business Education, Library/Media, Mathematics, Music, School Counselor, Science, Special Education, Speech/Language Pathologist, and World Languages

Applications and instructions are available online at http://www.mgslp.org and must be received at the Montana Guaranteed Student Loan Program, 2500 Broadway, Helena, MT 59601 no later than May 31, 2008.

INDIAN EDUCATION REPORT The Office of Public Instruction is offering Indian Student Achievement Professional Development Grants to support schools in their efforts to close the achievement gap that exists between American Indian students and all other students in Montana. These grants are offered to Montana public school educators who work with American Indian student populations with priority given to those who work either with schools that are in the restructuring phase of the AYP process or those who can demonstrate a significant achievement gap within their school. Professional development opportunities must match the demonstrated need. Listed is the Indian Education for All ongoing initiatives during July 2007-May 2008: • Indian Education for All Museum Educator Best Practices Program: A “Museum-Educator Best

Practices Handbook” • Ready-To-Go IEFA Professional Development Contracts 2008 • Additional Ready-To-Go IEFA Professional Development Grants • Montana University System Teacher Education Professional Development Grants 2008 • Indian Education for All Museum Educator Best Practices Program II • Math-Science Leadership Association

The Indian Education Report from State Superintendent Linda McCulloch contained the following: Professional Development for Indian Education for All; Closing the Achievement Gap Summer Professional Development Grants; Indian Education for All Best Practices Conference; Montana tribal history projects sent to schools; Indian Education for All material sent to schools; and Call to Greatness Academies. 12:45 p.m. Dr. Kirk Miller Departed Item 31 MSDB COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT - Steve Gettel The following items were presented during the Montana School for the Deaf and Blind report: • Student Enrollment/Evaluation • Human Resources

-Update on personnel actions • School Improvement -Update on CEP -Update on strategic planning process -Update on LFC and LAD performance audits -Update 2011 biennial budget process • Professional Development Activities -Update on in-service training • MSDB Foundation Activities -Update projects and grants • Conferences, Meetings and Contacts • Budget and Finance -Update on budget

18

-Update on LAD fiscal audit • Facilities and Safety -Update on current projects • School Calendar of Events • Student News

The March 17, 2008 letter from Mr. Al McMilin, Educator Quality Specialist, was presented in regard to the final determinations of MSDB’s accreditation status. MSDB will need to submit an improvement plan to correct the deviations for teachers who are not endorsed in the area(s) in which he/she is assigned to teach to the Office of Public Instruction by August 1, 2008. PRELIMINARY AGENDA ITEMS – July 9-11, 2008 Wednesday, July 9, 2008 5-Year Strategic Planning Session Thursday and Friday, July 10-11, 2008 Strategic Meeting – Review Bylaws and Operational Rules Assessment Task Force NCLB Update MACIE Update Annual GED Report Special Education Report Distance Learning – Proposed Notice for Authorization to Publish Library Media Standards Adoption Notice Technology Standards Adoption Notice Hearing – Denial Case No. 2008-01 BPE Hearings – Two Revocation Cases (1-Tentative) 1:20 p.m. Adjourned by Concurrence

From: Stearns, Sheila Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 10:37 AM To: Brown, Lynette Cc: Stearns, Sheila; Gibson, Thomas; Barber, Roger; Trevor, Tyler; Meloy, Steve Subject: RE: RECOMMENDATION FOR LICENSURE OF DUAL-CREDIT INSTRUCTORS Lynette, please send to Regents and campus leaders with this note from me. If you already sent, still send my note. Thanks. Members of the Board: The press release from Steve Meloy of the Board of Public Education is very good news, as I'm sure you know. Knowing it would be an historic meeting, I attended the task force meeting yesterday to sit on the sidelines and weigh in, if needed, in any final negotiations. Tom Gibson was our primary representative at the table, a table of about 15 stakeholders with strong opinions on how to connect college faculty with delivery of dual high-school/college courses. The Governor played a role starting months ago behind the scenes by encouraging reluctant parties to work together. MEA-MFT assisted with compromise ideas. Steve Meloy and the Board of Public Ed. were willing to think out of the box. Many others too were willing to give a little on long-established positions regarding licensure, such as Linda McCulloch and Kirk Miller, the school boards' association and rural schools assn. From the MUS side, and I can't stress this enough, was the steadfast work by Tom Gibson, the MUS director of distance learning. He was assisted with considerable background and insight from Dean Mary Moe. I can think of only one other subject in recent months in MUS which has involved more meetings and email traffic for me than this issue. I extend thanks and recognition to all involved, because while not perfect, it is a very positive change that will mean most college classes and faculty, with -granted- some extra effort, can be licensed for their courses to count for high school as well as college credit. Local school districts still have a lot of control in that matter, but most districts should be pleased by this development if it is finally approved next week by the full Board of Public Education. Regards, Sheila

From: Brown, Lynette Sent: Fri 5/2/2008 8:31 AM To: Stearns, Sheila; Jan Clinard (E-mail); Roger Barber (E-mail); Gibson, Thomas Subject: FW: RECOMMENDATION FOR LICENSURE OF DUAL-CREDIT INSTRUCTORS

Fyi – this is a news release sent out by OPI

From: NewsLinks@metnet.mt.gov [mailto:NewsLinks@metnet.mt.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 5:30 PM To: Brown, Lynette Subject: RECOMMENDATION FOR LICENSURE OF DUAL-CREDIT INSTRUCTORS Contributed by Carol" <cwill@montana.edu>,Internet:

BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION PRESS RELEASE May 1, 2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Steve Meloy smeloy@montana.edu 444-6576 BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANNOUNCES RECOMMENDATION FOR LICENSURE OF DUAL-CREDIT INSTRUCTORS 5/1/2008 4:00 PM - Helena, MT: Today the Board of Public Educationís Distance Learning Task Force unanimously recommended a significant new avenue for licensure for dual-credit instructors. Under the recommendation students will have greater access to dual-credit courses. "This is an historic moment. Montana has created a practical means that ensures flexibility and preserves quality," asserted Dr. Kirk Miller, Task Force Co-Chair. Over a two-year period a 25-member task force ironed out solutions to complex dual-credit issues. Said Steve Meloy, "The Board of Public Education appreciates the statewide attention this issue has drawn, and thanks the collaborative effort among its partners to arrive at this unanimous and national precedent setting recommendation. I am proud of the work this group has done on the behalf of all Montanans." The Task Force recommendation will be considered by the Board of Public Education at its May 9 meeting in Great Falls. If they approve, the recommendation will be noticed for public hearing in July, with hearings to following in August, 2008. A final vote on the recommendation would be considered by the Board of Public Education at its September meeting. For more information, please contact Steve Meloy, Executive Secretary Board of Public Education. Email: smeloy@montana.edu 406-444-6576 Carol Will, Administrative Assistant Board of Public Education 46 N Last Chance Gulch Helena, MT 59620-0601 (406)444-0302 Fax (406)444-0847 cwill@montana.edu

BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION

PRESS RELEASE May 1, 2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Steve Meloy smeloy@montana.edu 444-6576 BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANNOUNCES RECOMMENDATION FOR

LICENSURE OF DUAL-CREDIT INSTRUCTORS 5/1/2008 4:00 PM - Helena, MT: Today the Board of Public Education’s Distance Learning Task Force unanimously recommended a significant new avenue for licensure for dual-credit instructors. Under the recommendation students will have greater access to dual-credit courses. "This is an historic moment. Montana has created a practical means that ensures flexibility and preserves quality," asserted Dr. Kirk Miller, Task Force Co-Chair. Over a two-year period a 25-member task force ironed out solutions to complex dual-credit issues. Said Steve Meloy, "The Board of Public Education appreciates the statewide attention this issue has drawn, and thanks the collaborative effort among its partners to arrive at this unanimous and national precedent setting recommendation. I am proud of the work this group has done on the behalf of all Montanans." The Task Force recommendation will be considered by the Board of Public Education at its May 9 meeting in Great Falls. If they approve, the recommendation will be noticed for public hearing in July, with hearings to following in August, 2008. A final vote on the recommendation would be considered by the Board of Public Education at its September meeting. For more information, please contact Steve Meloy, Executive Secretary Board of Public Education. Email: smeloy@montana.edu 406-444-6576

Sheila,

The proposed language will allow college faculty a license to teach dual credit to K-12 students either in person or by distance learning. The proposed language will create a (NEW) Class 8 Dual Credit-Only Postsecondary Faculty License which will allow a college faculty member to teach a course for which one or more students will earn both high school and college credit at the same time. The teaching can be online or in a classroom. The significance of this language is it opens up opportunities for students to get an early start on college but at the same time assures the Board of Public Education that the faculty is credentialed to teach to a K-12 student body. The unanimous vote to recommend to the Board was made up of representatives from both K-12 and higher education.

Hope this helps. Thanks for your interest.

Steve

Steve Meloy Executive Secretary Board of Public Education PO Box 200601 Helena, MT 59620-0601 406-444-6576 smeloy@montana.edu

From: Sheila Callahan [mailto:sheila@kmso.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 5:42 PM To: Will, Carol Subject: [Fwd: RECOMMENDATION FOR LICENSURE OF DUAL-CREDIT INSTRUCTORS]

Carol, Does dual credit refer to high school students taking classes that give them both high school and college credit? How is distance learning involved? More details would help, if you have a moment to reply. Thank you! Sheila Callahan. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RECOMMENDATION FOR LICENSURE OF DUAL-CREDIT

INSTRUCTORS Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 16:31:15 -0600

From: NewsLinks@metnet.mt.gov

To: sheila@kmso.com

Contributed by Carol" <cwill@montana.edu>,Internet: BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION PRESS RELEASE

May 1, 2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Steve Meloy smeloy@montana.edu 444-6576 BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANNOUNCES RECOMMENDATION FOR LICENSURE OF DUAL-CREDIT INSTRUCTORS 5/1/2008 4:00 PM - Helena, MT: Today the Board of Public Educationís Distance Learning Task Force unanimously recommended a significant new avenue for licensure for dual-credit instructors. Under the recommendation students will have greater access to dual-credit courses. "This is an historic moment. Montana has created a practical means that ensures flexibility and preserves quality," asserted Dr. Kirk Miller, Task Force Co-Chair. Over a two-year period a 25-member task force ironed out solutions to complex dual-credit issues. Said Steve Meloy, "The Board of Public Education appreciates the statewide attention this issue has drawn, and thanks the collaborative effort among its partners to arrive at this unanimous and national precedent setting recommendation. I am proud of the work this group has done on the behalf of all Montanans." The Task Force recommendation will be considered by the Board of Public Education at its May 9 meeting in Great Falls. If they approve, the recommendation will be noticed for public hearing in July, with hearings to following in August, 2008. A final vote on the recommendation would be considered by the Board of Public Education at its September meeting. For more information, please contact Steve Meloy, Executive Secretary Board of Public Education. Email: smeloy@montana.edu 406-444-6576

Carol Will, Administrative Assistant Board of Public Education 46 N Last Chance Gulch Helena, MT 59620-0601 (406)444-0302 Fax (406)444-0847 [ "ailto:cwill@bpe.montana.edu ]cwill@montana.edu † ________________________________________ A service of the Montana Education Telecommunications Network - METNET A division of the Montana Office of Public Instruction Free E-Mail for certified Montana teachers "ttp://www.metnet.mt.gov/

Board of Education floats new license for professors By KRISTEN CATES Tribune Staff Writer - May 7, 2008

Education officials have reached a compromise when it comes to distance learning courses for secondary schools and making sure the instructors of those courses are certified as K-12 teachers.

The debate has raged on for more than a year, and this week, the Montana Board of Public Education will hear a new recommendation by the distance learning task force to create a new license for collegiate professors who are going to teach K-12 courses — whether it's by Internet, video or on campus — to students from schools all across the state.

"I think it's fantastic," said Mary Sheehy Moe, dean of MSU-Great Falls College of Technology. "I think it's a great compromise."

The Board of Public Education meets in Great Falls at the Montana School for the Deaf and the Blind on Thursday and Friday. They will take action on the distance learning recommendation on Friday.

A year ago, the Board of Public Education changed the rules on distance learning, requiring anyone who is teaching a distance learning course, whether it is at the local level or as a college professor, to be certified and licensed as a K-12 instructor in the area in which they teach.

Moe and other higher education officials argued this was creating an undue burden on college professors who already have master's and doctorate degrees in the areas in which they teach. Additionally, if a teacher in a rural school wasn't certified in the subject offered through distance learning, the class couldn't be taught.

"It recognizes that (college professors) are fully able to teach college courses," Moe said.

In January, the task force created a new rule that the instructor could be certified outside of Montana, trying to lessen the burden slightly, as some online or distance certification classes come from out of state.

Steve Meloy, executive secretary for the Board of Public Education, said the new license, called the dual-credit postsecondary-only faculty license, will only add increased flexibility to the law change.

"It's a huge, huge success," Meloy said. "It creates a way of knowing who (the instructors) are."

Meloy said the licensing process shouldn't create any undue burden for higher education faculty.

"It's a portfolio review process," he said.

When K-12 instructors apply for a regular license, they are required to pay $6 a year for their license, which must be renewed every five years and requires 60 hours of continuing education credits to be renewed, said Tara Jensen, communications director for the Office of Public Instruction.

How this new higher education-to-K-12 license will be implemented has not been formalized yet, but Jensen said a committee has been set up and assigned the task.

Eric Feaver, president of MEA-MFT, a state education union, said he, too, was pleased with the compromise the distance learning task force is bringing forward.

"It's not the perfect solution, but it's going to work," Feaver said. "We have not stood in the way of student opportunities."

Last year, MEA-MFT argued for the rule change, saying the state was going to start replacing classroom teachers with computers. And if the state was going to do so, Feaver said those teachers of online courses needed to be certified in the same manner as classroom teachers.

Without the certification, Feaver said he believes the board was at risk for a lawsuit.

"The board has dodged a bullet," he said. "I believe (this license) does solve the issue of a college professor who is not already licensed and endorsed."

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 CONTACT: Sarah Elliott 406-444-9725 Jayson O’Neill 406-444-9844

Governor Announces New Student Regent from UM Western (DILLON) – Governor Brian Schweitzer today announced the appointment of Mitch Jessen from University of Montana - Western to the student regent position on the Board of Regents. “Mitch brings a new perspective to the position of student regent,” said Governor Brian Schweitzer. “As a non-traditional, first generation student he understands many of the issues facing students today. We share the same priorities for transferability, tuition costs and green campus programs. I am excited to have him on board.” Catherine Redhead, Director of Admissions at The University of Montana Western said in her letter of recommendation, “Mitch is not only a seeker of new and interesting opportunities; he is also a very open and willing communicator.” Mitch Jessen, Dillon – Jessen grew up in Dillon and is currently a student at the University of Montana: Western. He has also attended Universal Technical Institute and the University of Utah. He works in the Admissions Office, for Facilities Services and for Safe Ride at Montana Western. At the University of Utah, Mitch worked as an orientation leader and as a resident advisor. Jessen served his LDS mission in Britain. Governor Schweitzer added, “I would like to thank Regent Kerra Melvin for her hard work this past year – she has done a great job serving Montana students. I would also like to thank the students who applied for this important position. Their desire to serve as a voice for their peers is to be commended.” Jessen’s term begins July 1, 2008.

###

Dear Board of Public Education, I regret that I cannot be present at your May meeting. However, I want you to be certain that I look forward to working very closely with the Board in order to move Montana’s education system forward into the next generation. I believe that I have the necessary qualifications to follow in Superintendent McCulloch’s footsteps. I have a Bachelor’s Degree in English from Montana State University, a Master’s Degree in Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a Juris Doctor from the University of Montana School of Law. I have been a classroom teacher, a law clerk at the Montana Supreme Court, and an Instructional Coordinator and a Division Administrator at the Office of Public Instruction. I can step into office on day one knowing the services that need to be provided to Montana’s education system. I would like to outline a few viewpoints about my candidacy:

1. As a retired member of MEA-MFT and former high school English Teacher, I will champion the work that teachers do in the classroom and make certain that teachers’ work is valued, respected, and rewarded.

2. Although many Montana students are doing well academically, I believe that we can do better. I am committed to devoting the resources and energy necessary so all of Montana’s students achieve at high levels.

3. In this era of strict school accountability, Montana’s long heritage of strong arts, humanities, and civic education has been pushed aside. I am committed to making sure our schools include those factors that make Montana the treasure state.

4. I am passionate about having the Office of Public Instruction assist schools in moving forward to meet the challenges of our “digital” world. Students need to become technologically-literate to enter the 21st Century job market. This means more than just hooking up computers – it means professional development for educators and providing the best educational online resources.

5. I am committed to put in the demanding advocacy work with the Legislature

to ensure that every school in our state receives adequate funding for quality education. I have been a part of Montana’s legislative process under the last two Superintendents and know first-hand the hard work that must happen during the legislative sessions.

6. I have the administrative experience to manage a large organization and

ensure that it runs smoothly. As the current Director of Indian Education at the Office of Public Instruction, I helped build the Indian Education For All initiative from the ground up to a program that has become nationally recognized and duplicated.

Thank you for your commitment to Montana’s public education students and schools. Please visit www.juneauforkids.com for more information. Sincerely,

Denise Juneau

Executive Secretary’s Report Thursday, July 10, 2008 By: Steve Meloy/ Executive Secretary This past few months has seen the culmination of the work of the Distance Learning Task Force Phase II. Work is contemplated for the implementation of the rule. Work continues with legislative oversight committees specifically to our strategic planning and combining efforts with the five-year planning process and the filing of a strategic planning document for information technology for the next biennium. The Legislative Auditor is in the middle of the Board’s biennial financial audit and hopes to be completed by July. Carol and I will continue to work with three auditors in this regard. We continue our response to the Legislative Finance Committee which invited the Board to its October interim committee to discuss the proposed goals and performance measures to be evaluated on an ongoing basis between now and the ’09 session. The subcommittee with which we work consists of Senator Wanzenreid. Our goals include our work around setting standards by rule. A specific request of the committee chair is for the Board to demonstrate the status of those schools in deficiency accreditation status in the 06-07 school year and whether or not the deficiency has been corrected. The Education and Local Government Committee invited us into a process with our partners at OCHE about college preparedness and how to reduce remediation rates on campus and envision that a paper be prepared to articulate shared goals in this regard. The Interim Committee wants us to develop a shared vision to be articulated after the next legislative session. This work spills over into the “leaky pipeline” and post-secondary readiness work of the K-College Workgroup. We are coordinating the efforts of the implementation of phase II of the distance learning work which continues to be challenging given the busy schedules of the many participants. Work continues in the coordination with OPI on an assessment working group to continue identifying appropriate and meaningful assessments for all of our students. OPI has delivered to the Board recommendations in this regard and the Chair of our Assessment Committee and is waiting on analysis of the record and minutes from the various focus groups from their spring assessment conference. We have scheduled an assessment update at our July meeting. The new curriculum specialists will be involved with assessment and that should be helpful even though recruiting for these positions has been difficult. The K-College Workgroup will meet again in July. The CSPAC crew continues their work with the licensure folk at OPI to continue the important review and modification process tied with Chapter 57 with their next meeting scheduled for July 24, 2008. We continue the work with the Legislative Fiscal Division on goals and objectives for the Board as well as the Interim Committee on Education and Local Government. The Legislative Audit completed its performance audit of MSDB and has indicated that it will be taking a look at our internal control policies before the summer’s end. We continue to work with our attorney and outside legal counsel in the processing of revocations and appeals of license denials brought before the Board. We also coordinated a statewide meeting regarding information surrounding “threshold” behaviors of educators which may constitute a breach of safety for public school students and the next meeting has not been finalized but will be after the major work surrounding Chapter 57 has been completed.

Board work continues to include but is not limited to: Implementation of the new rule for post-secondary faculty; strategic planning meeting; school safety issues; wrap-up of the last two meetings of the Distance Learning Phase II Task Force; work with the Interim Committee on Legislative Finance; designing performance measures to the satisfaction of the LFD; planning for the BPE’s five year planning process; the future of the NRT as well as future assessments to inform instruction; total review of Chapter 57; the K-College Workgroup; Distance Learning Task Force phase I follow-up and phase II; the dual enrollment/credit work; the counsellorship initiative; the assessment alignment work; MSDB coordination and oversight; MSDB strategic planning; the previous Interim Committee work follow-up and monitoring the MQEC and their efforts; CSPAC Assessment Study Group; Pilot (Praxis II) testing efforts; NCLB implications and future reauthorization of ESEA; the work of the Montana E-Learning Consortium and its future; meetings of the Ed Forums; the Special Purpose Schools Task Force; Chapter 55 review process; the PEPPS Review Advisory Panel; involvement with planning for NASBE’s annual meeting; the monitoring of the writing assessment consortia project; the writing implementation committee work; monitoring the Indian Education For All efforts; the High School Improvement Initiative; results of the Legislative Audit Committee on high school drop-out rate in Montana and data alignment between OCHE and OPI; performance-based budgeting proposals and preparation of a template for the 2009 session; worked on project to implement the teacher loan repayment plan found in SB 2; work on issues revolving around “alternative to our standards” requests; ongoing questions related to the bullying issue; financial education curricular concerns; school nutrition and physical education; civic education; site planning for the BPE in the next biennium; NASBE grant follow-up on student leadership; special meetings of the BPE; strategy development for the 2009 Legislative session; license discipline processes particularly related to suspensions and revocations; and the fielding of an increasing number of calls from the public regarding various and current issues before the Board. Most of the other issues with which I have dealt have been brought to your attention by way of phone and e-mail correspondence, however I have highlighted the following:

• Continued work with LSD on fiscal responsibility processes for SB 152 • Attended audit/exit meeting at MSDB • Attended a School Counselor steering group meeting • Worked with Anneliese on web-site modifications • Put in place a contract for work with a legal agency services • Attended May Board of Regents meeting in Havre • Attended retirement dinner of Deputy OCHE Commissioner Barber • Ongoing work with the state’s broadband system and our policies • Monitoring contract and work and billing statements with an administrative law

judge • Attended meeting of the Legislative Finance Committee • Attended OCHE’s Writing Proficiency Steering Committee • Attended K-12 Legislative Committee meeting

• Appeared before the Education and local Government Interim Committee on 6/13/08

• Reported to the Legislative Finance Committee on proposed rule notices of the BPE

• Continued discussions with Commissioner on office move back to SAF • Processing of work involved with revocations recommendations from OPI • Processing work in conjunction with appeal of license denials • Reviewed charges of administrative law judge • Completed draft of strategic plan for coming fiscal year • Prepared information on accreditation deficiencies for legislative committee • Co-coordinating NASBE’s Executive Director to Board’s strategic planning • Worked on 2008 agenda and 2007 meeting minutes for the National Association

of Educational Executives • Worked with LFD on their request for strategic plans from all agencies • Continued work with the Healthy Schools Network with current emphasis on

Asthma

The work before the Board continues with a high level of importance including our work on dual enrollment/credit, assessment, strategic planning, and relation building with the Board of Regents, the Legislature, OCHE, and the K-College Workgroup.

MONTANA LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Legislative Fiscal Division

Room 110 Capitol Building * P.O. Box 201711 * Helena, MT 59620-1711 * (406) 444-2986 * FAX (406) 444-3036 Legislative Fiscal Analyst CLAYTON SCHENCK

Legislative Finance Committee

Draft Agenda June 5 & 6, 2008

State Capitol – Hearing Room 102

Thursday, June 5 8:00 Call to Order and Roll Call - Chairman Schmidt 8:05 Approval of minutes of March 6 and 7, 2008 LFC meeting 8:10 Announcements – Chairman Schmidt, Clayton Schenck Interim Studies – Performance Measurement 8:15 Performance Measurement: Summary of Agency Responses – Clayton Schenck 8:20 Performance Measurement: Work Group Procedural Guidance – Barb Smith 8:30 Recess Full Committee, Convene Performance Measurement Work Groups

- General Government, Room 405 - Public Health and Human Services, Room 422 - Natural Resources, Room 455 - Corrections and Public Safety, Room 102 - Education, Room 472

Budget Oversight/Monitoring Issues 1:00 Status of School Funding Lawsuit – Jim Standaert, Greg Petesch 1:30 Acquiring Office Space for State Agencies: Statutory Options – Greg DeWitt (update on lease vs. buy cost benefits and authority) 2:15 Update on MT Historical Society Site Selection – Cathy Duncan (no presentation) 2:15 Spending Non-General Fund Money First – Statute Issues – Lois Steinbeck 3:00 Rainy Day Fund: Proposal and Options for a Committee Bill – Jon Moe 3:45 Program Reviews:

- DPHHS: State Hospital – Lois Steinbeck – no presentation - Corrections Populations Projections: Update – no presentation

3:45 Presentation of Updates to the Budget Templates – Kris Wilkinson

d Needs Assessment and Energy Audits - Cathy Duncan – no presentation

:15 Information Technology Management Update – Dick Clark, CIO, DOA

4:30 ormation Management (eRIM) – Dick Clark, CIO, DOA, Patti Borsberry, SOS

:45 itt and Staff

yn Purdy and Staff - Required Reports – Jon Moe

Friday, June 6

8:00 nd the Impact of Bond Market Problems: An Update on

Jim Stipcich representing MHESAC and SAF

nterim Studies

ess, State of Montana –

islature – Revised Procedure - Sen. Dave Wanzenried, Clayton Schenck, Team Leaders

:50 General Fund Transfers Bill Drafts – DOJ Request - Roger Lloyd, Skip Culver

10:00 dy of

Graying of Montana/Other State Cost Demographics/State Revenue Long-term Projections

10:30 rt: FWP Capital Project Appropriation Status – Cathy Duncan (no presentation)

1:00 Work Group Report: State Fund Study

1:30 Work Group Report: Study of LFD Products and Services – Clayton Schenck, Pam Joehler

1:45 Graying of Montana: Update – Lois Steinbeck

12:00 gislative Finance Committee, Legislative

Council, and Legislative Audit Committee, Room 350

4:15 Update on K-12 Facility Condition an

4

Electronic Records Inf

4 Other Reports - Budget Amendments & Supplementals – Greg DeW - Operating Plan Changes – Tar

Student Loan Availability in Montana aMHESAC and SAF- Alan Peura, LFD -

I 9:00 Subcommittee Report: Study of Budget and Appropriations Proc

1. S/W Present Law Adjustments – Fixed Costs and Inflation 2. Institutional Processes – Subcommittee Recommendations 3. Budget/Appropriations Statutes Review – Subcommittee Recommendations 4. LFC Global Budget Recommendations to the 2009 Leg

9 Statutory Appropriations and

Subcommittee Report: Joint LFC/RTIC Subcommittee on Long term stability of the General Fund – Sen. Williams (Subcommittee Task: Draft Committee Bill for an Interim Stu

Work Group Repo

1 1 1

Lunch Break Joint Meeting of Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the Le

1:30

Overview Monitoring - Barb Smith, Kris Wilkinson, Work Groups

dministrative

:30 LRBP and LRITP Capital Projects Status Reports – Cathy Duncan – no presentation

2:30 ert

- HB 488: Study of Property Taxes (RTIC) – Jim Standaert

rim Work Plan: Update - Clayton Schenck and staff

:00 Committee Business

:00 Adjourn

ote: Public comment will be taken at the end of each agenda topic, or at the discretion of the Chair

Performance Measurement: Work Group Reports on Programs Included in

A 2

Status Reports on Other Interim Study Committees - SJR 31: Taxation and School Funding (RTIC) – Jim Standa

3:30 LFD Inte 4 5 N

CSPAC Report

On May 14 to 16, 2008, Mary Susan Fishbaugh and I attended the NCATE Clinic in St. Louis, Missouri. Dr. Art Wise, long-time NCATE President, has retired and the new president is Dr. James Cibulka from Kentucky. During the conference, NCATE staff provided demonstrations of new online tools for teacher preparation institutions and state accreditation officials. NCATE staff also provided updates on recent changes in NCATE procedures to streamline the teacher education accreditation process. Doug Reisig, Kathleen Magone, Elizabeth Keller and I attended the 80th Annual NASDTEC conference in Providence, Rhode Island on June 1 to 4, 2008. A growing number of states are using alternative programs to prepare teachers to fill teacher shortage areas. The terminology of “alternative teacher preparation” is slowly being replaced with, “pathways to teaching.” NCATE and TEAC are in the initial phase of discussing the possibility of creating a single, national accreditation body for teacher preparation institutions. These discussions are exploratory in nature, and it will be some time before we know if anything substantive will emerge from these conversations between these two accreditation organizations. Per the request from the Board of Public Education, CSPAC has worked with the Office of Public Instruction to convene a workgroup to recommend standards for educational sign language interpreters who work with P-12 students in Montana schools. (Please see the attached list of workgroup members). The purpose of this group is to research and recommend to the Board of Public Education a set of standards for Montana accredited schools to follow when employing individuals who will provide educational sign language interpreter services to students. The group will focus on researching minimum standards for educational sign language interpreters. The group will also research options to enhance opportunities for training and professional development for educational sign language interpreters. The workgroup held an initial meeting in Helena on June 11, 2008. We anticipate that this group will meet approximately 6 times during the next 12 months to formulate recommendations to the BPE. The next meeting for the work-group is scheduled for August 13, 2008, in Helena.

Highlights of the June 11, 2008 Sign Language Interpreters Standards Workgroup Meeting

The Certification Standards and Practices Advisory Council, along with the Office of Public Instruction, called together the Sign Language Interpreters Working Group Meeting on June 11, 2008 at the OPI Certification Building Conference Room 1201, 11th Avenue in Helena, MT. Meeting attendees included: Douglas Reisig, Superintendent of Hellgate Public Schools and CSPAC Chairman; Vern Beffert, Director, Park County Cooperative; Bonnie Christensen, Vice President, Montana Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf; Char Harasymczuk, President, Montana Association for the Deaf; Connie Hyatt, parent of Hearing Impaired Child; Steve Gettel, Superintendent, Montana School for the Deaf and Blind; Pete Donovan, Administrative Officer to CSPAC; Tim Harris, Director of Special Education for OPI; Trish Smith and Missy Grinnell, interpreters from MRID; Anneliese Warhank, CSPAC Administrative Assistant; Mary Morrison, Associate Director, Preparation of Interdisciplinary Early Intervention for Rural States (PEPNet-West) at the University of Montana joined the meeting via conference call. Review of Parameters – Dr. Douglas Reisig Dr. Reisig began the meeting by explaining to the workgroup the Board of Public Education had charged CSPAC with the duty to work alongside OPI, through an advisory group, to develop standards for sign language interpreters working in public schools. The group is slated to meet about 6 times over the course of a year, to produce recommendations that will be presented before the Board. Marilyn Pearson, OPI, a member of the workgroup who could not attend the first meeting, had drafted up the “Educational Interpreters: A Historical Perspective of the Office of Public Instruction’s Activities Related to Interpreter Training and Assessment”. The group discussed the reasons behind the lack of standards for interpreters up to this point, and it was determined that although there had been efforts to pass bills in the Legislature, nothing had been adopted. It was determined be wise to work though CSPAC and the Board to develop standards rather than wait for the next Legislative session. Background on Sign Interpreters – Ms. Marilyn Pearson Although Ms. Pearson could not attend this meeting, she provided the workgroup with her “Educational Interpreters” paper. The lack of an interpreting program at any of the higher education institutes across the state greatly hinders the opportunity for people interested in the field to access the resources to be trained properly. This has led to under qualified interpreters working in schools in Montana. Currently, the school district determines the requirements for an interpreter to be hired in their school. Because of this, the state has no way of determining how many of the interpreters working in the schools are certified and proficient at their jobs. The state does try to recruit interpreters from surrounding states, but limited funds make it very difficult to persuade a recent college graduate with student loans to come to the state. At this point, the standard score on the

Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment required by states with standards is a 3.5 Group Discussion/Develop a Plan of Action Another issue the work group must address is how people will access programs to meet these standards if there are none offered at any of the colleges in Montana. Superintendents, especially those in very rural areas of the state, may see these standards as a great limitation to who they can hire. They may question, if they are unable to acquire a certified interpreter, if the school district would be at fault? The interpreters in the group felt a 3.5 was a sufficient score to be set as a minimum and a few expressed the desire to see an interpreter improve their score as they gained more experience working in a public school. A general consensus emerged that Montana should look at other rural states who face similar problems to see what they have done to address the needs of deaf students. There was also talk about working with the surrounding rural states to develop a centralized interpreters program allowing students in the region access to these resources. The workgroup realized they would have to include in their final report the measures needed to be taken in order to begin an interpreting program at a college. The state could offer this through one of its colleges, but the low number of students who would likely to attend makes the request unreasonable. However, if we combine students from all the surrounding states, they felt the demand would be high enough for a program to be quite successful. In order to get a better sense of the workload most interpreters take on, the group felt it would be wise to look at various job descriptions. The group also decided to look at the demographic of deaf children across the state and how surrounding states are meeting the needs of their deaf students. Set Calendar Those present at the meeting discussed possible dates for the next interpreters meeting. It was decided that Wednesday, August 13, 2008 was the most convenient. *SIDE NOTE* The OPI conference room the group met in on June 11, 2008 (1201 11th Ave in Helena) was reserved again for the August 13, 2008 meeting.

Executive Summary July 2008

Presentation: School Nutrition Programs Annual Report Date: July 10-11, 2008 Presenter: Christine Emerson, Director School Nutrition Programs Health Enhancement and Safety Division Office of Public Instruction Overview: The presentation will include information about the National School

Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Afterschool Snack Program, Special Milk Program, USDA Donated Foods Program, Cooperative Purchase Program, and Team Nutrition Program for the 2006-07 school year.

Requested Decision: None Outlying Issues: The presentation will be designed to show changes in program

participation and funding over five school years. It will also cover nutrition education activities for schools, parents and the community to improve nutritional value and acceptability of school meals, and promote the health and education of children.

Recommendation: The presentation is informational. Nothing will be recommended to the

BPE other than its continued support of the School Nutrition Programs to help children get the nutrition they need to learn, play and grow.

BPE PRESENTATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DATE: JULY 2008

PRESENTATION: General Education Development (GED) Annual Report PRESENTER: TJ Eyer, Division Administrator Career, Technical and Adult Education Division Office of Public Instruction OVERVIEW: The 2007 Montana GED Statistical and Demographic Reports will be presented. REQUESTED DECISION(S): None OUTLYING ISSUE(S): The 2007 Montana GED Statistical and Demographic Reports will be used to give

an overview of the GED testing program in Montana and to identify current trends occurring in the state.

RECOMMENDATION(S): None

BPE PRESENTATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DATE: JULY 2008

PRESENTATION: Special Education Report 2008 PRESENTER: Tim Harris Director, Special Education Division Office of Public Instruction OVERVIEW: The report covers a discussion of numbers of students with disabilities served

through public education in Montana, the types of disabilities served, and numbers of students per category. The report also compares the funding sources, trends of participation of the funding sources over a number of years and concludes with a description of twenty performance indicators the Office of Special Education Programs in the Department of Eduucation requires the states to address each year.

REQUESTED DECISION(S): None OUTLYING ISSUE(S): None RECOMMENDATION(S): None

SPECIAL EDUCATION REPORT TO THE BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION

July 2008

Linda McCulloch Superintendent

Office of Public Instruction OPISupt@mt.gov

PO Box 202501, Helena, MT 59620-2501

Table of Contents

Part 1- Students Served................................................................................................ 2

Special Education Child Count and Student Enrollment...................................................................2 Special Education Child Count Longitudinal Data – Students Ages 3-21 ..........................................2 Student Enrollment Longitudinal Data Grades Pre-Kindergarten through 12 ....................................3 Proportion of All Students Enrolled in Public Schools Who are Special Education ...........................3 National Enrollment Prevalence of Children Served Under IDEA, Part B, During the 2004-2005 School Year. .......................................................................................................................................4

Student Identification by Disability......................................................................................................5 Disabilities by Percentage of Total Number of Students with Disabilities ..........................................5

Part 2 - Funding............................................................................................................. 6

State Special Education Appropriation for 2007-2008 School Year .................................................6 State Entitlement for 2007-2008 School Year ....................................................................................6

Growth in Reimbursement of Disproportionate Costs ......................................................................7 Total $ Amount for Disproportionate Reimbursement by Year...........................................................7 Number of School Districts Receiving Reimbursement for Disproportionate Costs...........................7

Instructional Block Grants and Related Services Block Grants.......................................................8 Instructional Block Grant per Student Allocation ................................................................................8 Related Services Block Grant per Student Allocation ........................................................................8

Expenditures of State, Federal, and Local Funds Comparison by Year ..........................................9 Comparison by School Years 1990 - 2007.........................................................................................9 Percentages of State, Federal and Local Funds Covering Total Costs of Special Education .........11

The General Fund ................................................................................................................................12 Comparison Between State Share of Expenditures for Special Education Students and State Share of Budget for All Students.................................................................................................................12

Per Student Expenditure Comparisons at the District Level ..........................................................12 Year-to-Year Variability of District Special Education Expenditures ................................................13 Special Education Expenditures per Student FY 2007 ....................................................................14

Medicaid................................................................................................................................................14 FY'06 Medicaid Payments to Schools ..............................................................................................15 Expenditures of Medicaid Reimbursements District F FY 2006.......................................................16 Expenditures of Medicaid Reimbursements District G FY 2006 ......................................................16

Part 3 - Accountability ................................................................................................ 17

Montana’s State Performance Plan....................................................................................................17 Indicator 1 – Graduation Rates.........................................................................................................18 Indicator 2 – Dropout Rates..............................................................................................................18 Indicator 3 – Statewide Assessments...............................................................................................19

ii

Indicator 4 – Suspension and Expulsion Rates................................................................................22 Indicator 5 – Education Environment................................................................................................23 Indicator 6 – Preschool Settings.......................................................................................................24 Indicator 7 – Preschool Outcomes ...................................................................................................24 Indicator 8 – Parent Involvement......................................................................................................25 Indicator 9 – Disproportionate Representation.................................................................................26 Indicator 10 – Disproportionate Representation - Disability Categories...........................................27 Indicator 11 – Child Find...................................................................................................................28 Indicator 12 – Part C to Part B Transition.........................................................................................28 Indicator 13 – Secondary Transition with IEP Goals ........................................................................29 Indicator 14 (New Indicator): Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of post-secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school.....................................................................................30 Indicator 15: General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from identification......................................................................................................................................30 Indicator 16: Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint. .........................................................................................................................................31 Indicator 17: Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party.......................................................................................................................31 Indicator 18 (New Indicator): Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements. .................................................31 Indicator 19: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. ..........................32 Indicator 20: State-reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate. ......................................................................................................32

iii

2

Part 1- Students Served Special Education Child Count and Student Enrollment Public schools must make available special education and related services to all IDEA-eligible (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) students with disabilities beginning at age three and through age 18. Services to students, ages 19, 20, and 21, are permissive. That means the decision to serve 19, 20 and 21-year-old students is determined by the policies of the school district board of trustees [20-5-101(3), Montana Code Annotated (MCA), and Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 10.16.3122]. Students with disabilities receive a wide range of services, including specially designed instruction, transition services, assistive technology, and related services such as speech-language therapy, occupational therapy, and physical therapy. Both the type and the extent of services a student receives are individually determined based on the educational needs of the student.

Special Education Child Count Longitudinal Data – Students Ages 3-21

17,000

17,500

18,000

18,500

19,000

19,500

20,000

Child Count 18,735 18,797 19,039 19,313 19,262 19,269 19,466 19,515 19,259 18,557 18,158

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-2008

This is a count of students with disabilities who have a valid Individualized Education Program (IEP) in accordance with IDEA and are receiving services indicated on the IEP on the first school day in December. The count includes students who are enrolled in public schools, publicly funded schools, residential treatment facilities that contract with the OPI to provide services to their students who are Montana residents, and students who are in private or home schools and are receiving services from a public school in accordance with a Services Plan.

Source: Child Count Data Files (Opihlnntprd3/Share/SEDATA/BPE Report/July 2008 and Share/SEDATA/Data Manager/Data ManagerInformation/Child Count

Analysis of the December 1, 2007, Child Count data (term used for the collection of student special education data) shows there was a decrease of 399 students from the previous year with the most significant decreases occurring in the speech-language impairment and learning disabilities categories. Thirty–five percent of the decrease occurred in grades K-3. Districts reported the following reasons for the decrease: implementation of interventions in general education resulting in fewer referrals to special education; student progress reviews that identified students no longer in need of special education instruction and so exited from special education services; and decreases in student enrollment. Analysis of the data also showed a significant decrease in the count of students reported in the disability category of emotional disturbance. Factors affecting the decrease include implementation of positive behavioral supports in general education and the positive effects of the implementation of over 100 Comprehensive School and Community

3

Treatment Services (CSCT) programs in schools across the state. Students are not required to be eligible for special education services to receive CSCT services. The disability category showing the most significant increase (9.09%) is Autism. This is reflective of what is occurring nationwide. Factors affecting this are the increase in numbers of students previously identified as having Autism and moving into Montana, as well as an increase in knowledge of how to more effectively identify children who meet the criteria for Autism. Montana’s Child Count (term used for the collection of student special education data) grew steadily from 1996 through 2001. From 2001 to present, the count has leveled off. In contrast, Montana’s public school enrollment has shown a steady decline since 1996. Because of declining enrollment at the same time special education Child Count has either grown, or in recent years remained steady, the proportion of students served by special education has increased.

Student Enrollment Longitudinal Data Grades Pre-Kindergarten through 12

130,000

135,000

140,000

145,000

150,000

155,000

160,000

165,000

Student Enrollment 162,335 159,982 157,556 154,875 151,947 149,995 148,356 146,705 145,416 144,418 143,405

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-2007

2007-2008

Proportion of All Students Enrolled in Public Schools Who are Special Education

10.0%

10.5%

11.0%

11.5%

12.0%

12.5%

13.0%

13.5%

% of Sp Ed Students 11.5% 11.7% 12.1% 12.5% 12.7% 12.8% 13.1% 13.3% 13.2% 12.8% 12.7%

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-2008

Source: Montana Public School Enrollment Data, (Published yearly by the OPI)

NOTE: Percentage is calculated by dividing the special education student count for the year by the total student enrollment for the same year.

National Percentage of Children Served Under IDEA, Part B, During 2003-04 School Year

Montana ranks below the mean in the percentage of students served under IDEA according to the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.

National Enrollment Prevalence of Children Served Under IDEA, Part B, During the 2004-2005 School Year.

4

Source: U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (IDEAdata.org) Other Data Products/Part B Trend Data Files/Table B1, Number and Percent of Population Served (Ages 3-21), by State: 1977 through 2005.

Rhode Island

10.49%10.87%

11.28%11.50%11.67%11.75%11.88%12.16%12.40%12.61%12.65%12.97%12.98%13.03%13.30%13.64%13.77%13.83%13.87%13.92%13.95%13.96%14.13%14.15%14.17%

14.61%14.70%14.94%15.10%15.16%15.31%15.33%15.39%15.45%15.70%15.78%15.79%15.84%15.85%15.95%16.00%16.00%

16.60%17.15%17.50%17.65%17.98%

18.90%20.15%

MaineWest VirginiaNew JerseyDistrict of ColumbiaIndianaMassachusettsWyomingNebraska

14.48%14.59%

1

Median is the middle point of the chart. Mean

Median Mean is the average enrollment prevalence rate (14.49%).

New YorkSouth CarolinaKentuckyMissouriNew MexicoDelawarePennsylvaniaIowaIllinoisNew HampshireFloridaOklahomaWisconsinArkansasNorth DakotaSouth DakotaVirginiaOhioLouisianaVermontOregonNorth CarolinaKansasMississippiMichiganMinnesotaAlaskaMontana Montana TennesseeMarylandAlabamaConnecticutGeorgiaHawaiiWashingtonUtahNevadaTexasArizonaIdahoColoradoCalifornia

5

Student Identification by Disability Disabilities by Percentage of Total Number of Students with Disabilities The categories of Learning Disability and Speech-Language Impairment represent two-thirds of all students receiving special education services (LD=43%; SL=24%). The number of students identified under the categories of Learning Disability and Speech-Language Impairment decreased by 410 and 227 respectively. This decrease is the result of several large districts in Montana implementing general education interventions, including scientifically based instructional programs that reduced the number of students referred for special education.

DISABILITY ABBREVIATIONS and Student Count for the 2007-08 School Year

LD Learning Disability - 7,965 SL Speech-Language Impairment - 4,307 OH Other Health Impairment - 1,727 CD Cognitive Delay - 1,015 ED Emotional Disturbance - 987 CW/DD Child with Disabilities/Developmental Delay - 791 Other Total - 1,366

MD Multiple Disabilities - 559 AU Autism - 442 HI Hearing Impairment - 148 OI Orthopedic Impairment - 63 TB Traumatic Brain Injury - 64 VI Visual Impairment - 57 DE Deafness - 30 DB Deaf-Blindness - 3

Source: Special Education Child Count conducted on December 1, 2007 Opihlnntprd3\Access\Division\SpecialEducation\SQLCC\tblcc Child Count 2008.

A U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, policy letter issued in the early 1990s and subsequent federal regulations finalized in March of 1999 listing attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in the definition for Other Health Impairment (OH) have resulted in a dramatic increase in this disability category shortly after the change, but has leveled off in recent years. The number of students in Montana identified as OH grew from 177 students reported in FY ‘90 to 1,727 students reported in FY ‘08.

Disabilities by Percentage of Total Number of Students with Disabilities – 2007-2008 School Year

LD43%

SL24%

OH10%

CD6%

ED5%

CW/DD4%

Other8%

The number of students identified as having Autism (AU) has also increased substantially over the last 10 years. While Autism is considered a low-incidence disability category, the cost to address the needs of a child with Autism is high. In the first year that students were reported under Autism in Montana (FY ‘92) only two students were reported. Subsequent years have seen steady increase with the most recent count (FY '08) at 442 students reported. An interesting effect of better identification of students with Autism shows that the total number of students identified with cognitive delay and those with Autism has remained fairly constant over

the past several years with a small increase each year. The national concern that the incidence of Autism is increasing may be explained in Montana in part to better diagnostic tools available to

educational professionals for an accurate identification of Autism.

6

Part 2 - Funding State Special Education Appropriation for 2007-2008 School Year Montana's special education funding structure distributes state appropriations in accordance with 20-9-321, MCA, based on a combination of school enrollment (not special education child count) and expenditures. Seventy percent of the appropriation is distributed through block grants (instructional block grants and related services block grants), which are based on enrollment. Twenty-five percent is distributed through reimbursement for disproportionate costs, which is based on expenditures. The remaining 5 percent is distributed to special education cooperatives to cover costs related to travel and administration. For FY '07, the Montana Legislature had increased the state special education appropriation by approximately $1 million. The following represents the breakouts for FY ‘07.

Instructional Block Grant

52%

Related Services Block Grant Entitlement

18%

Disproportionate Reimbursement

25%

Cooperative Travel

2%

Cooperative Administration

3%

State Entitlement for 2007-2008 School Year Instructional Block Grant $21,225,358

Related Services Block Grant $7,074,628 Disproportionate Reimbursement $10,102,326 Cooperative Administration $1,212,279 Cooperative Travel $808,186 TOTAL $40,422,777 NOTE: The total payment to schools is less than the total appropriation. A small amount of the appropriation is withheld to compensate for

adjustments to ANB. Source: MAEFAIRS Qry Table SpecialEducation Dispro Cost and COOP SPED tables, created 06/2008

7

Growth in Reimbursement of Disproportionate Costs The proportion of the total state appropriation distributed in the form of reimbursement for disproportionate costs grew both in total dollars and in the number of districts receiving reimbursement for disproportionate costs through FY ‘01. The funding for disproportionate reimbursement was revised in FY ‘02 to fix the proportion of funds distributed under reimbursement for disproportionate costs and shift funding back to instructional and related services block grants. Today, any increase in funds distributed for purposes of reimbursement of disproportionate costs is due to an increase in overall appropriations for special education.

Total $ Amount for Disproportionate Reimbursement by Year

5,579,2816,752,300

7,718,3008,379,248

8,478,2508,721,910

8,723,160

9,108,0609,620,281

9,835,335 10,102,326

10,398,633

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

10,000,000

11,000,000 Total $ Amount for Disproportionate Reimbursement by Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Number of School Districts Receiving Reimbursement for Disproportionate Costs

249268

279

322346

307 297 293282 290 283

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Source: MAEFAIRS Qry Table SpecialEducation Dispro Cost, created 06/2008

8

Instructional Block Grants and Related Services Block Grants With the 25 percent limit on the proportion of funds distributed in the form of reimbursement for disproportionate costs, the block grant rates (per student expenditure) are no longer declining and are instead increasing along with increases in state appropriations. This will benefit both schools and special education cooperatives. State special education cooperatives are significantly affected since they are not eligible for reimbursement for disproportionate costs and the related services block grant is the primary source of funding. This shift is supporting the structure of the funding model’s emphasis on block grant distribution of funds.

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Instructional Block Grant per Student Allocation

Related Services Block Grant per Student Allocation

Source: Source: GF Budget Spreadsheet, 06/2008

116.25 111.73 115.36117.13115.33120.94 122.67129.65

138.71 143.32

143.89148.7

1 1998 1999 008 2009

1998 19 8 2009

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2

38.43

47.9649.56

38.8 39.04

35.43

38.44

40.31 40.89

43.21

46.2347.77

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 200

9

Expenditures of State, Federal, and Local Funds Comparison by Year

Comparison by School Years 1990 - 2007

0

,000,000

,000,000

,000,000

,000,000

,000,000

,000,000

,000,000

,000,000

,000,000

0,000,000

0,000,000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10

11

Totals 40,939,452 42,333,419 48,785,181 52,788,381 57,109,584 60,979,741 62,340,088 65,502,661 68,580,594 71,278,260 75,222,537 78,021,409 81,871,671 87,223,792 93,896,241 99,541,909 105,348,747 109,267,873

Local $$ 2,916,889 3,949,067 9,946,202 12,472,401 16,221,437 19,188,382 21,281,834 24,347,590 26,348,507 27,305,512 28,523,786 29,649,483 31,306,722 30,800,967 32,679,138 33,699,876 36,070,111 38,782,049

Federal $$ 4,660,917 5,050,519 5,993,182 7,010,146 7,830,884 8,363,021 8,072,103 8,473,920 9,799,408 11,452,352 12,798,901 14,459,002 16,654,650 21,539,091 26,317,079 29,403,927 30,782,809 31,131,111

State $$ 33,361,646 33,333,833 32,845,797 33,305,834 33,057,263 33,428,338 32,986,151 32,681,151 32,432,679 32,520,396 33,899,850 33,912,924 33,910,299 34,883,734 34,900,024 36,438,106 38,495,827 39,354,713

1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Federal

Local

State

NOTE: This table may differ from previously released versions. Amounts are changed to reflect adjustments to trustees’ financial summaries submitted by school districts. Source: State - Special education payment amount provided by OPI accounting, which does not include reversion; Federal - Expenditures provided by OPI accounting (SABHRS year-end report); Local - Expenditures from board of trustees’ financial summaries for special education allowable costs are reduced by the state payment amount to come up with the local amount.

1230%

1137% 1,055%

1,020%

956%

973%878% 916%

836%

803%735%630%

Percentage Increase Over Base Year (1990) of Local Expendiures

241%

328%456%

558%

Base 35%

10

Federal The growth in expenditures for special education has become an issue of national significance. On a national level, attention has been focused on the proportion of federal support for special education. The most recent information (November 2005) we have on the federal share of special education costs (national average) is 18.6 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure (Senate Democratic Appropriations Committee). Although this is a greater proportion of the national average per pupil expenditure than in the past, the proportion remains less than one-half the 40 percent level promised by Congress when the special education laws were first passed in the mid 1970s. If Congress were to fund special education at 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure, the level of funding would cover between 50 and 60 percent of Montana’s special education allowable costs. This is due to relatively lower costs for special education in Montana, and the way the national average per pupil expenditure is calculated. In Montana, approximately $109.2 million were spent on special education in FY ‘07. This is a significant increase from FY ‘90 when approximately $41 million of state, federal and local funds were spent on special education. Much of this increase can be attributed to inflation and an increase in the number of students served by special education. In FY ‘07, approximately $31 million of the $109.2 million Montana spent on special education came from federal revenue sources (approximately 29 percent). State State appropriations for special education have fallen far short of the growth in costs. During a period of increased costs, coupled with flat state funding throughout the 1990s, the state share of the total costs of special education has slipped from approximately 81.5 percent in FY ‘90 to approximately 36 percent in FY ‘07. Local The greatest share of funding for increased costs of special education has come from the local general fund budgets. Local school districts have absorbed the increase in costs of special education by increasing their contribution from approximately $3 million in FY ‘90 to approximately $38.7 million for FY ‘07. This represents an increase of over 1,100 percent in local district contribution for special education. In FY ‘03, for the first time since FY ‘90, the local expenditures for special education funding decreased. This likely occurred because state funding increased slightly (3 percent) and federal funding increased by 29 percent. However, in FY ‘04, state funding leveled off and local expenditures again saw an increase. In FY '05 and FY '06, state funding increased; however, local expenditures also increased with FY '07 seeing an increase of about 7 percent. For purposes of this discussion, “local funds” means special education expenditures from the district general fund that are above the amount specifically earmarked for special education. The revenue source for these “local funds” includes both state base aid and local revenues. These “local funds” are generally perceived as local because they are drawn out of the general fund budget and would have otherwise been available for general education. This shift in the allocation of local funds has been a serious concern for schools and parents and has, for a number of years, created an atmosphere of competition for dollars.

11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

State Share 81.49% 78.74% 67.33% 63.09% 57.88% 54.82% 52.91% 49.89% 47.29% 45.62% 45.07% 43.47% 41.42% 39.99% 37.17% 36.61% 36.54% 36.02%

Federal Share 11.38% 11.93% 12.28% 13.28% 13.71% 13.71% 12.95% 12.94% 14.29% 16.07% 17.01% 18.53% 20.34% 24.69% 28.03% 29.54% 29.22% 28.49%

Local Share 7.12% 9.33% 20.39% 23.63% 28.40% 31.47% 34.14% 37.17% 38.42% 38.31% 37.92% 38.00% 38.24% 35.31% 34.80% 33.85% 34.24% 35.49%

1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Percentages of State, Federal and Local Funds Covering Total Costs of Special

Education

Percentages of State, Federal and Local Funds Covering Total Costs of Special Education

Source: State - Special education payment amount provided by OPI accounting

Over the years, the relative proportion of state, federal, and "local" funds covering the costs of special education has changed dramatically. State funding has remained relatively constant. Since FY '90, local districts have provided sizable increases in their contributions from "local funds." Beginning in FY 2000, federal funds have also increased substantially. As a result, by FY '06 the proportion of special education expenditures from state, federal and "local" funds is nearly equal.

12

The General Fund Another way to consider the impact of state funding of special education is to compare the percentage of state support for the school district general fund budget with the percentage of special education expenditures from earmarked state special education funds. The percentage of special education expenditures in the general fund, coming from earmarked funds for special education, has slipped from approximately 89 percent in FY ’91 to approximately 52 percent in FY ’06. In the meantime, the state support of the general fund budget for all students has slipped from approximately 71 percent in FY ’91 to approximately 61 percent in FY ’06. At one time, the state share of special education general fund expenditures was 18 percent higher than the state share of the general fund budget for general education. By FY ’06, the state share of special education expenditures was 9 percent lower than the state share of the general fund budget for general education.

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Series1 71.4% 69.5% 67.3% 67.2% 66.7% 65.4% 64.4% 63.0% 62.0% 62.9% 63.5% 61.6% 60.9% 60.5% 60.0% 60.6% 62.1%

Series2 89.4% 76.8% 72.8% 67.1% 63.5% 60.8% 57.3% 55.2% 54.4% 54.3% 53.1% 52.3% 53.1% 51.6% 51.95% 51.63% 50.37%

1990-91

1991-92

1992-93

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Comparison Between State Share of Expenditures for Special Education Students and State Share of Budget for All Students

State Share of Budget for All Students

Comparison Between State Share of Expenditures for Special Education Students and

State Share of Budget for All Students Source: State - Special education payment amount provided by OPI accounting

This chart is provided for the purpose of illustration. The comparison is between special education expenditures for special education students and general fund budgets for all students. The portion of the budget for all students that is not state share is comprised of local revenues (property taxes, non-levy revenues, and reappropriated monies). The portion of the expenditures for special education students refers only to earmarked state appropriations.

Per Student Expenditure Comparisons at the District Level The need for public school districts to redirect "local funds" to cover the cost of special education presents a significant challenge to districts. However, another dimension of the challenge public schools face when they budget for special education is the relatively unpredictable nature of special education costs, particularly for small districts. Significant variation in special education expenditures exists between districts of similar size. Furthermore, significant variation in special education expenditures exists from year-to-year within the same district. The reasons for this variability are many. Differences in salary for personnel,

13

proportion of students identified as eligible for special education, concentrations of group homes in a community, and the costs of serving students with significant educational needs who enroll and later disenroll are some of the primary factors contributing to the variability.

Year-to-Year Variability of District Special Education Expenditures

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

High School District A 30,203 23,327 17,118 16,825 17,048 22,301 21,655 36,170 47,664 71,485 55,453

High School District B 7,278 18,347 41,634 12,037 9,347 8,271 10,567 11,042 12,601 12,387 12,451

High School District C 23,680 72,645 99,463 113,099 113,117 120,661 103,287 115,057 120,016 98,707 100,292

1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Year-to-Year Variability of District Special Education Expenditures

Source: State - Special education payment amount provided by OPI accounting. This graph represents federal and non-federal SPED expenditures excluding tuition payments for district residents placed in another district, Miscellaneous Program Fund, Impact Aid Fund, and Major Capital Outlay. The three high school districts were selected for only purposes of illustration, but are good examples of year-to-year variability in expenditures that some districts face when they try to budget for special education. FY '07 enrollment in the three districts were all below 60 students. House Bill 2 includes language that allows the Office of Public Instruction to distribute funds from the appropriation for in-state treatment to public school districts for the purpose of providing for educational costs of children with significant behavioral or physical needs. This fund can help to mitigate some of the cost variability. However, in FY '07 the OPI received approximately $2.5 million in requests for approximately $.5 million in available funds. In addition to year-to-year variability, significant differences exist between public school districts in the amount they spend on a per student basis. Variations between districts in expenditures on a per special education student basis is often caused by differences between districts in the number of students with significant needs, differences in salary due to level of education and experience of staff, and differences in programs and service delivery models.

14

Special Education Expenditures per Student FY 2007

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

PerEnrollPerSpedEnroll

PerEnroll 9,242 12,451 4,551 7,664 5,089

PerSpedEnroll 1,310 590 1,341 1,173 654

A B C D E

Source: State - Special education payment amount provided by OPI accounting. This graph represents federal and non-federal SPED expenditures excluding tuition payments for district residents placed in another district per Special Education Enrolled Student and Per Enrolled Student, Miscellaneous Program Fund, Impact Aid Fund, and Major Capital Outlay. The first three districts are the same districts used as an example of the variability in special education expenditures from year-to-year. Districts D and E are large districts with enrollments in excess of 3,500 students. The above districts were selected for purposes of illustration of the variability between districts and are not typical. However, the selected districts serve as a good example of the difference between districts in their special education expenditures per special education student and the difference between districts in their special education expenditures per enrolled student. For example, in FY '06 District A spent approximately $3,500 more than District C per special education student. On a per enrolled student basis, District C spent approximately $750 more than District B. Medicaid The Office of Public Instruction (OPI) and the Health Resources Division of the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) have collaborated on a number of projects that have increased reimbursement to districts for certain special education costs. Additionally, the collaboration has led to an expansion in school-based Mental Health Services. The collaborative efforts were intended to expand Medicaid support of certain medical services provided by schools (e.g., school psychology, transportation, personal care attendants), establish a program for administrative claiming, and reinstate a school-based mental health program known as Comprehensive School and Community Treatment (CSCT). Revenue to school districts has increased markedly as a result of the multiagency collaborative. Districts only receive the federal share of the Medicaid payment. A certification of match process is used to pay the state share of the Medicaid payment. Therefore, all increases in revenue to districts have come without any increase in cost to the state's general fund.

15

FY '06 Medicaid Payments to Schools

70%

17%

13%

Comprehensive Schooland CommunityTreatmentFee for Service

Administrative Claiming

Source: DPHHS, Health Resources Division

FY'06 Medicaid Payments to Schools There are three programs that provide Medicaid reimbursement to districts: 1) Fee-for-service provides reimbursement for special education-related services such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, and physical therapy (FY '06 payments to districts totaled $1,951,279.85); 2) Administrative claiming compensates school districts for some of the costs associated with administration of school-based health services such as helping to identify and assist families in accessing Medicaid Services and seeking appropriate providers and care (FY '06 payments to districts totaled $1,450,510); and 3) CSCT services (FY '06 payments to districts totaled $8,159,292). (Source for data on payments: DPHHS, Health Resources Division) While fee-for-service and administrative claiming generally provided reimbursement for services already being provided by districts, the CSCT program was an expansion of services. The expansion re-established a school-based mental health program to help schools meet the growing need of serving children with serious emotional disturbance. The CSCT is a comprehensive planned course of treatment provided by Community Mental Health Centers in school and community settings. The CSCT services include: behavioral intervention, crisis intervention, treatment plan coordination, aftercare coordination and individual, group, and family therapy. Individualized treatment plans tailored to the needs of each student are developed by licensed mental health professionals in coordination with school staff. Recent action in Congress may put administrative claiming reimbursements in jeopardy. Proposed regulation changes would eliminate administrative claiming unless Congress acts to postpone or halt the regulation changes. Serious behavioral problems can significantly interfere with a student's education and the education of others. Community Mental Health Centers working in close cooperation with public school districts increase the likelihood that education and mental health programs are better coordinated. Because mental health professionals are present throughout the school day, they are available to intervene and redirect inappropriate behaviors and to teach appropriate behaviors and social skills at each opportunity. This "real-time" intervention in the "natural setting" promises to have a major impact on improving the effectiveness of children's mental health services and the quality of the educational environment for all children. In FY '06, 1,448 children received CSCT services from 114 teams of therapists located in approximately 106 schools. (Source for data: DPHHS, Health Resources Division) Nearly all Medicaid reimbursements to districts for CSCT services are directly paid under contract to Community Mental Health Centers. Districts spend their Medicaid reimbursement from administrative claiming and fee-for-service on a wide variety of educational services.

16

Expenditures of Medicaid Reimbursements District F FY 2006

Expenditures of Medicaid Reimbursements District G FY 2006

Expenditures of Medicaid ReimbursementsDistrict FF

TY 2006

otal Expenditures: $7,358.29

$6,748.44

$609.85 Special Ed TeacherSalary & BenefitsSpecial Ed InstructionalMaterials

Expenditures of Medicaid ReimbursementsDistrict GFY 2006

Total Expenditures: $9,031.35

$7,500.00

$1,370.70$112.00

$48.65

Library - PurchasedServicesLibrary Supplies

Instructional Salaries

Instructional Supplies

Source: MAEFAIRS Expenditure Data Medicaid payments are reimbursement for services already provided. District F and District G were selected for purposes of illustration of the variability between districts in how they spend their Medicaid revenue and are not necessarily typical of other districts. In District F, all Medicaid revenue was spent on providing special education services in the form of salaries and instructional materials. In District G, all Medicaid revenue was spent on general education. The flexibility in how Medicaid money is spent allows districts to choose whether the funds are used to reduce special education expenditures from the district's general fund or used to purchase general education services or materials to partially compensate for "local district" general fund expenditures for special education.

17

Part 3 - Accountability Montana’s State Performance Plan The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 requires states to submit a State Performance Plan (Part B – SPP) outlining efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of Part B of the Act, and describes how the state will improve such implementation [20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(1)]. The primary focus of the Performance Plan is based on three key monitoring priorities for the Office of Special Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Education:

1. Provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE);

2. the state exercise of general supervisory authority; and 3. disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups in special education and

related services. Within each of the three monitoring priorities, performance indicators established by the United States Secretary of Education quantify and prioritize outcome indicators for special education. The state uses these 20 performance indicators to establish measurable and rigorous targets with which to assess performance of both local educational agencies and the state over the next six years. Statistical Methods Used To ensure statistically sound data when evaluating the school district’s or state’s progress in meeting its established performance target, a minimum (N) and/or confidence intervals are applied to reduce the effect of small sample sizes on the determination of performance. Results based on small sample sizes have a wider margin of error than those based on large sample sizes. In other words, the larger the sample size, the greater the likelihood that the data are representative of the population and not due to random factors unrelated to student characteristics or educational programs, known as measurement or sampling error. The use of the minimum N and confidence intervals is intended to improve the validity and reliability of target determinations by reducing the risk of falsely identifying the state as having failed to meet the target, based on measurement/sampling error. An identical statistical analysis is used in this report to evaluate regional progress in meeting the state’s established performance targets for each of the five CSPD regions. CSPD Regional Performance As part of its improvement activities, the OPI has enlisted the help of Montana’s Comprehensive System of Personnel Development to develop and provide professional development opportunities related to several of the performance indicators in the State Performance Plan. The purpose of this report is to provide each CSPD region with an evaluation of its performance based on the state’s established performance targets. The evaluation will be conducted on the Indicators where CSPD has been identified as a source to provide assistance with state improvement activities and where there are sufficient district data to do the evaluation. These indicators correspond to the performance indicators evaluated in the District Public Reporting.

18

District performance reports can be accessed using the following link: http://data.opi.mt.gov/SppDistrictPublicReporting/ Performance data for each CSPD Region are provided below. Assignment of a specific school district to a CSPD region is based on the counties within the CSPD Region border. Although the format includes data for all regions inviting comparisons, it is recommended that comparisons should be made with caution due to the variability between regions. Each CSPD region is unique in its number of districts and the students they serve. Regional demographics for each CSPD region are provided in the appendix of this document. Indicator 1 – Graduation Rates The graduation rate for students with disabilities is a status graduation rate, in that it utilizes a cohort method to measure the proportion of students who, at some point in time, completed high school. For further information as to the formula used in defining the cohort used in the calculation, please refer to Montana’s State Performance Plan at http://www.opi.mt.gov/SpecEd/index.html. The two tables below provide an evaluation of regional performance status (Table 1.2), and state performance status (Table 1.1) related to the State’s Performance Target for graduation rates. These evaluations are based on the 2006-2007 school year. In addition, Table 1.1 includes the State Performance Target established for the 2007-2008 school year. State performance on this target will be reported in the 2009 Annual Performance Report due February 1, 2009. Table 1. 1 Montana Graduation Rates for Students with Disabilities

School Year

Graduate Count for Special Education

School Leaver Cohort Total

Completion Rate for Special

Education

SPP Performance

Target for FFY 2006

State Performance

Status

2006-2007 879 1275 68.9% 69.9% Met Target2007-2008 70.0%

Table 1. 2 Montana Graduation Rates for Students with Disabilities by CSPD Region

CSPD Region School Year

School Leaver Cohort Total

Graduate Count for Special Education

Region Completion

Rate for Special

Education

SPP Performance

Target

Region Performance

Status

Region I 2006-2007 140 93 66.4% 69.9% Met TargetRegion II 2006-2007 261 173 66.3% 69.9% Met TargetRegion III 2006-2007 282 210 74.5% 69.9% Met TargetRegion IV 2006-2007 254 167 65.7% 69.9% Met TargetRegion V 2006-2007 338 236 69.8% 69.9% Met Target

Indicator 2 – Dropout Rates The special education dropout rate calculation uses a status count in which the student's status at the end of the reporting year is used to determine whether the student is a dropout. This means students who were receiving special education and related services at the start of the reporting period (July 1), but were not so at the end of the reporting period (June 30) and did not exit special education through any other basis is considered a dropout. The dropout rate is calculated by dividing the number of special education dropouts, ages 14-21, by the number of students in special education. The special education dropout count and special education child

19

count include all students with disabilities, ages 14-21, in public schools and state-operated programs. The two tables below provide an evaluation of regional performance status (Table 2.2), and state performance status (Table 2.1) related to the State’s Performance Target for dropout rates. These evaluations are based on the 2006-2007 school year. In addition, Table 2.1 includes the State Performance Target established for the 2007-2008 school year. State performance on this target will be reported in the 2009 Annual Performance Report due February 1, 2009. Table 2. 1 Montana Dropout Rates for Students with Disabilities

School Year

Special Education

Dropout Count

Special Education

Student Count, Ages 14-21

Special Education

Dropout Rate

SPP Performance

Target for FFY 2006

State Performance

Status2006-2007 352 6320 5.6% 5.8% Met Target2007-2008 5.6%

Table 2. 2 Montana Dropout Rates for Students with Disabilities by CSPD Region

CSPD Region School Year

Special Education Student Count,

Ages 14-21

Dropout Count for Special Education

Region Completion

Rate for Special

Education

SPP Performance

Target

Region Performance

Status

Region I 2006-2007 724 44 6.1% 5.8% Met TargetRegion II 2006-2007 1037 88 8.5% 5.8% Met TargetRegion III 2006-2007 1489 70 4.7% 5.8% Met TargetRegion IV 2006-2007 1321 64 4.8% 5.8% Met TargetRegion V 2006-2007 1749 86 4.9% 5.8% Met Target

Indicator 3 – Statewide Assessments Indicator 3A – Meeting Montana’s AYP Objectives for the Disability Subgroup Adequate yearly progress (AYP) is measured using Montana's required 3rd-8th, and 10th grade criterion which referenced reading and math test scores, participation, attendance, and graduation rates. Each school's test scores are divided into 10 student groups based on race/ethnicity, economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and limited English proficiency. If any of the 10 student groups does not meet any of 6 AYP measurements, then the entire school or district is labeled as not meeting the federal AYP requirements. Further information regarding adequate yearly progress can be found on the NCLB Report Card found at http://www.opi.mt.gov/ReportCard/index.html. For purposes of the IDEA – Part B State Performance Plan, states are required to report on the number of districts with a minimum N of 40 for the disability subgroup meeting Montana’s AYP objectives. The two tables below provide an evaluation of regional performance (Table 3.2), and state performance (Table 3.1) related to the State’s Performance Target for school districts meeting the AYP objectives for the disability subgroup. These evaluations are based on the 2006-2007 school year. In addition, Table 3.1 includes the State Performance Target established for the 2007-2008 school year. State performance on this target will be reported in the 2009 Annual Performance Report due February 1, 2009.

20

Table 3. 1 Districts Meeting Montana's AYP Objectives for Disability Subgroup

School Year

Number of Districts

Meeting Min N for Subgroup

Number of Districts

Meeting AYP Objectives

Percent of Districts

Meeting AYP Objectives

SPP Performance

Target

State Performance

Status2006-2007 56 28 50.0% 39.0% Met Target2007-2008 40.4%

Table 3. 2 Districts Meeting Montana's AYP Objectives for Disability Subgroup by CSPD Region

CSPD Region School Year

Number of Districts

Meeting Min N for Subgroup

Number of Districts

Meeting AYP Ob jectives

Percent of Districts

Meeting AYP Objectives

Spp Performance

TargetRegion Performance

StatusRegion I 2006-2007 8 5 62.5% 39.0% Met TargetRegion II 2006-2007 7 0 0.0% 39.0% Did Not Meet TargetRegion III 2006-2007 10 6 60.0% 39.0% Met TargetRegion IV 2006-2007 11 7 63.6% 39.0% Met TargetRegion V 2006-2007 20 10 50.0% 39.0% Met Target

SPP

Indicator 3B – Participation Rates Participation rates are calculated by dividing the number of special education students who participated in the Math assessment plus the number of special education students who participated in the Reading by the number of students in special education in all grades assessed times two. This count includes all students with disabilities participating in the regular assessment (CRT), with and without accommodations, and in the alternate assessment (CRT-Alt). Note: The state performance target for participation of students with disabilities in assessments for the State Performance Plan under IDEA is not the same as used for the AYP determination. The two tables below provide an evaluation of regional performance (Table 3.4), and state performance (Table 3.3) related to the State’s Performance Target for participation rates of students with disabilities in state assessments. These evaluations are based on the 2006-2007 school year. In addition, Table 3.3 includes the State Performance Target established for the 2007-2008 school year. State performance on this target will be reported in the 2009 Annual Performance Report due February 1, 2009.

Table 3. 3 Participation Rates of Students with Disabilities in State Assessments

School Year

Number of Students with Disabilities - All Grades Assessed

Number of Students with Disabilities - Participation

Count

Participation Rate for

Students with Disabilities

SPP Performance

Target

State Performance

Status2006-2007 19076 18585 97.4% 95.0% Met Target2007-2008 95.0%

21

Table 3. 4 Participation Rates of Students with Disabilities in State Assessments by CSPD Region

CSPD Region School Year

Number of Students with Disabilities in

Grades Assessed

Number of Students with

Disabilities Participating

in State Assessment

Percent of Students

Participating in State

Assessment

Spp Performance

Target

Region Performance

StatusRegion I 2006-2007 2152 2089 97.1% 95.0% Met TargetRegion II 2006-2007 2890 2776 96.1% 95.0% Met TargetRegion III 2006-2007 4170 4096 98.2% 95.0% Met TargetRegion IV 2006-2007 4330 4210 97.2% 95.0% Met TargetRegion V 2006-2007 5534 5414 97.8% 95.0% Met Target

SPP

Indicator 3C – Proficiency Rates Proficiency rates are calculated by dividing the number of special education students scoring Proficient or Advanced in the Math assessment plus the number of special education students scoring Proficient or Advanced in the Reading assessment by the number of students in all grades assessed times two. This count includes all students with disabilities who scored proficient or above in the regular assessment (CRT), with or without accommodations, and in the alternate assessment (CRT-Alt). The two tables below provide an evaluation of regional performance (Table 3.6), and state performance (Table 3.5) related to the State’s Performance Target for proficiency rates of students with disabilities on state assessments. These evaluations are based on the 2006-2007 school year. In addition, Table 3.5 includes the State Performance Target established for the 2007-2008 school year. State performance on this target will be reported in the 2009 Annual Performance Report due February 1, 2009. Table 3. 5 Proficiency Rates of Students with Disabilities on State Assessments

School Year

Number of Students with Disabilities - All Grades Assessed

Number of Students with Disabilities - Proficient or

Above

Performance Rate for

Students with Disabilities

SPP Performance

Target

State Performance

Status2006-2007 19076 6355 33.3% 32.0% Met Target2007-2008 32.0%

Table 3. 6 Proficiency Rates for Students with Disabilities on State Assessments by CSPD Regions

CSPD Region School Year

Number of Students with Disabilities - All Grades Assessed

Number of Students with Disabilities - Proficient or

Above

Performance Rate for Students

with Disabilities

SPP Performance

TargetRegion Performance

StatusRegion I 2006-2007 2152 661 30.7% 32.0% Met TargetRegion II 2006-2007 2890 792 27.4% 32.0% Did Not Meet TargetRegion III 2006-2007 4170 1351 32.4% 32.0% Met TargetRegion IV 2006-2007 4330 1561 36.1% 32.0% Met TargetRegion V 2006-2007 5534 1990 36.0% 32.0% Met Target

22

Indicator 4 – Suspension and Expulsion Rates The OPI compares the long-term suspension and expulsion rates for students with disabilities to the long-term suspension and expulsion rates for nondisabled students in order to determine if there is a significant discrepancy occurring with respect to long-term suspension and expulsion rates for students with disabilities. Long-term suspension or expulsion is defined as a suspension or expulsion that results in removal of a student, out-of-school, for greater than 10 school days or a student with multiple short-term (10 school days or less) out-of-school suspensions or expulsions that sum to greater than 10 school days during the school year. A statistical test of the difference between proportions is conducted to determine if the size of difference between the school district’s special education long-term suspension and expulsion rates and the long-term suspension and expulsion rates for regular education students in the school district is statistically significant. In our comparison of long-term suspension and expulsion rates, we have set a .01 level of significance. This means, we are 99 percent confident that the differences between the rates are real (significant) and not due to random factors. However, the precision and reliability of this method is dependent upon having a large enough sample size to be representative of the school district’s population; therefore, we can employ a minimum sample size (minimum N) of 10. If the difference between the long-term suspension and expulsion rates for students with disabilities and the rates for nondisabled students is statistically significant for a specific school district, the school district is identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of long-term suspensions and expulsions of students with disabilities for the specific school year. The two tables below provide a comparison between the long-term suspension and expulsion rates of students with disabilities and the rates of students without disabilities used in the evaluation of significant discrepancy. Table 4. 1 Montana Long-Term Suspension and Expulsion Rates

School Year

Number of Special

Education Students with

Long-term Suspension or

Expulsion

Special Education Child

Count

Special Education Long-

term Suspension or

Expulsion Rates

Number of Regular

Education Students with

Long-term Suspension or

Expulsion

General Education Enrollment

Regular Education Long-term Suspension

and Expulsion

Rates

2006-2007 129 16515 0.8% 400 143334 0.3% Table 4. 2 Montana Long-Term Suspension and Expulsion Rates By CSPD Region

CSPD Region School Year

Number of Special

Education Students with

Long-term Suspension or

Expulsion

Special Education

Child Count

Special Education Long-term Suspension or Expulsion

Rates

Number of Regular

Education Students with

Long-term Suspension or

Expulsion

General Education Enrollment

Regular Education Long-term Suspension

and Expulsion Rates

Region I 2006-2007 28 1886 1.5% 69 13422 0.5%Region II 2006-2007 23 2558 0.9% 102 23092 0.4%Region III 2006-2007 33 3700 0.9% 63 30820 0.2%Region IV 2006-2007 14 3538 0.4% 69 34073 0.2%Region V 2006-2007 31 4834 0.6% 97 41927 0.2%

The IDEA Part B State Performance Indicator and Performance Target addresses the percent of districts identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rate of long-term suspensions and

23

expulsions for students with disabilities compared to the rate of long-term suspensions and expulsions of students without disabilities. This is a compliance indicator meaning that the state performance target for every year will be 0 percent of districts will be identified as having significant discrepancy. The two tables below provide an evaluation of regional performance (Table 4.4) and state performance (Table 4.3) related to the State’s Performance Target for the percent of districts identified as having a significant discrepancy in the long-term suspension and expulsion rates of students with disabilities. These evaluations are based on the 2006-2007 school year. In addition, Table 4.3 includes the State Performance Target established for the 2007-2008 school year. State performance on this target will be reported in the 2009 Annual Performance Report due February 1, 2009. Table 4. 3 State Performance on Long-Term Suspension and Expulsion Rates

School Year

Number of LEAs(a)

Number of LEAs reporting

long-term suspension

and expulsions for students

with disabilities

Number of LEAs identified with significant

discrepancy (b)

Percent of LEAs

identified with

significant discrepancy(b/a)*100

SPP Performance

Target

State Performance

Status2006-2007 425 51 0 0.0% 0.0% Met Target2007-2008 0.0%

Table 4. 4 CSPD Region Performance on Long-Term Suspension and Expulsion Rates

CSPD Region School YearNumber of LEAs

(a)

Number of LEAs reporting long-

term suspension and expulsions for students with

disabilities

Number of LEAs identified

with significant

discrepancy (b)

Percent of LEAs identified with

significant discrepancy(b/a)*100

SPP Performance

Target

State Performance

Status

Region I 2006-2007 91 11 0 0.0% 0.0% Met TargetRegion II 2006-2007 79 9 0 0.0% 0.0% Met TargetRegion III 2006-2007 87 6 0 0.0% 0.0% Met TargetRegion IV 2006-2007 86 6 0 0.0% 0.0% Met TargetRegion V 2006-2007 82 19 0 0.0% 0.0% Met Target

Indicator 5 – Education Environment The educational placement count of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, is part of the larger child count data collection that is conducted on December 1 of each year. The IDEA Part B State Performance Plan requires that we report annually on the percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, for the following educational placement categories: • Regular Class: Removed from regular class less than 21 percent of the day. • Full-time Special Education: Removed from regular class greater than 60 percent of the day. • Combined Separate Facilities: A roll-up of public/private separate schools, residential

placements, and home or hospital settings. The educational environment rate is calculated by dividing the number of students, ages 6-21, in a particular educational environment by the number of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, in the district.

24

The two tables below provide an evaluation of regional performance (Table 5.2), and state performance (Table 5.2) related to the State’s Performance Targets for the educational placement of students with disabilities. These evaluations are based on the 2006-2007 school year. In addition, Table 5.2 includes the State Performance Target established for the 2007-2008 school year. State performance on this target will be reported in the 2009 Annual Performance Report due February 1, 2009. Table 5. 1 Montana Educational Placement

SPP Indicator Number Education Environment

Special Education Setting Count

Educational Placement

Percent

2006-2007 SPP

Performance Target

State Performance

Status

2007-2008 SPP

Performance Target

Indicator 5ARemoved from Regular Class

< 21% of the day 8147 49.0% 48.5% Met Target 48.5%

Indicator 5BRemoved from Regular Class

> 60% of the day 2031 12.2% 12.5% Met Target 12.5%

Indicator 5C Served in Separate Facilities 214 1.3% 1.8% Met Target 1.7% Table 5. 2 Montana Education Placement by CSPD Region

CSPD Region School Year

SPP Indicator Number Education Environment

Special Education

Setting Count

Educational Placement

Percent

SPP Performance

Target

Region Performance

Status

Region I 2006-2007 Indicator 5ARemoved from Regular Class

< 21% of the day 869 46.1% 48.5% Met Target

Indicator 5BRemoved from Regular Class

> 60% of the day 178 9.4% 12.5% Met Target

Indicator 5C Served in Separate Facilities 5 0.3% 1.8% Met Target

Region II 2006-2007 Indicator 5ARemoved from Regular Class

< 21% of the day 1266 49.5% 48.5% Met Target

Indicator 5BRemoved from Regular Class

> 60% of the day 380 14.9% 12.5% Met TargetIndicator 5C Served in Separate Facilities 8 0.3% 1.8% Met Target

Region III 2006-2007 Indicator 5ARemoved from Regular Class

< 21% of the day 1471 39.8% 48.5%Did Not Meet

Target

Indicator 5BRemoved from Regular Class

> 60% of the day 643 17.4% 12.5% Met Target

Indicator 5C Served in Separate Facilities 61 1.6% 1.8% Met Target

Region IV 2006-2007 Indicator 5ARemoved from Regular Class

< 21% of the day 2052 58.0% 48.5% Met Target

Indicator 5BRemoved from Regular Class

> 60% of the day 340 9.6% 12.5% Met Target

Indicator 5C Served in Separate Facilities 38 1.1% 1.8% Met Target

Region V 2006-2007 Indicator 5ARemoved from Regular Class

< 21% of the day 2487 51.4% 48.5% Met Target

Indicator 5BRemoved from Regular Class

> 60% of the day 462 9.6% 12.5% Met Target

Indicator 5C Served in Separate Facilities 38 0.8% 1.8% Met Target Indicator 6 – Preschool Settings Data for this indicator was not reported in the 2008 Annual Performance Report due to revisions in Preschool Setting categories and definitions. Data for the 2007-2008 school year will be reported in the Annual Performance Report due February 1, 2009. Indicator 7 – Preschool Outcomes This Indicator is designed to follow a preschool student longitudinally while the student is participating in a preschool program. For purposes of this data collection all children who have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) AND are 3, 4, or 5 years of age participate in a preschool program. For reporting in the State Performance Plan and subsequent Annual Performance Reports, there are two sets of data that OPI will collect each year:

25

1. Entry-level data for preschool students with disabilities reported for the first time on Child Count (initial IEP).

2. Exit-level and progress data for preschool students with disabilities who have reported entry-level data six months prior to exiting.

Preschool outcome data is currently being collected through our annual child count and exiting data collections. However, due to the longitudinal design, baseline data and targets for this indicator will not be reported in the Annual Performance Report until February 1, 2010. Indicator 8 – Parent Involvement The OPI employs a sampling methodology to gather data for this indicator that is aligned with the five-year compliance monitoring cycle. Therefore, district performance for this indicator is only reported for districts monitored in the year in which data is being reported. To report on this indicator, each of the survey respondents received a percent of maximum score based on their responses to the 26 items on the survey. A parent who has a percent of maximum score of 60 percent or above is identified as one who, on average, agrees with each item; as such, the family member is agreeing that the school facilitated their involvement. The parent involvement rate is calculated by dividing the number of respondent parents who report the school facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities by the total number of respondent parents of children with disabilities. The two tables below provide an evaluation of regional performance (Table 8.2), and state performance (Table 8.1) related to the State’s Performance Targets for the educational placement of students with disabilities. These evaluations are based on the 2006-2007 school year. In addition, Table 8.1 includes the State Performance Target established for the 2007-2008 school year. State performance on this target will be reported in the 2009 Annual Performance Report due February 1, 2009.

Table 8. 1 Montana Parental Involvement Data

School Year

Number who reported school facilitated their

involvement

Total number of parent

respondents

Percent who reported school facilitated their

involvement

SPP Performance

Target

State Performance

Status2006-2007 367 533 68.9% 65.5% Met Target2007-2008 65.5%

Table 8. 2 Montana Parental Involvement Data by CSPD Region

CSPD Region School Year

Total Number of Parent

Respondents

Number who reported school

facilitated their

involvement

Percent who reported school

facilitated their

involvement

SPP Performance

TargetRegion Performance

Status

Region I 2006-2007 64 31 48.4% 65.5% Did Not Meet TargetRegion II 2006-2007 16 9 56.3% 65.5% Did Not Meet TargetRegion III 2006-2007 304 202 66.4% 65.5% Met TargetRegion IV 2006-2007 0 0 0.0% 65.5% Met TargetRegion V 2006-2007 151 97 64.2% 65.5% Did Not Meet Target

NOTE: There were no school districts monitored during the 2006-2007 school year in CSPD Region IV.

26

Indicator 9 – Disproportionate Representation This indicator evaluates disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. The OPI employs multiple measures to determine if a school district has disproportionate representation based on inappropriate identification procedures. District performance reported in the Annual Performance Report is whether or not the district is identified as having a disproportionate representation due to inappropriate practices. This is a compliance indicator meaning that the target for each year of the State Performance Plan will be 0 percent of districts have been identified as having disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification procedures. First, the OPI conducts a statistical analysis of school district data to identify districts that have a statistically significant difference in identification rates resulting in the determination of disproportionate representation. A school district is determined to have disproportionate representation (either under-representation or over-representation) if, given a minimum N of 10, a district demonstrates a statistically significant difference in the proportion of students with disabilities of a specific racial/ethnic group receiving special education compared to the proportion of students with disabilities in all other racial/ethnic groups receiving special education, within a 99 percent confidence interval. Second, when the statistical analysis of a school district’s data indicates there is disproportionate representation (either under or over), the OPI informs the district of its determination and conducts a review of the district’s policies, practices, and procedures to ensure identification is not the result of inappropriate identification.

Table 9. 1 Montana Disproportionate Representation

School Year

Number of LEAs

Reviewed (a)

Number of LEAs Identified with

Disproportionate Representation

Due to Inappropriate Identification Procedures

(b)

Percent of LEAs Identified with

Disproportionate Representation

Due to Inappropriate Identification Procedures

% = (b/a)*100

SPP Performance

Target

State Performance

Status2006-2007 427 0 0.0% 0.0% Met Target2007-2008 0.0%

Table 9. 2 District Review of Disproportionate Representation by CSPD Region

CSPD Region School Year

Number of School Districts

Number Identified With

Disproportionate Representation

Number Identified with Disproportionate Representation Due to

Inappropriate Identification

Region I 2006-2007 91 1 0Region II 2006-2007 79 0 0Region III 2006-2007 87 3 0Region IV 2006-2007 86 0 0Region V 2006-2007 82 0 0

27

Although there were several school districts identified as having disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups in special education, after a review of policies, practices, and procedures, there were no school districts identified as having disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups due to inappropriate identification practices. Therefore, all CSPD Regions have met this state performance target. The table below provides information on the racial/ethnic group and type of disproportionate representation for the four school districts.

Table 9. 3 Districts Identified with Disproportionate Representation

CSPD Region School Year School District Racial/Ethnic Group

Disproportionate Representation

StatusRegion I 2006-2007 District A American Indian/Alaskan Native Over-Representation

Region III 2006-2007 District B White, Non-Hispanic Under-RepresentationRegion III 2006-2007 District C White, Non-Hispanic Under-RepresentationRegion III 2006-2007 District D White, Non-Hispanic Under-Representation

Indicator 10 – Disproportionate Representation - Disability Categories Evaluation of district performance for this indicator involve the same multiple measures employed for Indicator 9. Again, this indicator is a compliance indicator meaning that the target for each year of the State Performance Plan will be 0 percent of districts have been identified as having disproportionate representation in specific disability categories due to inappropriate identification procedures.

Table 10. 1 Montana Disproportionate Representation in Specific Disability Categories

School Year

Number of LEAs

Reviewed (a)

Number of LEAs Identified with

Disproportionate Representation

Due to Inappropriate Identification Procedures

(b)

Percent of LEAs Identified with

Disproportionate Representation

Due to Inappropriate Identification Procedures

% = (b/a)*100

SPP Performance

Target for FFY 2006

State Performance

Status2006-2007 427 0 0.0% 0.0% Met Target2007-2008 0.0%

Table 10. 2 District Identified with Disproportionate Representation-Specific Disabilities

CSPD Region School Year

Number of School Districts

Number Identified With Disproportionate Representation

Number Identified with Disproportionate

Representation Due to Inappropriate Identification

Region I 2006-2007 91 0 0Region II 2006-2007 79 0 0Region III 2006-2007 87 0 0Region IV 2006-2007 86 0 0Region V 2006-2007 82 0 0

There were no school districts identified as having disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories due to inappropriate identification practices. Therefore, all CSPD Regions have met this state performance target.

28

Indicator 11 – Child Find The OPI employs a sampling methodology to gather data for this indicator that is aligned with the five-year compliance monitoring cycle. Therefore, school district performance for this indicator is only reported for districts monitored in the year in which data is being reported. During the compliance monitoring process, the OPI reviews a sample of student records for students who have been initially evaluated for special education services. This review includes a comparison of the date of the school district’s receipt of written parent permission for evaluation to the date that the evaluation was completed to ensure that the evaluation was conducted in accord with the 60-day timeline. The evaluation rate is calculated by dividing the number of reviewed IEPs for students whose eligibility was determined within the 60-day timeline by the total number of reviewed IEPs for students for whom parental consent to evaluate was received. The table below presents the state’s performance data for this indicator that was reported in the Annual Performance Report submitted on February 1, 2008. This is a compliance indicator meaning that the performance target is 100 percent of children, with parental consent to evaluate, will be evaluated within 60 days unless there was an exception to the timeframe in accord with the provisions stated in Sec. 614(a)(1)(C)(ii). Table 11. 1 Montana Performance Target Status

School Year

Number of Children for

whom Parent Consent to

Evaluate was Received

Number of Children whose

Evaluations were

Completed within 60 days

Percent of Children with

Parent Consent

Evaluated within 60 days

SPP Performance

Target for FFY 2006

State Performance Status

2006-2007 260 222 85.4% 100.0% Did Not Meet Target The following table presents the region’s performance status for the 2006-2007 school year.

Table 11. 2 CSPD Region Performance Target Status

CSPD Region School Year

Number of Children for

whom Parent Consent was

Received

Number of Children whose Evaluations were Completed within 60 days

Percent of Children with Parent Consent Evaluated within 60

days

SPP Performance

TargetRegion Performance

Status

Region I 2006-2007 40 39 97.5% 100.0% Did Not Meet TargetRegion II 2006-2007 1 1 100.0% 100.0% Met TargetRegion III 2006-2007 45 41 91.1% 100.0% Did Not Meet Target

Region IV 2006-2007 154 121 78.6% 100.0% Did Not Meet TargetRegion V 2006-2007 20 20 100.0% 100.0% Met Target

Indicator 12 – Part C to Part B Transition In collaboration with the lead agency for the IDEA Part C Early Intervention Program, the OPI collects data from specific school districts in order to evaluate performance for this indicator. Therefore, performance data reported are for those districts who received a referral for IDEA Part B eligibility determination from the IDEA Part C Early Intervention Program. The OPI receives child-specific referral data from each Part C provider that includes the name of the LEA receiving the referral and the date of the referral. The OPI contacts each LEA to collect additional data, including the following: date of eligibility meeting, eligibility determination

29

outcome, date of the initial IEP, and any reasons for delay if the initial IEP was not implemented by the child’s third birthday. The indicator rate, the percent of children found eligible for Part B and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday, is calculated by dividing the number of children found eligible and have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday by the number of children referred by Part C to Part B for eligibility determination. This is a compliance indicator meaning that the state’s performance target will be 100 percent for each year of the State Performance Plan. The table below presents state performance data for this indicator as reported in the Annual Performance Report submitted February 1, 2008.

Table 12. 1 Montana Performance Target Status

School Year

Number of Children

Referred By Part C to Part B

for Eligibility Determination

Children found Eligible for Part B and Who Have an

IEP Developed and Implemented by

Their Third Birthday

Percent of Children Referred by Part C Prior to Age 3, Who Are Found

Eligible for Part B, and Who Have An IEP

Developed and Implemented By Their

Third Birthdays

SPP Performance

TargetState Performance

Status2006-2007 107 51 61.4% 100.0% Did Not Meet Target2007-2008 100.0%

The following table presents performance data by CSPD Region for this indicator.

Table 12. 2 CSPD Region Performance Target Status

CSPD Region School Year

Number of Children

Referred by Part C to Part B for

Eligibility Determination

(a)

Number of Children Found Not Eligible or Parent Caused

Delays in Evaluation

(b)

Number of Children found Eligible for Part B and Who

Have an IEP Developed and

Implemented by Their Third

Birthday (c)

Percent of Children Referred by Part C Prior to Age 3, Who

are found eligible for Part B and Who Have An IEP Developed and Implemented by Their

Third Birthday % = c/(a-b)

SPP Performance

TargetRegion Performance

Status

Region I 2006-2007 17 6 5 45.5% 100.0% Did Not Meet Target

Region II 2006-2007 28 8 17 85.0% 100.0% Did Not Meet Target

Region III 2006-2007 46 5 25 61.0% 100.0% Did Not Meet Target

Region IV 2006-2007 16 5 4 36.4% 100.0% Did Not Meet Target

Region V 2006-2007 0 0 0 0.0% 100.0% Met Target Note: CSPD Region V did not have any referrals from Part C to Part B. Therefore, they have met the state’s performance target. Indicator 13 – Secondary Transition with IEP Goals The OPI employs a sampling methodology to gather data for this indicator that is aligned with the five-year compliance monitoring cycle. Therefore, district performance for this indicator is only reported for districts monitored in the year in which data is being reported. The OPI reviews a sample of student records for students, ages 16 and older, to ensure their IEPs include coordinated, measurable, annual goals and transition services that will reasonably enable students to meet post-secondary goals. The secondary transition IEP goals rate is calculated by dividing the number of reviewed IEPs for students, aged 16 and older, that include coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services by the total number of reviewed IEPs for students aged 16 and older.

30

The table below presents the state performance related to this indicator as reported in the Annual Performance Report submitted February 1, 2008. This is a compliance indicator and as such the state’s performance target will be 100 percent of IEPs for students, ages 16 and older, will have coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals for each year of the State Performance Plan. Table 13. 1 Montana Performance Target Status

School YearNumber of IEPs

Reviewed

Number of IEPs with Transition

GoalsPercent of IEPs with

Transition Goals

SPP Performance

TargetState Performance

Status2006-2007 66 42 63.6% 100.0% Did Not Meet Target2007-2008 100.0%

The following table presents the evaluation of CSPD Regional performance related to this indicator.

Table 13. 2 CSPD Region Performance Target Status

CSPD Region School Year

Number of IEPs Reviewed

Number of IEPs with Transition

Goals

Percent of Secondary

Transition with IEP Goals

SPP Performance Target

Region Performance Status

Region I 2006-2007 13 10 76.9% 100.0% Did Not Meet TargetRegion II 2006-2007 7 6 85.7% 100.0% Did Not Meet Target

Region III 2006-2007 16 5 31.3% 100.0% Did Not Meet Target

Region IV 2006-2007 20 13 65.0% 100.0% Did Not Meet Target

Region V 2006-2007 10 8 80.0% 100.0% Did Not Meet Target Indicator 14 (New Indicator): Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of post-secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school. Montana Post-School Survey Results for the 2005-2006 School Year

Post-school outcome data will be directly reported by school districts through tracking youth who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary school in spring of 2007. Baseline was reported in the State Performance Plan. Improvement Activities: The OPI is revising its current electronic exiting data collection to include post-school outcomes data and ensure this data requirement is incorporated in the AIM system. Indicator 15: General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from identification. The OPI has a comprehensive system of general supervision that includes a review of IDEA Part B applicants’ policies and procedures to ensure consistency with IDEA Part B

31

requirements. It also includes procedures for formal complaints and due process hearings and mediation, an Early Assistance Program (EAP) to resolve issues prior to their becoming formal complaints or going to due process. It provides a compliance monitoring process based on a five-year cycle, and a focused intervention system based on selected performance indicators. Each component of the general supervision system includes procedures for tracking data to ensure requirements and timelines are addressed in a timely manner. Analysis of data from the 2005-2006 school year shows that all timelines for due process hearings, mediations and formal complaints have been met 100 percent of the time. Monitoring data for 2006-2007 was analyzed and reported in the Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities: The OPI will revise its Focused Intervention activities to better align with State Performance Plan indicators; continue to ensure timelines are addressed; review the status of corrective action plans on a monthly basis; provide follow-up to school districts to ensure they are moving toward completion of corrective action plans; and implement sanctions, as appropriate, to ensure school districts complete required corrective action plans. Indicator 16: Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint. Only one complaint was received in 2006-2007. It was resolved through the Early Assistance Program. Improvement Activities: The OPI will continue to work at reducing the number of complaints by providing timely technical assistance to districts and using part-time seasonal personnel to serve in a technical assistance capacity to resolve conflicts. Indicator 17: Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party. In 2006-2007 there were no fully adjudicated due process hearing requests. Improvement Activities: The OPI will continue to provide annual training to hearing officers and track timelines for due process hearings to ensure compliance. Indicator 18 (New Indicator): Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements. Districts must convene the 30-day resolution session in a timely manner following the IDEA statute requirements and, if requested, the OPI may provide technical assistance. Baseline data was collected during the 2005-2006 school year and will be reported in the State Performance Plan. One resolution session was held which resulted in a written agreement. Improvement Activities: The OPI will continue to respond to any requests from school districts for assistance in establishing procedures for successful resolution sessions.

32

Indicator 19: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. Established procedures allow either party to request mediation. For mediation to proceed, both parties must agree to the mediation. Three mediations resulted in two written agreements Improvement Activities: The OPI will continue to provide training to school districts, parents and parent advocacy groups about the mediation process and make trained mediators available to schools and parents at no cost when requested. Indicator 20: State-reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate. The OPI has consistently met designated timelines 100 percent of the time over the past five years. Data are reviewed and validation checks performed to ensure accuracy of the submitted data. Improvement Activities: The OPI will continue to provide technical assistance for data submission and ensure that the AIM system includes all required data elements.

BPE PRESENTATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DATE: JULY 2008

PRESENTATION: Review of Accreditation Process and Procedures PRESENTER: Al McMilin Educator Quality Program Specialist Office of Public Instruction OVERVIEW: This presentation provides to the Board of Public Education (BPE) an overview of

the current accreditation process and supporting procedures. The attached Accreditation Calendar will provide the basic outline for the presentation.

REQUESTED DECISION(S): Discussion OUTLYING ISSUE(S): None RECOMMENDATION(S): Discussion

BPE PRESENTATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DATE: JULY 2008

PRESENTATION: Data Analysis of the Accreditation Status of Montana Schools PRESENTER: Al McMilin Educator Quality Program Specialist Office of Public Instruction OVERVIEW: This presentation provides to the Board of Public Education (BPE) the data

summary requested by board member, Dr. Kirk Miller, for questions concerning the 2007-2008 Accreditation Status determinations for Montana public schools. A copy of the correspondence from Dr. Miller is attached as well as an initial data report addressing the questions.

REQUESTED DECISION(S): Discussion OUTLYING ISSUE(S): None RECOMMENDATION(S): Discussion

OFFICE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION PO BOX 202501 Linda McCulloch HELENA MT 59620-2501 Superintendent www.opi.mt.gov (406) 444-3095 888-231-9393 (406) 444-0169 (TTY)

June 20, 2008 DATA SUMMARY FOR QUESTIONS ON ACCREDITATION STATUS OF MONTANA PUBLIC SCHOOLS Question 1 – In each category – Regular, Regular with Deviation, Advice and Deficiency what is the number of students in public schools under that category. Question 2 – In each category – Regular, Regular with Deviation, Advice and Deficiency what is the percentage of students in public schools under that category.

Status

Category – Regular

Status Category – Regular w/ Deviations

Status Category – Advice

Status Category - Deficiency

Total Count of Public Schools 830 474 151 88 117

Category Count – Percent of Total 57% 18% 11% 14%

Total Enrollment 143,421 70,466 38,359 12,005 22,591

Enrollment – Percent of Total 49% 27% 8% 16%

Note - The data in this table are as of June 16, 2008, and do not include information on the 14 accredited private schools. Question 3 – A request to review the variance to standards (alternative standards) to quantify the most frequently requested variances and illustrations of how those standards are meeting or exceeding the standard. This was answered in general at the May meeting as part of the overall review of the alternative standard process. That information will be presented again as part of this report as well.

"It is the mission of the Office of Public Instruction to improve teaching and learning through communication, collaboration, advocacy, and accountability to those we serve."

In addition to the above information the following is provided as another possible data set which takes a look at the number of "classes" impacted by misassigned and non-licensed teachers.

Subject Area Grouping Number of

Misassigned Teachers

Number of Classes Taught

Number of Nonlicensed

Teachers

Number of Classes Taught

Career & Technical Ed 26 93 8 36

Arts 17 33 7 25

Health Enhancement 14 19 2 5

Communication Arts 14 31 7 32

Mathematics 13 39 4 15

Science 23 55 5 26

Social Science 20 38 2 4

World Language 5 12 3 16

Special Education 19 61 2 3

ESEA Title I 3 10 2 2

Elementary Education 5 5 6 6 Total Number of Classes Taught in State: 37,643 Note 1 - The data in this table are as of June 16, 2008, and do not include information on the 14 accredited private schools in the state. Note 2 – There is duplicated count in this table as some teachers are assigned in more than one area. Note 3 – For elementary a class is defined as the entire day.

BPE PRESENTATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DATE: JULY 2008

PRESENTATION: No Child Left Behind Act Update PRESENTER: Nancy Coopersmith Assistant Superintendent Office of Public Instruction OVERVIEW: This agenda item will present information about current No Child Left Behind

(NCLB) Act activities in Montana. Included will be information about the timeline and process to determine Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for all Montana schools and districts. In addition, regulations concerning NCLB Title I are proposed by the U.S. Department of Education. An overview of these proposed regulations will be presented.

REQUESTED DECISION(S): None OUTLYING ISSUE(S): None RECOMMENDATION(S): None

OFFICE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION PO BOX 202501 Linda McCulloch HELENA MT 59620-2501 Superintendent www.opi.mt.gov (406) 444-3095 (888) 231-9393 (406) 444-0169 (TTY)

Date: June 23, 2008 To: Zollie Stevenson, Jr.

U.S. Department of Education

From: Linda McCulloch State Superintendent, Montana

Subject: Montana Response to Proposed ESEA Title I Regulations General Comments Before I comment on the individual regulations, I would like to make two observations about the proposed rules as a whole. 1. The ESEA will almost certainly be reauthorized next year. It wastes scarce resources to

make changes now when the rules probably will change again next year. 2. These changes, some with a very short timeline, cost much time and money. To the best

of my understanding, the U.S. Department of Education (USED) will not provide financial aid to cover the costs of the additional unfunded mandates. The USED estimates do not take into account the people involved in policy decisions. Other factors do not appear to be part of the USED cost projections. Some of the time estimates, such as revision of the Accountability Workbook, are much lower than the actual requirements, considering the administrators and staff who will need to be involved in any further discussion of N size. As best we can tell, no provision was made for indirect costs. The programming time and costs appear to be underestimated. The biggest cost according to USED is in documenting transfers, but there is no way to decipher what the computed cost would be for Montana. This will entail much expense to LEAs who are facing severe funding crunches already as fixed expenses of transportation and heating are escalating. Finally, the costs fall disproportionately on small population states, since most of the required SEA activities require approximately the same time regardless of the size of the student population or the size of the SEA staff.

Section 200.7 Disaggregation of Data (Accountability Workbook) 1. The 60 days to revise the workbook is a burden, at least on small population states. We

have few staff, but the same workload requirements to revise the workbook as large population states.

2. This proposed change presupposes that the current process is flawed. If USED has not used a sound process, it should tell states exactly how the process is deficient and then give states adequate time to address the problem(s). The proposed regulation will once

"It is the mission of the Office of Public Instruction to improve teaching and learning through communication, collaboration, advocacy, and accountability to those we serve."

again result in N sizes varying from state to state. At present in Montana different N sizes have been required by USED for different purposes.

3. The question of N size should be put on hold until the proposed national advisory council can consider the issues.

Section 200.11 Participation in NAEP NAEP scores are already reported on state Web sites. Since there are no NAEP LEA scores, having it on LEA report cards will confuse parents and the community. Not only does it not provide helpful information about the local school, it provides information that confuses parents and the public. No amount of explanation can make NAEP relevant to the performance of local students on tests that are not related and not comparable. Section 200.19 Other Academic Indicators (Graduation Rates) 1. The definition of graduation is not consistent between ESEA Title I and IDEA (and the

OSEP guidance not allowing students with disabilities to be counted as graduating on time by completing coursework prior to October 1.) The USED should be internally consistent before requiring states to be consistent.

2. Having a graduation rate based solely on a four-year time span provides a huge

disincentive for schools. There must be a means of providing strong encouragement to keep young people in school and not dismiss them as not being important enough to count if they do not graduate with their class. Some students experience medical or other circumstances that make a later graduation beyond their control. But no matter what the reason, a person should be encouraged to finish a high school education at any age. There should also be incentives for states to provide GED or other alternatives to a standard diploma, if we are truly committed to including all children in our educational system.

3. Requiring a change to a transitional rate and then to the final rate in the space of three

years costs money and time in programming and tracking. When it is finished, it provides a new number that does not correspond to past numbers (many states like Montana use the NCES method) or to the future "NGA rate" method. And, during the transition, not all states will use the averaged freshman rate, so the numbers are worthless for comparison purposes. The states' present systems should be used until data is in place to use the new national definition.

4. Interstate transfers will continue to be a problem with no complete solution foreseen in

Montana. States will need USED assistance on handling the interstate transfer issue.

5. Disaggregated graduation rates should not be used for AYP. The addition of more cells does not arithmetically increase the chances that a school will not make AYP, it increases that chance geometrically. The Montana educational community agrees with the National Governors' Association that the new graduation rate was not meant to be used for high stakes accountability.

2

6. Applying a goal for the 2008-09 school year well after the beginning of the year is problematic, unfair and perhaps unworkable.

Section 200.20 Making Adequate Yearly Progress (Growth Models) The principles for growth models previously issued are too restrictive to allow for innovative approaches that really show individual student growth. The guidelines should be reworked with input from the states that were in the growth-model pilot. Section 200.39 Responsibilities Resulting from Identification for School Improvement This requires posting certain information on the LEAs Web site. Many Montana schools do not have Web sites. Will they be required to create and maintain them to post this information, especially since there is no public (or private) school choices in vast areas of the state and no SES services available in a large majority of rural schools? Section 200.43 Restructuring 1. We agree with the CCSSO comment about one year of corrective action not being

enough for any significant change to take place. 2. Both the law and the regulations are based entirely on urban models. Rural schools in

poverty areas, such as some American Indian reservations, cannot be helped by "choice" since there are no other schools, public or private for many miles. There are no SES providers. In isolated and impoverished areas, it is very difficult to attract teachers or administrators of any kind. If the LEA were to fire these educators (the Montana Constitution provides the local school board with the authority to make that decision), it would be extremely difficult to replace them. Charter schools are not allowed in Montana. Private companies have no interest in operating these schools, even if the school boards were interested.

We are very interested in what we can do with our schools in high poverty areas (which have a direct correlation to student test scores.) If there were some strategies that were shown to work, and if the money necessary were provided, the Montana SEA would gladly work with LEA boards of trustees to improve schools. Unfortunately, these regulations do nothing to help those rural schools. Section 200.44 Public School Choice The requirement for 14-day notice to parents before the start of school will put a great strain on LEAs, given the difficulty of finalizing AYP results. Section 200.47 SEA Responsibilities for SES In states with the minimum $400,000 state administration for ESEA Title I, increasing the tasks of monitoring LEA implementation SES providers may stretch limited resources to the breaking point, unless other important duties are neglected.

3

Montana O�ce of Public InstructionLinda McCulloch, Superintendent

www.opi.mt.gov

2003

- 04

2004

- 05

2005

- 06

2006

- 07

2007

- 08

2009

- 10

2010

- 11

2011

- 12

2012

- 13

2013

- 14

40% 40%

51% 51%

68%

2008

- 09

68%

84% 84%

100%

MathMontana Annual Measurable Objective

68%

84%

Montana O�ce of Public InstructionLinda McCulloch, Superintendent

www.opi.mt.gov

2003

- 04

2004

- 05

2005

- 06

2006

- 07

2007

- 08

2009

- 10

2010

- 11

2011

- 12

2012

- 13

2013

- 14

55% 55%

74% 74%

83%

2008

- 09

83%

92%92% 92%

100%

ReadingMontana Annual Measurable Objective

83%

PO BOX 201706Helena, MT 59620-1706

(406) 444-3064FAX (406) 444-3036Education and Local Government Interim Committee

60th Montana Legislature

SENATE MEMBERS HOUSE MEMBERS COMMITTEE STAFFKIM GILLAN GARY BRANAE CASEY BARRS, Lead StaffBOB HAWKS WANDA GRINDE LEANNE HEISEL, Research AnalystSAM KITZENBERG ROBIN HAMILTON EDDYE MCCLURE, Staff AttorneyRICK LAIBLE BOB LAKE FONG HOM, SecretaryDAVE LEWIS BILL NOONEY ALAN PEURA, Fiscal AnalystJIM PETERSON JOHN WARD

MONTANA LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DIVISION STAFF: SUSAN BYORTH FOX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • DAVID D. BOHYER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCHAND POLICY ANALYSIS • GREGORY J. PETESCH, DIRECTOR, LEGAL SERVICES OFFICE • HENRY TRENK, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY • TODD EVERTS, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY OFFICE

05/23/08

K-12 Subcommittee State Capitol Room 137

Thursday, June 12, 2008 Helena, Montana

10:30 Call to order, Chairman KitzenbergApprove minutes of March 13, 2008

10:35 MQEC court filing update/ Jeremy Gersovitz, Legal staff, Legislative Services Division

10:45 Oregon educators benefits/ Tom Bilodeau, Director, Research & Bargaining, MEA-MFT

11:15 "Facilities inventory" update/ Joe Triem, Planning Manager, Architecture and Engineering Division, Department of Administration

12:00 Public comment

12:30 Instruction to staff and adjourn

12:35 Lunch

Joint Meeting of K-12 & PEPB SubcommitteesState Capitol Room 102

2:30 Call to order and introductions, Chairman Hawks

2:45 Review report: “Shared policy goals”/ Alan Peura, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Fiscal Division

3:15 Overview of K-College Working Group/ Jan Lombardi, Policy Advisor for Education, Governor’s Office

3:45 Rationale for having formed the Education and Local Government

-2-

Interim Committee/ Casey Barrs, Legislative Analyst, Legislative Services Division

4:00 Committee discussion of “Shared policy goals”

4:30 Instruction to staff and adjourn

For more informationContact Casey Barrs at (406) 444-3957 or

cbarrs@mt.gov

Cl0425 8151cbxb.

−1−

05/29/08

Education and Local Government Interim Committee

State Capitol Room 137 Friday, June 13, 2008

Helena, Montana 8:30 Call to order, Chairman Laible Approve full ELG committee minutes Recap of the Thursday subcommittee meetings

/ K-12 Subcommittee - Sen. Kitzenberg / PEPB Subcommittee - Sen. Hawks

9:00 MQEC court filing update

/ Jeremy Gersovitz, Legal staff, Legislative Services Division 9:15 Review of Quality Schools Interim Committee (‘05) findings

/ Madalyn Quinlan, Chief of Staff, Office of Public Instruction / Jim Standaert, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Fiscal Division

9:45 Oregon educators benefits

/ Tom Bilodeau, Director, Research & Bargaining, MEA-MFT 10:15 Report on HJR-22 / Sen. Bob Hawks, Chairman, HJR-222Working Group 10:45 Break 11:00 Bitterroot Valley Community College / Sen. Bob Hawks, Chairman, PEPB 11:30 Report on Montana 529 Investment Plan / Alan Peura, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Fiscal Division 12:00 Lunch 1:30 Administrative efficiencies

/ Darrell Rud, Executive Director, School Administrators of Montana / Jim Standaert, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Fiscal Division

−2−

2:15 Student assistance and scholarships / Tyler Trevor, Associate Commissioner for Research, Technology &

Communication, Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education / Bruce Marks, Director, Montana Guaranteed Student Loan Program

/ Casey Barrs, Legislative Analyst, Legislative Services Division 3:00 Performance Measurement Report – BPE Content and Performance

Standards / Kris Wilkinson, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Fiscal Division

/ Steve Meloy, Executive Secretary, Board of Public Education 3:15 Public comment 3:45 Instruction to staff and adjourn

For more information

Contact Casey Barrs at (406) 444-3957 or cbarrs@mt.gov

BPE PRESENTATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DATE: JULY 2008

PRESENTATION: Assessment Update PRESENTER: Madalyn Quinlan State Assessment Director Office of Public Instruction OVERVIEW: Update on the status of the following statewide assessment recommendations:

1. Pilot a writing assessment for K-12 2. Analysis of seven years of NRT results 3. Creating interest and awareness in formative assessment 4. Survey of school districts to identify needs for state and local assessment 5. Form an assessment task force

REQUESTED DECISION(S): Information OUTLYING ISSUE(S): None RECOMMENDATION(S): None

BPE PRESENTATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DATE: JULY 2008

PRESENTATION: Surrender of Educator License (closed session) PRESENTER: Kathleen Magone Chief Legal Counsel Office of Public Instruction OVERVIEW: Report to Board of Public Education (in closed session) of surrender of educator

license as required by Admin. R. Mont. 10.57.605(5): "The superintendent of public instruction shall provide notice to the board of public education of each surrender of a license and of the circumstances surrounding the surrender."

REQUESTED DECISION(S): None OUTLYING ISSUE(S): None RECOMMENDATION(S): None

TIMELINE - PROPOSED INFORMATION LITERACY/LIBRARY MEDIA

CONTENT STANDARD AND PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTOR RULES

0June 2, 2008 • Proposed notice to BPE ........................................................May 8-9, 2008

• Proposed notice to SOS for notice in MAR (by 12:00 p.m.) ..June 16, 2008

• MAR publication out .............................................................June 26, 2008

• Hearing date ........................................................................... July 17, 2008

• Final Public Input deadline ..................................................... July 24, 2008

• Proposed adoption notice to BPE........................................... July 30, 2008

• Adoption notice to SOS for notice in MAR (by 12:00 p.m.) August 4, 2008

• MAR publication out .......................................................... August 14, 2008

1• Effective Date of Rules ...................................................... August 15, 2008

BPE PRESENTATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DATE: JULY 2008

PRESENTATION: Addendum to 2007-2008 Accreditation Status Recommendations PRESENTER: Al McMilin Educator Quality Program Specialist Office of Public Instruction OVERVIEW: This presentation provides to the Board of Public Education (BPE) for

consideration an addendum to the 2007-2008 accreditation determinations for all schools as recommended by the state Superintendent Linda McCulloch. These changes are due to errors identified by the Office of Public Instruction after the accreditation determinations were acted on during the March BPE meeting and the districts were notified of those determinations. The report is attached.

REQUESTED DECISION(S): Approve state superintendent's recommendations. OUTLYING ISSUE(S): None RECOMMENDATION(S): Action

Embargoed until July 10, 2008

2007–2008 MONTANA ACCREDITATION STATUS RECOMMENDATIONS

Addendum #2

Board of Public Education July 2008 Meeting

2007-2008 Montana Accreditation Status Recommendations - Addendum #2

County School District/School(s)Status Change

From:Status Change

To: Reason:

Carbon Edgar ElementaryEdgar Elementary School Regular Deficiency 707 Non-licensed Staff - teacher's licensing issue inadvertently

omitted from original letter

Flathead Kalispell Public SchoolsGlacier HS Deficiency Regular w/Dev 707 Non-licensed Staff - teacher not employed in the district - will be

deleted from the ADC in the fall

Meagher White Sulphur Spgs Pub SchoolsWhite Sulphur Springs HS Advice Regular 902-904 Basic Program (World Language) - HS does offer 2 credits of

foreign language; no students enrolled so class was not on schedule

Phillips Whitewater K-12 SchoolsWhitewater 7-8 Advice Regular 902-904 Basic Program (World Language) - foreign language is

offered 1/2 unit per year; schedule misread during review

Rosebud Forsyth Public SchoolsForsyth 7-8 Advice Regular w/Dev 902-904 Basic Program (World Language and Art) - foreign language

and art were offered 1/2 unit per year; no students enrolled so classwas not on schedule

Sanders Hot Springs Public SchoolsHot Springs School Advice Regular 710 Non-endorsed Counselor - a clerical error by the University

resulted in the teacher's name being omitted from internship list to Ed Licensure last fall; district miscoded the counseling assignment

Hot Springs 7-8 Advice Regular 710 Non-endorsed Counselor - a clerical error by the University resulted in the teacher's name being omitted from internship list to Ed Licensure last fall; district miscoded the counseling assignment

Hot Springs High School Advice Regular 710 Non-endorsed Counselor - a clerical error by the University resulted in the teacher's name being omitted from internship list to Ed Licensure last fall; district miscoded the counseling assignment

2007-2008 Accreditation Status Recommendations - Addendum #2OPI – Accreditation –July 2008Linda McCulloch - Superintendent

All Schools

Elementary Schools

Middle Grade

Schools High Schools

PublicRegular 473 297 111 67Reg w/Dev 152 60 42 45Advice 82 35 28 21Deficiency 117 51 33 34

Total 824 443 214 167

PrivateRegular 5 0 0 5Reg w/Dev 1 0 0 1Advice 0 0 0 0Deficiency 8 1 1 6

Total 14 1 1 12

State Regular 1 0 1 0Reg w/Dev 5 1 0 3Advice 0 0 0 0Deficiency 0 0 1 0

Total 6 1 2 3

Grand Totals 844 445 217 182

2007-2008 Accreditation Status Summary - Addendum #2

2007-2008 Accreditation Status Recommendations - Addendum #2OPI - Accreditation - July 2008Linda McCulloch - Superintendent 2

PRELIMINARY AGENDA ITEMS

July 30, 2008 – Conference Call – 2:00 p.m. • Final Action – Literacy/Library Media Content and Performance Descriptors • Final Action – Technology Content and Performance Descriptors

September 11 – 12, 2008 • Election of Board Officers • Committee Appointments • Superintendent Goals • BPE Goal Review • Assessment Update • NCLB Update • MACIE Update • Material and Non-Performance Case 2008-06 (Action) • Revocation Case 2008-04 (Action) • Distance Learning – Proposed Adoption Notice for Review (Action)

1

BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION CONFERENCE CALL MEETING AGENDA

July 30, 2008

July 30, 2008 2:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER

a. Roll Call b. Statement of Public Participation c. Welcome Visitors d. Adopt Agenda

PUBLIC COMMENT ACTION ITEMS

ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE – Storrs Bishop (Items 1 – 2 ) Item 1 FINAL ACTION - LITERACY/LIBRARY MEDIA CONTENT AND

PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTORS Colet Bartow Item 2 FINAL ACTION – TECHNOLOGY CONTENT AND

PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTORS Michael Hall