Fayneese Miller, chair of the State Board of Education. VTD/Josh Larkin

RANDOLPH – The Vermont Board of Education Tuesday gave the green light to a draft proposal that seeks a waiver from the controversial No Child Left Behind Act.

The unanimous vote was wrapped around a lot of discussion about forging a “Vermont way” in the 21st century to assess student progress and measure teacher effectiveness, using innovation, technology and the advantages that go with being a small state with a close-knit education community.

The board’s vote at Randolph Union High School came after a wide range of members in the education community mostly lent their backing to the waiver from the controversial and oft-disparaged NLCB law.

The waiver plan was spelled out in a 26-page document drafted by a design team panel represented by Deputy Education Commissioner Rae Ann Knopf.

“We support the waiver request unanimously,” said Dan French, president of the Vermont Superintendents Association. He said among 50 superintendents, the consensus was that NLCB was “harmful to education.” In his view, the state needs another way of assessing students’ progress in order to inspire “the next generation of leaders” in the education field.

Martha Allen, president of the Vermont NEA, which represents teachers, lent her support as well. Allen said teachers are “incredibly burdened” by social pressures on students and federal mandates. She welcomed the waiver because she said the structure of NLCB doesn’t encourage creativity or account for different teaching styles that keep students engaged.

Brent Kay, superintendent of the Orange Southwest Supervisory Union, said he did have concerns about how many details remain to be spelled out.

“I have a huge reservation about the waiver itself,” he said. “I think we don’t have much of a choice. It’s a sad situation.”

Steven Gross, a Middlebury professor with long involvement in Vermont education, told the board that he felt the waiver proposal was “too generic,” too “top-down” and too disconnected from the real causes of poor learning, which he said are tied to kids coming from disadvantaged families that struggle with inadequate housing, lack of food and employment, and poor health care.

NLCB, now almost a decade old, was never rewritten by Congress as planned four years ago. The Obama administration last September outlined how states can get relief from NLCB if they come up with an alternative plan acceptable to the U.S. Department of Education, and the Shumlin administration quickly moved to take advantage.

The proposal before the board was developed in the past two months with the help of five focus groups and includes measures for college and career readiness, redesigned accountability systems with multiple measures, a focus on underserved students, closing the achievement gap, and evaluating teacher effectiveness, according to the education department. Knopf said the proposal would be spelled out with more details by Jan. 17, for a possible final vote of approval by the board and then a public comment period.

Fayneese Miller said Vermont has seen widespread participation and a ‘broad buy in’ of the entire education community in developing the waiver request.”

Jeanne Collins, superintendent of the Burlington School System, worked on the draft and said there were many reasons Vermont needs its own system of measuring student progress. In her district where there are a lot of students with immigrant backgrounds, she said it makes no sense under NLCB to “have an arbitrary finish line in a race where they’re starting a mile behind.”

“I feel this is the right thing to do,” she said.

Some of the nitty-gritty details that remain to be worked out and which were discussed Tuesday include what grades will face testing and by what methods teachers will be evaluated. Under NLCB, schools had to make annual progress in a broad range of student categories or face public sanctions and even removal of the principal at the school.

“We like the fact there’s not testing at every grade level,” said Ken Page, executive director of the Vermont Principals’ Association, who said he also likes a greater emphasis on student creativity. He said the testing requirements of NLCB and prepping for tests have meant lost learning time and when schools fail to meet annual progress standards, it resulted in “the blame and shame we’ve had the last few years.”

He noted 72 percent of his colleagues “are now on the bad principal list,” which he himself belongs to.

But he also wondered what is going to happen when federal officials get Vermont’s proposal and if they will start tweaking it and imposing their views, leading to Vermont’s greater arts and creative endeavors emphasis being tossed.

Janet Steward, chairwoman of the Vermont Standards Board for Professional Educators, stressed that the proposal was not about loosening accountability under NLCB, but making sure it’s in the right places.

Education Board member William Mathis, a former superintendent, raised a concern that the proposal leaves gaps of several years when students would not be tested and could fall behind, which could lead to federal denial of the waiver. But Knopf explained that states were asked to be “innovative and creative” in assessing student progress a variety of different ways, and not all by tests.

She said plans were for students to be assessed “on a continuum” in a smarter and more balanced way that is not grade based. The state currently uses the New England Common Assessment Program tests at various times in grades 3-11 in reading, writing, math and science achievement.

Knopf also said the proposal envisions far more extensive use of technology throughout the school systems as Vermont modernizes and upgrades its broadband capabilities with a big chunk of federal dollars.

Collins, the Burlington school superintendent, said her district is using an iPad application that allows the principal to go into a class and provide immediate feedback for a teacher. She said new technology will allow Vermont to move to an “entirely different level” in how it measures classroom progress.

Board member Brian Vachon wondered what Vermont’s chances of getting the waiver were. Knopf said she thought they were “high” based on her discussions with U.S. Education Department chief Arne Duncan, who has told them he favors a flexible approach.

“I’m taking him at his word,” she said.

Education Board Chairwoman Fayneese Miller said Vermont has seen widespread participation and a “broad buy in” of the entire education community in developing the waiver request.

“I think that’s one thing in our favor,” she added.

In other business:

• The board backed a proposal to study a possible consolidation of the Essex-Caledonia school district, which only has 520 students in eight towns. Education Commissioner Armando Vilaseca said  it was an ideal time for consolidation since that district and the adjacent one in St. Johnsbury both are facing loss of their superintendents. The Essex-Caledonia district was given permission by Vilaseca to hire a superintendent for one to two years while options are considered, he said.
• Vilaseca said the education department is looking at its options to reunite its 200-member workforce, which is currently housed in two places in Berlin and in the DMV building in Montpelier.  The review comes as the state reorganizes departments and agencies after the flooding closed most of the Waterbury state office complex after Tropical Storm Irene.
• Officials said the education department, which has lost some 24 percent of its employees in cutbacks the past few years, is having trouble filling vacancies because of the low salaries for the positions being sought.

VTDigger

On Aug. 17, the Vermont State Board of Education approved the adoption of the Common Core State Standards. The Common Core State Standards initiative is a national effort to have common learning expectations for all students across the country. Vermont is the 31st state to adopt these standards, and it is expected that all remaining states will do so as well in the coming months.

The Common Core State Standards are comparable to the most rigorous international education standards. What this means for Vermont and other states with high standards is that we will not be lowering our standards in this move, but rather more states will now have high expectations comparable to what we already have. We will also be able to truly see how well our students perform compared to their peers nationally.

For the past six years, Vermont – along with Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and most recently Maine – have shared common standards and a common assessment called the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP). Our states’ standards are considered to be some of the highest in the nation, and we do not take this change lightly.

The NECAP consortium will no longer be viable after 2014, since all states will be using one of two new assessments based on the Common Core. Of the two assessments, Vermont is participating in the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), which has approximately 32 states participating. This assessment will expand the use of technology by delivering the assessment to students electronically. Each student will respond to a unique set of items that will provide more information about progress as well as achievement. This move to only two assessments nationally means there will be better comparisons across states, and more collaboration and sharing of resources among all states. In addition, through these common assessments, colleges and universities will be better able to incorporate student results in their admission process, which will make this assessment much more relevant for our high school students.

Vermont has been actively involved in the development and review of these new standards and will be actively involved in the assessment consortium. Because of our experience working in multi-state consortia, Vermont is able to bring perspectives to the discussion that only a handful of states can provide.

The transition from our current standards and NECAP assessment to the implementation of the Common Core in curriculum, instruction and assessment will require a multi-year effort at the local and state level. Professional development will be the single most important aspect of preparation for this change, and will require a statewide initiative and investment to support teachers in this transition.

This initiative comes with some concessions. This transition means Vermont will be changing assessments for the third time in 16 years, making it difficult to look at trends and how improvement to curriculum and instruction is impacting students’ test scores. There will be some additional costs for staff development and implementation of new curricula, which will require additional resources at the state and local levels to ensure all of our educators are well prepared to support the Common Core. However, these are minor concessions to make when we look at the long-term benefits of adopting the Common Core.

The State Board’s vote to adopt the Common Core State Standards continues to push Vermont ’s already strong educational system forward. We expect these changes at the state and national level will result in enhanced outcomes and increased aspirations for students beyond high school, and will accurately measure true college and career readiness skills for all Vermont students.

For more information, visit http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/pgm_curriculum.html.

VTDigger

Armando Vilaseca

The Education Challenges Design Team had its own challenges last week as it sorted through disagreements about supervisory union mergers and redistricting of Vermont schools, staff-to-student ratios and whether the state could actually attain millions of dollars in savings required by law over the next two fiscal years.

Last week Armando Vilaseca, commissioner of the Department of Education, told team members that he would not be counting on them to come to consensus in advance of his meeting with the Legislature on March 30, when all of the Challenges for Change progress reports will be presented.

Education Challenges Design Team draft minutes, 3/22/10

Challenges for Change spreadsheet

Vilaseca told the 11-member ad hoc group that he would take under advisement their opinions about proposed sweeping changes to the way Vermont’s schools and special education programs are managed. He decided the team could discontinue its discussions and forego the last scheduled meeting on March 25.

At the meeting held last Tuesday, there remained wide disparities among several members of the team who are directly involved in schools and Douglas administration officials, including Vilaseca, Tom Evslin, chief technology officer, and Stephan Morse, a member of the state Board of Education.

The key areas of contention centered on whether the $20 million school boards saved in general education costs could be counted toward the Challenges target for fiscal year 2011; whether consolidating school districts into unified supervisory districts should be voluntary or mandatory; and whether the state should impose a limit on staff-to-student ratios. Vermont has 280 school districts and

60 supervisory unions. The current staff-to-student ratio, based on a statewide average, is 1 school employee (everyone from janitors to principals) for every 4.55 students.

The key areas of contention centered on whether the $20 million school boards saved in general education costs could be counted toward the Challenges target for fiscal year 2011; whether consolidating school districts into unified supervisory districts should be voluntary or mandatory; and whether the state should impose a limit on staff-to-student ratios.

Under the Challenges for Change law, which was adopted in February, Vermont’s schools are required to work with less money;  $13.3 million in fiscal year 2011 and $40 million in fiscal year 2012 has already been removed from the Education Fund budget for administrative costs. The same goes for special education; $7 million in fiscal year 2011 and $10.5 million in fiscal year 2012 has been deleted from the Education Fund already. The question is: How do schools find enough efficiencies to work within smaller budgets, particularly in a very short time frame and when details for the restructuring plan have yet to be released?

Several members of the team, most notably Carl Mock, River Valley Technical Center director, and Tom O’Brien, Addison Northwest SU superintendent, have openly questioned the wisdom of the targets and the fast track set by the Legislature.

O’Brien, who has presided over the consolidation of eight separate school districts of a supervisory district merger project, said it took Addison Northwest about five years to form a unified district, and the change has been slow to realize cost savings.

He said he harbors serious doubts about the efficacy of the Challenges and didn’t hold back in the commissioner’s meetings.

Mock says he doesn’t think the state can achieve $40 million in savings just from administration. He said the target set by the Legislature was politically expedient.

“To assume there is $40 million in savings is foolhardy,” Mock said. “It’s based on a report (from Public Strategies Group) with holes in it. There are savings to be had. What I worry about is setting policy on some shaky numbers.”

Bill Talbott, chief financial officer for the Department of Education, reported at an earlier meeting that the state could save $17 million, tops, if it created 40-50 unified supervisory districts.

Mock suggested that the team go back to the Legislature and tell lawmakers that they aren’t able to come up with all of the savings through administrative cuts.

But Morse said the savings are already booked. “Where they occur is up to you.”

O’Brien retorted that they were booked on “erroneous information.” He questioned whether Vermont would go the way of Maine, which moved toward mandatory district consolidation recently.

“It was a dictate – ‘you will do this’ – and they’re in trouble,” O’Brien said.

He said mergers should be voluntary, and the state should provide incentives for schools and districts to consolidate. O’Brien said the fact that 94 percent of towns passed school budgets on Town Meeting Day is an indication that Vermonters support the state’s schools.

Evslin said this didn’t mean voters are happy about how much their taxes have gone up. “They didn’t want to decimate their schools,” Evslin said. “You can’t take my yes vote as everything is hunky dorey.”

A voluntary merger system will go nowhere, Evslin said, unless there is a deadline and a stick in place after a certain time period. “If we don’t set a date on a voluntary system, then we can’t take advantage of attrition, and we’ll face RIFs (reductions-in-force), not retirements.”

O’Brien and Mock pushed for a broader examination of school costs and a more inclusive approach to solutions.

“We need to help schools find a way to be more efficient, not tell them that these are the things they need to do to change,” O’Brien said.

Morse disagreed. “From my point of view, we don’t have that luxury. These are severe economic times, and what’s going to suffer is the quality of education.

In the end, the majority of team members advised Vilaseca to recommend the following changes to the Legislature:

1. That the state assume savings for fiscal year 2011 from the $20 million that school boards cut from budgets at Town Meeting Day;
2. That the state reduce the number of small schools
3. That the state increase the staff/student ratio (this number would be the driving number for supervisory district sizes)
4. That the state achieve general administrative savings through centralizing noneducational functions at the supervisory union level, such as accounting, payroll, special education transportation
5. That the state distribute funds for special education through a block grant program, among other changes.

The team also discussed a transitional consolidation plan that would give districts three to five years to voluntarily consolidate with other districts. At the end of that time, the commissioner would have the authority to implement consolidated district boundaries. There was not complete consensus on this idea.

VTDigger

Armando Vilaseca

The Education Challenges Design Team was in brainstorming mode three meetings into its fast-track reorganization proposal for the Vermont Legislature on Monday.

The group of 13 educators, administrative staff and members is charged with devising a school restructuring plan that will save the state $20 million in fiscal year 2011 and $50.5 million in 2012.

The group is also tasked with achieving educational “outcomes” — increasing the number of high school graduates and the percentage of graduates who go on to college. Its deadline for presenting proposals to the Legislature is March 30.

During a two-hour discussion, the team circled around several ways to achieve the required savings and outcomes. This included how to create a minimum student-to-teacher ratio and consolidating the state’s 280 individual school districts into 40 to 50 unified districts, based on the existing supervisory union structure. In this system, school board members would represent individual towns on a larger, district-wide board.

The state currently has 60 supervisory unions. The Vermont Association of School Business Officials recommends that any redistricting scenarios be based on the existing system.

Armando Vilaseca, Vermont Education commissioner, said he didn’t want to eliminate an exact number of unified districts, but he named a few very small supervisory unions – Blue Mountain, Winooski and Battenkill, with 400 to 500 students — that may need to be combined with larger districts in a reconfiguration plan.

Vilaseca pointed to his predecessor Richard Cate’s white paper on school consolidation, which was floated in 2004, as a template for the number and size of future districts.

Vilaseca pointed to his predecessor Richard Cate’s white paper on school consolidation, which was floated in 2004, as a template for the number and size of future districts. Unified school districts under this plan would have about 1,250 students.

“We want to look at ways to better manage the non-educational, administrative functions – payroll, purchasing, transportation, food services – that won’t be felt at the kid level, but that could save money and reduce duplicated efforts,” Vilaseca said.

The Education Challenges Design Team is part of a larger state reorganization effort called Challenges for Change, which was enacted into law early in the legislative session – Feb. 25. There are six Challenge teams charged with creating 11 different reorganization plans.  Included are: education, special education, mental health and state developmental services, children and family services, state contracting, corrections, economic development and regulatory reform.

The Legislature wants each team to find ways to make government more efficient; a total of $38 million has already been removed from the department budgets as a counterweight to the state’s $151 million deficit for fiscal year 2011.  The target for total Challenges reductions is $177 million, and the projected overall shortfall for the state is estimated to be $200 million in 2012.

All of the restructuring plans are to be presented to lawmakers at the end of this month.

The Legislature wants each team to find ways to make government more efficient; a total of $38 million has already been removed from the department budgets as a counterweight to the state’s $151 million deficit for fiscal year 2011.  The target for total Challenges reductions is $177 million, and the projected overall shortfall for the state is estimated to be $200 million in 2012.

Yesterday’s meeting, led by Education Commissioner Armando Vilaseca, was the first to be open to the public, and about six people, including two lawmakers, attended. (The other Challenges teams, which consist of administrative staff, are not publicly accessible.) In the first two meetings, the team discussed the ground rules and came up with a list of 61 cost-cutting ideas.

A sticking point in yesterday’s discussion was whether the approximately $20 million school districts have already saved through their own budget cuts for fiscal 2011 can be applied to the Challenges savings targets.

The Challenges law specifies that the savings for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 come from two general areas: school administration ($13.3 million) and special education ($7 million). In 2012, the state has proposed removing an additional $40 million from school administration and $10 million from special education. So far, the latter has not yet been addressed in detail.

A sticking point in yesterday’s discussion was whether the approximately $20 million school districts have already saved through their own budget cuts for fiscal 2011 can be applied to the Challenges savings targets. Approximately $1 million to $2 million of that money came from administrative savings, according to Bill Talbott, chief financial officer for the Vermont Department of Education.

Tom O’Brien, superintendent for the Addison Northwest Supervisory Union, asked whether those would satisfy the law. “We accrued $17 million to $20 million in savings this year,” O’Brien said. “Is that on the table?”

Tom Evslin, Challenges for Change coordinator for the Douglas administration, argued they would not.  He said those savings in programs and direct instruction have not brought the state closer to achieving the aggressive goals for trimming base costs for school administration for fiscal 2012. Vilaseca, however, said the law gave them some room for interpretation. The issue remained unresolved at the end of the meeting.

Evslin recommended that they keep their eyes on the big picture. “Let’s not let the tail of this year’s savings wag the dog,” he said. “Let’s imagine what the school system should look like in 2012 or 2013, and let’s forget how we get there.”

Evslin said they had some agreement on the number of school districts, based on Cate’s earlier work, and the idea that common non-instructional services, such as accounting, should be paid for by the state. “That’s where we think we want to be,” Evslin said.

The team examined data from the Vermont Department of Education that listed school employees statewide by job category and the student-teacher ratio for every school in the state. The numbers were self-reported by schools in the 2008-2009 fiscal year.

In all, there are approximately 13,230 teachers and aides and 1,370 staff (including guidance counselors, nurses, administrative assistants), plus an additional 670 instructional staff (including athletic directors, curriculum coordinators, librarians) in Vermont’s schools. Together, these three groups represent 79 percent of the state’s educational employees.

About 4,400 Vermonters are employed in administrative services, or about 16 percent of the educational workforce in the state.

The four administrative areas that come under the team’s purview are: general administration (superintendents and support staff), school administration (including principals, bookkeepers, department heads, special education directors), central support services (including business managers, planning personnel and secretaries) and plant maintenance.

About 4,400 Vermonters are employed in administrative services, or about 16 percent of the educational workforce in the state. An additional 5 percent of workers are transportation and food service staff.

The total cost of administrative services statewide is approximately $287 million, according to figures from Talbott. The team is charged with finding a total of $57 million in savings from those services in fiscal year 2011 and 2012.

Talbott said some school board members are telling him the state should “do it as an allocation — just give us our number, and we’ll figure it out.”

Carl Mock, River Valley Technical Center director, said if the state asked local districts to cut $40 million in administrative costs for fiscal year 2012, it would amount to about $676,000 on average for each supervisory union.

State Education Board team member Stephan Morse said asking districts to take the lead on the reductions is too arbitrary. “It’s our responsibility to be creative and suggest a way the money can be saved.”

“That’s the elephant in the room,” said John Hollar, chair of the Montpelier School Board. “Who decides at the state or local level?”

The mean student-teacher ratio is 10.5 to 1 statewide, according to statistics from the department. The teachers cited in that statistic include anyone who provides direct instruction to students — art, music and physical education teachers – and so it is not a reflection of true class size, according to Talbott. The ratio also does not include teachers’ aides.

Talbott said if the state increased the student-teacher ratio to 13 to 1, it would save $73 million. A student-teacher ratio of 15 to 1 would save $120 million. The savings represent salaries only and do not include benefits or administrative costs, he said.

Vilaseca was ambivalent about dictating ratios to schools. “If we wanted to go with recommended average class sizes – to me that is an administrative function,” he said.

Vilaseca said principals ought to be able to make decisions about reducing staff as needed.

Morse said he supports mandated ratios and that the government needs to provide incentives for schools to consolidate.

Evslin said the student to teacher ratios can be managed through attrition over time as older teachers retire.

He said the merger discussions between Brookline and Newfane (Morse’s home school district) “might have happened sooner had there been some incentive.”

Morse pointed out that the Challenges law includes money for reinvestment in schools, and he suggested that it be used to encourage small schools to consolidate.

“Just mandating class size is going to take us away from the outcomes,” Evslin said. “Just saying small schools are too small, and they need to cut back (on the number of teachers,) isn’t enough.”

Evslin said the student to teacher ratios can be managed through attrition over time as older teachers retire.

The team also discussed distance learning alternatives for advanced placement classes through interactive, Web-based coursework. Evslin said the state should have the broadband capacity in two years to enable schools to use interactive video for instruction. Vilaseca said schools that send students to virtual classes conducted by another district could help defray a teacher’s salary.

Upcoming meeting schedule

Thursday, March 18
Monday, March 22
Tuesday, March 23
Thursday, March 25

Design Team members

1.    Armando Vilaseca, Education commissioner, Design Team chair
2.    Bill Talbott, DOE CFO, Design Team vice chair
3.    Laurie Hodgden, Milton Middle School/High School principal
4.    John Tague, BFA Fairfax math teacher
5.    Tom O’Brien, Addison Northwest SU superintendent
6.    Marilyn Frederick, Lamoille North SU business manager
7.    Carl Mock, River Valley Technical Center director
8.    John Hollar, Montpelier School Board chair
9.    Ellie McGarry, Rutland City SD Student Support coordinator
10.    Rob Levine, Northern Vermont chapter of the American Red Cross executive director
11.    Stephan Morse, state Board of Education representative.

VTDigger

Vermont adopted its constitution in 1777 before it became a state in 1791. Each town was given the right to establish a school or schools “for the convenient instruction of youth.” Property was taxed to fund the schools. For over 230 years we have sought to find the balance between the obligation to educate our youth and the resources to pay for it.

More than 20 attempts have been made during the past 100 years to consolidate the state’s school governance structure. None of them have succeeded. The most recent was Commissioner Richard Cate’s plan three years ago to eliminate local school boards within a supervisory union by forming one governing board.

The current economic downturn has intensified concerns about the cost of educating our primary and secondary students. As has happened during past recessions, the reduction in school spending has mirrored the economic trend lines. The painful cuts of staff and programs have tested the precarious balance between the quality of the educational programs and the revenues to sustain them.

The plan includes choice between the schools and a common tax rate and grand list.”

The Board of Education has received a recommendation to consolidate our current 60 supervisory unions down to 12 to 24 new larger districts with particular focus on our current 16 technical school districts, which for example in the Stowe/Morrisville area is the Green Mountain Technical and Career Center at Lamoille Union High School. Such a new district for our region would combine Lamoille North and South with Orleans Southwest. The towns would extend on a north/south axis from Belvidere to Stowe, and an east/west axis from Stannard to Cambridge along with all the towns in between. The plan includes choice between the schools and a common tax rate and grand list. The assumption is money would be saved in time by having only one superintendent and one central office. But most agree the transition costs would exceed current spending.

I have been on school boards for 30 years, and I’m not an educator. I defer to those who are and, in particular, to those who have done well by their students. I have concerns about another top-down consolidation plan and have made an effort to solicit ideas from those in the front line.

Here are several of those ideas:

• Incentives for districts to merge on their own have received strong support. There is common commitment to cutting cost while focusing on quality by reducing administration and by sharing staff and facilities. Less paper work and state oversight would not only save money but would assure best results for all students.

• Setting state revenue support over a four-year period would allow for a transition period and address the issues of a common tax rate and grand list. A minimum number of students and districts would be required. Debt would be relieved. A variety of options including a virtual high school, increased dual enrollment of high school students in state college courses, secondary school choice and a new special education system are under consideration.

While we in Montpelier mull over what to do, parties on the delivery level are already making decisions to reduce spending. State employees and the Vermont NEA have made concessions and several districts are talking about merging on their own.

Engaging those who are most impacted by change often leads to the best decisions. Permitting local districts to choose who they want to merge with will result in lower spending and a better educational delivery system.

VTDigger

The State Board of Education will hold its monthly meeting on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at the Capitol Plaza Hotel on State Street in Montpelier. Meeting materials and an agenda can be found at http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/board/schedule.html#schedule_agenda.

VERMONT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Montpelier Room, Capital Plaza Conference Center, 100 State Street , Montpelier

January 19, 2010

The State Board and Department of Education provide support and leadership in the transformation of the Vermont education system in order to give each learner the opportunity to succeed in the 21st century.

Agenda

The current month’s meeting agenda and packet materials may be accessed electronically.

8:30 a.m. Legislative Breakfast

Preliminaries

9:50 a.m. A Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance

Fayneese Miller, Chair

B Roll Call and Introductions

Chair, Board members, Others

C Announcements, Board Member Updates

Chair, Board Members

10:00 a.m. D Work Session (facilitated by Rae Ann Knopf)

Policy Commission Report

Strategic Plan

Department Organization

12:15 p.m. Lunch

Action Items

12:50 p.m. E** Consent Agenda VOTE
Question 1: Will the State Board of Education grant initial general and special education independent school approval, to serve a maximum of 20 students ages 11-22 in grades 7-12, within the disability categories of emotional disturbance, specific learning disabilities, other health impairment, and learning impairment, to The Zone in Barre, Vermont?
More information about the zone
Question 2: Will the State Board of Education grant a six-month extension to the Vermont College of Fine Arts, Inc. (VCFA) of its Certificate of Degree-Granting Authority, which would otherwise expire April 30, 2010, in order to allow time for the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) to complete its accreditation review?
More information about the extension

F Final FY 11 Budget Priorities/FY 11 Budget Book VOTE
Question: Will the State Board of Education adopt the FY 2011 Department of Education Budget proposal as submitted?
More information about the budget proposal

Armando Vilaseca, Bill Talbott, Rae Ann Knopf

Discussion Items

G Revisions to Special Education Rules DISCUSS
The proposed final rules for special education.

Karin Edwards , Troy McAllister

H Review of Harassment Law and DOE Role DISCUSS

Mark Oettinger
The DOE Legal Division will provide a brief overview of the Vermont and federal laws pertaining to harassment, and will discuss the DOE’s model harassment policy, and the respective roles of the DOE and the local districts in the related processes.
An overview of the overview

1:30 p.m. Concluding and Adjournment

I Future Agendas, Wrap Up and Adjourn

Board members, Armando Vilaseca, Carol King

J Written:

· ARRA/RttT – Update (Rae Ann Knopf)

· Report on High/Low Spending Districts (Edwards, Dows)

NB: Following adjournment, Board members will go to the State House for Gov. Douglas’ budget message (2:00 p.m.)

* Indications of time on the agenda are best estimates, and therefore may not reflect actual time an item is addressed. We will do our best to address items within the time indicated and extra effort will be made to adhere to the time indicated for public hearing and voting items.

** With discussion.

*** If the discussion warrants and the Board so votes, this item may be held in Executive Session.

*******************************
Contact: Carol King (802) 828-5101 or Carol.C.King@state.vt.us by the Friday prior to the meeting.

Item E – Consent Agenda
1. Minutes of December 15, 2009 SBE Meeting

2. Independent School Approvals

Initial general and special education independent school approval:

The Zone, Barre, VT – ages 11-22

Renewal of general independent kindergarten approval:

Mary John son Children’s Center, Middlebury , VT – kindergarten

Acknowledgement of NEAS&C’s accreditation continuation:

Green Mountain Valley School , Waitsfield , VT – grades 7-12

Acknowledgement of independent school closing:

Hull Crest School , Winooski , VT

3. Post Secondary Approval

a. Request for Extension (to complete accreditation review): Vermont College of Fine Arts, Inc.

b. Certificate of Degree-Granting Authority (three years): Nichols College (to award the following academic degrees: Master in Business Administration (MBA) and master in Organizational Leadership (MOL))

Jill Remick | Communications Director | Vermont Department of Education | 120 State St. | Fourth Floor | Montpelier, VT 05620-2501 | 802-828-3154

VTDigger