---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Fiftieth Legislature – First Regular Session
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON
OUTCOME-BASED EDUCATION FUNDING
Minutes of Interim Meeting
House Hearing Room 3 -- 10:00 a.m.
CoChairman Crandell called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
Members Present
|
Senator Sylvia Allen, CoChairman |
Representative Chester Crandell, CoChairman |
|
Linda Honsinger |
Representative Lynne Pancrazi |
|
Janice Palmer |
Duane Tomlinson |
|
Scott Thompson |
Vince Yanez |
Members Absent
|
Senator Linda Lopez |
Stacey Morley |
|
Susan Carlson |
Wiley Popovich |
|
Dr. Debra Duvall |
|
CoChairman Crandell thanked everyone for their hard work in these Committee meetings on outcome-based education funding. He stated that he has compiled the ideas and recommendations from the meetings into two documents: Draft Recommendations (Attachment 1) and Performance Outcomes (Attachment 2). He explained that this meeting is to discuss and edit these documents and, in December, a meeting will be scheduled to finalize the information to be taken to Legislative Council to be put into bill format.
CoChairman Crandell briefly discussed funding sources, such as bonding and overrides, which will be evaluated by the Committee, as well as equal funding, but for now the focus is on paying based on the outcome.
Ms. Palmer asked if the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) has looked at this to determine if it has the capabilities to provide some of the information. CoChairman Crandell replied that it has had an opportunity but has not yet viewed this draft, but ADE must only provide information on monthly funding per enrollment count.
Discussion of Draft Recommendations for Outcome-Based Education Funding (Attachment 1)
Item #1 - Pilot project
Mr. Thompson voiced concerns about a school having some grades in the pilot project and some not. Discussion ensued about the possibility of having an entire school in the pilot project, as well as how this approach would work for both traditional and charter schools.
Mr. Tomlinson added that it would be best if a school were in the pilot project for four years.
CoChairman Crandell clarified that the pilot contract would be with the district, not the individual school. He added that the intent is for schools to be in the pilot for a length of time so that there would not be a continual rotation of schools in and out of the project.
Discussion ensued regarding limiting the number of schools in each district that can be in the pilot project, as well as how to address the diverse configurations of Arizona’s school districts.
Mr. Yanez informed the Members that it was his understanding that ADE would develop the pilot project applications in consultation with the State Board of Education (SBE). He added that one month would not be enough time to process applications; discussion ensued about moving the due dates to a January deadline date and a March selection date.
Ms. Palmer proposed that the intergovernmental agreements were outside the scope of the proposed legislation and that the application process will cover such activity.
Item #2 - Funding
Mr. Thompson stated that he concurs with the dollar amount and the splitting, but does see an issue with enrollment based on current month headcounts because current year reporting does not provide useful information. The system informs on the prior year.
CoChairman Crandell stated his agreement that the current Student Accountability Information System (SAIS) cannot accommodate the current month requirement. He proposed taking the pilot schools out from under the SAIS system and obtaining their information from a “piece of paper” if that is what it takes. Discussion ensued about when students meet the outcomes quickly and schools are paid early. He cited an example when 30 percent of students have to repeat a grade, then the state would not pay until those 30 percent achieve the outcome (rather than having to pay for both years’ teaching).
Mr. Thompson commented that the amount is $1,000 below the national average per student.
Item #3 - Exemption from Title 15 statutory requirements
Mr. Yanez stated his concerns that Title 15 is very important as it protects students and keeps federal money flowing into the state. He stressed that a blanket exemption will put huge amounts of federal money at risk and will create problems that have already been addressed and resolved. CoChairman Crandell stated his appreciation for that position, adding that his proposal would put the responsibility for those protections on local school boards, which could model their standards on Title 15. Mr. Thompson suggested that, since Title 15 is segmented, perhaps legislation could eliminate financial aspects from the pilot project but leave safety aspects in. Representative Pancrazi stated her agreement with Mr. Thompson’s suggestion.
Mr. Yanez reminded the Members that Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) is also required by federal law. Discussion ensued on the academic standards portion of Title 15.
Item #4 - Academic performance outcomes (see Attachment 2)
Ms. Palmer asked if this is an overall assessment or a separate assessment to determine college- and career-readiness. CoChairman Crandell replied that this will be addressed later in the draft recommendation.
Item #5 - $250 per student for college-level courses
CoChairman Crandell stressed the importance of math preparation for the workforce. Mr. Tomlinson asked if this stipend was per student taking courses or per course being taken. CoChairman Crandell replied that it would be per course being taken.
Item #6 - Participating schools forgo future bonds and overrides
CoChairman Crandell stated that this has been covered.
Items #7, 8, 9, and 10 - Arizona universities’ involvement in developing methods and assessments
CoChairman Crandell explained that assessments are already used by universities to place students in courses and there is no need to duplicate and hire outside assessment developers when Arizona has the resources. Mr. Yanez explained that there are also administrative and scoring tasks to be accomplished. Ms. Palmer reminded the Members that there are federal issues involved and that it may cost more than is saved to implement this approach.
CoChairman Crandell stressed the importance of aligning the standards for students getting out of high school and heading to work or to college. He stated that he has spoken with University of Arizona officials and they are onboard to do assessment development but not to administer the tests. He intends to meet with Northern Arizona University about the same topics.
Mr. Yanez asked if this can be accomplished by the 2013/2014 school year. CoChairman Crandell replied that the dates may change, but that is the plan.
Public Testimony
There was none.
CoChairman Crandell informed the Members that the next step is to put all of this information into bill form and that the next meeting, to be held on December 13, 2011, will be to work out the details for this task.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 11:48 a.m.
_______________________________
Jane Dooley, Committee Secretary
December 8, 2011
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office; video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
JLSC ON OUTCOME-BASED EDUCATION FUNDING
November 18, 2011
2
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------