Joint Legislative Study Committee on Outcome-Based Education Funding

---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

Fiftieth Legislature – First Regular Session

JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON

OUTCOME-BASED EDUCATION FUNDING

Minutes of Interim Meeting

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

House Hearing Room 3 -- 10:00 a.m.

CoChairman Crandell called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.

Members Present

Senator Sylvia Allen, CoChairman	Representative Chester Crandell, CoChairman
Senator Linda Lopez	Representative Lynne Pancrazi
Susan Carlson	Janice Palmer
Dr. Debra Duvall	Scott Thompson
Stacey Morley	Vince Yanez

Members Absent

Linda Honsinger (excused)	Wiley Popovich
	Duane Tomlinson (excused)

CoChairman Crandell thanked everyone for their hard work in these Committee meetings on outcome-based education funding. He stated that this is the last meeting of the Committee to finalize the two documents, Draft Recommendations (Attachment 1) and Performance Outcomes (Attachment 2), which will be taken to Legislative Council to be put into bill format. He explained that the items in boldface in Attachment 1 are those which may need further revisions.

Discussion of Draft Recommendations

Mr. Thompson asked, with regard to Item 1, a, ii of Attachment 1, about the recommendation requiring online instruction and if the $6,500 per student would be appropriate since there is no “brick and mortar” associated with online institutions. CoChairman Crandell replied that there has been a push in Arizona for a blended learning concept and he is interested in revamping the entire system eventually to pay for a level of education, for the outcome, whatever cost is decided upon. He stressed that this is a pilot program only and is designed to provide a level playing field and to achieve the outcome at $6,500 per student.

Ms. Palmer asked for clarification of whether 10 public schools would be the cap or would this be 10 school districts as well as charter schools. CoChairman Crandell replied that he would like to start with 10 schools, and then review longitudinal data; he stressed the importance of following the pilot schools over time, rather than having schools enter and leave the pilot program. Discussion ensued.

In response to a question, CoChairman Crandell addressed a concern that an override situation could affect teacher pay. Mr. Thompson stated his opinion that, with the current language, only small schools and charters would want to participate because they cannot pass overrides and the pilot’s stipulation of forgoing overrides would not be something that would affect them.

CoChairman Crandell replied that the Arizona Legislature will have the responsibility to decide about overrides. Ms. Morely pondered if student count could be excluded in calculating the override capacity. Discussion ensued on the qualifying tax rate and perhaps putting students into a different account. Dr. Duvall commented that placing a disincentive in place immediately seems too complex, adding that since this is just a pilot program there is no need for separate accounting. Mr. Thompson concurred.

CoChairman Crandell stated his concern that when this bill goes into Committee, Legislators will see that there are no categories and budget limits and will ask where the controls are going to be. Ms. Carlson asked if the tracking and reporting can be done using the state’s data system. Mr. Thompson stated that the system can track to the school, but not to the student. Ms. Morely stated that it will be harder to track the outcome.

CoChairman Crandell confirmed that Item 6 will be restated to remove student counts from participating pilot schools for purposes of bonds and overrides.

CoChairman Crandell asked for any changes to Item 1. Mr. Yanez stated that language should be added to state that if there are no assessments in place by 2013/2014 the application process need not be followed as there will be nothing to measure.

Senator Lopez stated her opinion that as schools self-select to apply for the pilot program, those schools that are already highly performing and from a small district would be more inclined to apply. She added that the goal of the pilot program is to ensure that schools that are struggling are participating so that the impact could be measured and she is not certain how that goal will be met with the current structure.

CoChairman Crandell replied that he sees the incentive differently: if a school can move a student three grade levels, it will get paid three times during that year. Discussion ensued on grade levels and the concept that there is no need to move every student at the same time based on age. CoChairman Crandell stated that 200 years of history have dictated that students move at the same time, and the state has funded on that concept; he stated that the incentive should be that a student can move as fast as he or she can.

CoChairman Crandell stated that, in the pilot program, pre-testing must be done to start each student and payment occurs as students move from that initial point. Discussion ensued regarding benchmark concepts. Representative Pancrazi commented that there already are programs available to do pre- and post-testing on students.

CoChairman Crandell commented that online schools may have to do some adjustment to adhere to the 21^st Century skills noted in Item 4.

CoChairman Crandell stressed the importance of promoting math and science courses in Item 5. Discussion ensued about advanced-placement courses versus dual enrollment and the impact on university enrollment.

CoChairman Crandell addressed Items 7 and 8, stressing the contract assessments by state universities. He stated that Items 9 and 10 will get the state universities more involved in K-12 education.

Ms. Palmer expressed concern about compliance with all federal laws and, if not in compliance, what further testing will be required. Discussion ensued regarding the correlation between end of high school tests and college placement and aligning the assessments with college requirements. CoChairman Crandell indicated that the universities are amenable to working on this program and aligning assessments. Mr. Yanez commented that the State Board of Education could hold contracts with the universities to implement this.

CoChairman Crandell stated that many of the performance outcomes listed on Attachment 2 are in a “checkbox” format. Discussion ensued about the ways to assess performance.
CoChairman Allen commented that regulations are not improving the situation and that a level of trust is required.

Mr. Yanez stated that many of the outcomes, because funding will be tied to them, must have clear assessment tools with measurements, which will be costly; he added that the state spends $18 million a year on Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS), which is very low in comparison with other states. Discussion ensued on current assessment procedures, which are not tied to funding and are teachers’ judgments.

Dr. Duvall stressed that conformity from classroom to classroom and from district to district is the issue for performance-based funding. She added that there must be a common understanding in competencies and placement tests.

CoChairman Crandell described an example wherein 30 percent of third graders who do not read at a third grade level must be retained and the state pays a second time to teach those students reading to a third grade level. Discussion ensued.

Mr. Thompson reminded the Committee that this is a pilot program and a trust factor should work; he added that the accountability will still be the AIMS test, although there is not a formal assessment at any other grade level. CoChairman Crandell concurred, adding that this proposal must go through the Legislative Committee process and that it will be interesting to see what the universities say to the proposed legislation.

Mr. Yanez stated that there is thirteen years of funding tied to any particular student. He stated that he wants to ensure that schools outside the pilot program are not punished if a student does very well in a K-8 pilot program, performing at a twelfth grade level, and then transfers to another school district. He wants to ensure that the student still has four years of funding left for the new school. CoChairman Crandell agreed that there may be some issues with that scenario and discussion ensued.

Senator Lopez voiced concerns about how funding will address minority students.
Mr. Thompson felt that additional clarification is needed about the half-payments for enrollment and outcome; CoChairman Crandell explained that the enrollment would be taken monthly, but the payments would be based on a 12-month basis.

Dr. Duvall expressed concern about the assessment portion of the pilot program. Ms. Palmer concurred that the program is an opportunity to create change, stated that she believes the bond overrides have been addressed, and expressed optimism that the assessments portion will be worked out.

Public Testimony

There was none.

Adoption of Final Recommendations

CoChairman Crandell moved that the Joint Legislative Study Committee on Outcome-Based Education Funding recommend that the pilot program be put into the form of legislation. The motion carried by a voice vote.

Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 11:41 a.m.

_______________________________

Jane Dooley, Committee Secretary

December 27, 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

December 13, 2011

---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------