Change the world. Change our schools.

Sup. Terry Bergeson, Proposals for Student Support and System Foundations
Time: 3:40pm-5:30pm

Continuing with the final presentation…The afternoon closed with some of the detailed aspects of Dr. Bergeson’s proposal: guidance and graduation support, career and technical education, and foundation support. By this time, the audience was thinning and energy was down (along with the number of Task Force members after 5pm). Continue reading for the action-packed final 90+ minutes. . .

—–

Guidance and Graduation Support

Dr. Bergeson has lots of love for Navigation 101, and would like to see grants offered so schools can implement the program. It costs $20,000 per secondary school to implement the program, and $10,000 per school over time. Her proposal also includes providing graduation advisors per 1,000 students to help track and manage requirements for students

Career and Technical Education

John Aultman, of OSPI, presented this part of the proposal, calling for the expansion of CTE offerings to 7th and 8th grade, change staffing from 19.5 to 18.5, create a “use it or lose it” provision for administrative allocation, increase NERCs, provide funding for summer school rich in math, science and technology, and provide additional staff at 1:25 for ELLs in the I-BEST progra

Foundation Support

After a brief look at resources given to ESDs and OSPI, Ms. Priddy took us into classified staff ratios and salaries. Currently, the State funds at 17.1 classified staff per 1,000 students, and OSPI recommends that be increased to 25.1 to 1,000 students (preliminary number). Districts spend $75 million beyond what the State funds on salaries for classified staff. To help curb this, OSPI recommends the State equalize these salaries and base future salaries on the salary survey already conducted by the State.

Rep. Priest raised the question of paraeducators and where they fit into the classified staffing ratio

Chairman Grimm asked about maintenance and if it made sense to have that be an entirely separate category, which was a nice transition to Dr. Bergeson’s presentation on facilities

Right now, State funding covers 58 percent of facilities maintenance expenditures, leading to a fair amount of deferred maintenance ($485 million worth in Seattle alone). The ask on this is (not surprisingly) an increase in State funding and NERCs

Rep. Priest asked about how small class size and longer school days will impact the Joint Legislative Task Force on School Construction. Dr. Bergeson said the happenings in the Basic Education Finance Task Force are on the radar of the other task force

Dr. Bergeson moved to NERCs (non-employee related costs), which includes technology. Here, OSPI is recommending the State allocate $1,383 per student (includes $282 per FTE for statewide technology program)

Chairman Grimm expressed concern over the reimbursement of expenditures, saying there is no disincentive to splurge on expenses. Ms. Priddy responded saying that is the reason OSPI is not recommending a reimbursement model

Technology was next, with OSPI looking to increase significantly the amount of technology available to students. The proposal includes laptops for all students in grades 9-12 to use throughout high school, laptops for all students in grades 7-8 in core classes, and a ratio of 3:1 for all students in grades 4-6

To end, we looked at curriculum and instruction. The highlight was the price tag to adopt all new curriculum ($727 million). In 2006-07, the State provided $42 per student for curriculum adoption, a model that allows districts to turn over curriculum every 18 years. At $92 per student per year, districts could turn over curriculum every eight years. For a six-year adoption cycle, it would cost $126 per student per year

Superintendent Kowalkowski raised the issue of staff development with new instructional materials. Ms. Priddy said that development would be a part of the 10 additional PD days proposed by OSPI

Finally, Dr. Bergeson pointed out some of the things not included in today’s presentation but in the back of OSPI’s collective mind — including transportation, accountability system, special education, small school factors and more. Interesting to see what, if anything, OSPI puts forward in these areas in the future

Before adjournment, Chairman Grimm returned to the statistic offered earlier today about the effect of master’s degrees in teaching on student achievement in Washington. Steve Aos (WSIPP) clarified that the studies they looked at generally found that MSTs did not have a positive correlation with student achievement. Within in the studies examined by WSIPP was one conducted in Washington, which had similar results (0 out of 4 found any impact).

We’ll be back with MORE live blogging tomorrow morning.

After all, we’re first on the list tomorrow morning.

Dr. Bergeson was back for the final proposal of the day, which focused on supports for specific groups of students, namely: struggling students, English language learners, guidance/advisory/learning support, career/technical education, and college-prep/highly capable students. In the beginning of the end, Dr. Bergeson spoke to struggling students and ELLs, looking to increase funding for both — namely increase staff ratios and decrease class sizes. See the jump for further details. After the 10 minute break, we’ll tackle the remaining groups.

Struggling Students

Currently, the Learning Assistance Program allocates 3.46 staff per 1,000 low-income students, although no funds are set aside for materials. Dr. Bergeson recommends revised LAP allocations to include class size reductions for severe poverty, teachers for small group tutoring, teachers for intensive tutoring, program support, professional development for teachers, and instructional materials.

Rep. Priest asked the Task Force be mindful how decreasing class sizes inside and outside of LAP impacts K-12 funding.

Chairman Grimm again asked about the bottom line, and brought up the issue of LAP being a statutory program. According to Jennifer Priddy (OSPI), to implement the expanded LAP, it would cost roughly $420 million, nearly four times its current cost — some of which Ms. Priddy attributed to the inadequate base schools are working with now. This was a real WOW moment.

Rep. Hunter asked for clarification on the model, whether we would be allocating teachers based on LAP-eligible students or identifying students who would benefit from small-group instruction and funding those students. OSPI’s model is the former.

English Language Learners

Current allocation is $904 per ELL student, generating one teacher per 75 students. In Spokane, the district foots nearly two-thirds of the bill for its ELL program ($1.63 million of $2.475 million) and is achieving results, supporting the case that an increase in dollars can lead to results.

OSPI’s allocation proposal includes smaller class sizes for ELLs, floor funding for districts with few ELLs, high ELL/multiple language enhancement, middle/high school enhancement, professional development for staff, and instructional materials and assessments.

Rep. Priest asked about the time needed for professional development. In the proposal, PD days were set aside for specific ELL training for staff, however, these days would be phased out if 10 more PD days were added to the academic calendar.

Rep. Hunter expressed concern over the trade-off variables between the different programs and basic education overall (eg. having more of X, but not if Y is implemented).

We’ll be back after the break…

Group: Superintendent of Public Instruction Terry Bergeson

Proposals for Student Support and System Foundations

Dr. Bergeson’s second presentation focused on staffing ratios. In her proposal, allocations would be doled out by district, rather than by school. The new model would identify staffing ratios for a school by grade band (K-5, 6-8, 9-12), fund teachers based on class size assumptions not a staffing ratio, and fund a workload assumption for educational support associates (students per staff). See the jump for a more detailed play-by-play.