North Dakota Commission on Education Improvement
Commission Meeting Minutes
May 3, 2006
Williston Middle School - Williston
The fourth meeting of the North Dakota Commission on Education Improvement was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by the commission's chair, Lt. Gov. Jack Dalrymple.
Commission members in attendance included Lt. Gov. Jack Dalrymple, Warren Larson, Paul Stremick, Martin Schock, Jon Martinson, Mark Lemer, Doug Johnson, Sen. Tim Flakoll, Wayne Sanstead, Sen. David O'Connell and Rep. David Monson. Nancy Sand with the North Dakota Education Association attended as a designee for Joe Westby. Rep. Rae Ann Kelsch did not attend.
Lt. Gov. Dalrymple called for discussion and approval of the minutes from the April commission meeting in West Fargo. Sen. Tim Flakoll and Mark Lemer had concerns about the ability to discern between discussion and decisions that occurred at the full commission meeting April 5, and discussion and decisions that occurred at various subcommittee meetings held throughout the month of March and reported on during the April 5 meeting by the subcommittee facilitators. As a result, the April minutes were not approved. The minutes will be revised to reflect the suggestions of the commission and reviewed again for discussion and approval at the next full commission meeting June 8.
Dates for subsequent commission meetings were discussed. June 8 in Bismarck and July 6 in Minot have already been scheduled. August 2 does not work for Rep. Rae Ann Kelsch, so Lt. Gov. Dalrymple was going to check with her to see what date would better accommodate her schedule. Possible locations for the August meeting include Devils Lake, Dickinson and Grand Forks.
There was no additional commission business.
Warren Larson, facilitator for the subcommittee reviewing weighting factors, a sparsity factor and career and technical education, reported on the subcommittee's progress since the last meeting. He reported that:
- At the subcommittee's meeting April 20 in Bismarck, members reviewed previously agreed upon criteria: single weighting factors would be attached to the per pupil payment for each school district, school districts would be grouped in three K-12 tiers, and breaks would occur between peer groups in as gradual a manner as possible.
- Subcommittee members discussed utilizing a sliding scale for school districts in the middle tier to eliminate any major change in funding due to an enrollment fluctuation.
- They suggested that the proposed weighting factors could be adjusted by the Department of Public Instruction at the beginning of each biennium based upon any structural changes in the cost of providing education, but it was considered unlikely that adjustments would be necessary under the new system.
Warren Larson added that the subcommittee is close to submitting its preliminary recommendations on weighting factors to the full commission for its review and discussion. He stated that the proposed weighting factors need to be fluid enough to meet the future enrollment changes of all school districts.
Sen. Tim Flakoll inquired about how kindergarten students would be factored into the proposed weighting categories. Currently, each kindergarten student is counted as a half ADM - 90 days rather than the full 180 days. Commission members agreed that a more defined method of counting kindergarten students would need to be determined. Preschoolers are not included in the proposed weighting factors. K-8 schools are included in the proposed weighting factors, not as a separate category, but instead, are incorporated into the three proposed peer groups. Commission members agreed that the inclusion of K-8 schools in the three proposed tiers would need to be reviewed in more detail.
Lt. Gov. Dalrymple stated that the challenge with the weighting factors is to keep them similar to the current system, but more equitable. School districts need to know where they are without a complicated system. Mark Lemer added that the process needs to be simplified so that school districts don't have to deal with several weighting factors.
Sen. Tim Flakoll brought up a discussion point regarding consolidations, which would more than likely move districts into the higher tiers. He felt that might negate any incentives for schools to consolidate and proposed for discussion a possible grace period at current weighting factors for schools that do so. It was suggested that it be made similar to the grace period currently allowed for consolidating schools.
Lt. Gov. Dalrymple said that some natural breaks in the weighting factors peer groups were beginning to appear. Natural breaks would be preferential over defined breaks. Sen. Tim Flakoll stressed the importance of a sliding scale to protect the middle tier, since moving from tier 2 to tier 3 could result in a lower weighting factor. Warren Larson added that the commission's objective is a successful total package, so if a few school districts do not fare as well with the weighting factors, they will benefit in other areas.
Rep. David Monson reminded commission members to refer to school districts rather than schools.
Mark Lemer brought up for discussion alternative high schools and how proposed weighting factors would be applied to them. Currently, they are treated as a school district with fewer than 75 students. Warren Larson added that alternative schools cost more to operate, but are important. Lt. Gov. Dalrymple suggested looking at the poverty factor to see if there is a possible overlap with alternative schools.
Rep. David Monson said the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) that his school district belongs to is reviewing options for providing assistance for alternative schools within the JPA. They are currently discussing direct funding or possibly starting an alternative school that would serve all schools represented by the JPA.
Mark Lemer said that alternative schools do not need to be included in the weighting factors discussion, but should be considered as an at-risk factor. A suggestion was made by Warren Larson that perhaps poverty and at-risk factors could be the same. Mark Lemer responded that actual costs would need to be determined before combining them. If the costs are comparable, one factor could be used for both at-risk and poverty students, but if the costs are not comparable, a single factor should not be used. Currently, at-risk students are defined by those requiring free lunch.
Mark Lemer suggested that in addition to assisting students who are at risk of failure, programs should be available to encourage those who have dropped out of high school to return to school and receive their diplomas. Lt. Gov. Dalrymple asked if funding would follow drop-out rates and Mark Lemer suggested that funding would follow programs which are in response to current need. Nancy Sand added that such a program would cover drop-outs only and not students who have moved to other schools.
Sen. Tim Flakoll recommended that programs and services developed to assist at-risk and poverty students should be available for kindergarten students as well as high school to identify issues and special needs early for a more successful outcome. Warren Larson added that assistance to kindergarten students is currently occurring in Williston public schools. Paul Stremick suggested earmarking dollars for at-risk programs, but allowing the local school districts to determine where the funding would be channeled - kindergarten or alternative high schools.
Mark Lemer reiterated that commission members need to focus on the primary issue of the lawsuit - bringing equity and adequacy to North Dakota's schools. Rep. David Monson added that even though the commission is working to bring equity to all school districts, other issues need to be addressed, as well, because they relate to the overall objective. Commission members then discussed how much could realistically be accomplished for the 2007 legislative session and long term. Warren Larson suggested that the commission develop a plan for the 2007 and 2009 legislative sessions now and then work other issues into the process in the future. Sen. Tim Flakoll said that legislators will want to see the results of such an investment and how it will benefit North Dakota's students.
Lt. Gov. Dalrymple stated that the objective of the commission is fairness, and legislatively, the state needs to address equity first, while developing a plan for addressing adequacy in subsequent legislative sessions.
Lt. Gov. Dalrymple asked the weighting factors subcommittee to review alternative ways to address at-risk students.
Warren Larson continued his report with an update on the subcommittee's progress regarding a sparsity factor. He reported that:
- At the April 20 subcommittee meeting, members reviewed South Dakota's plan and determined that no North Dakota school district would qualify using South Dakota's criteria.
- Subcommittee members raised and discussed the following questions:
- Should the group consider an isolated child rather than an isolated or remote district?
- How long should a child be expected to ride on a bus?
- Should a ride time determination differ between elementary and high school students?
- Should a sparsity factor be determined by radius from the next district?
- Should the sparsity factor be determined by GPS of the road miles from another district?
- How many students are needed to support a viable school district?
- Where are the kids in relation to the school?
Lt. Gov. Dalrymple asked if the commission could make adjustments to the state's current plan regarding a sparsity factor. It would be advantageous to make adjustments to the existing plan rather than starting over with something new. Warren Larson replied that the current plan is good and perhaps could be modified to make more equitable. Currently, the state provides $400,000 - $500,000 each biennium to cover sparsity issues for isolated school districts.
Warren Larson then provided an update on the subcommittee's work regarding career and technical education (CTE). He reported that:
- At the April 20 subcommittee meeting, members discussed the possibility of placing funds for career and technical education in the foundation aid program on a per child basis. Concerns were raised by subcommittee members that the funding could get lost in the program and utilized in other ways.
- Wayne Kutzer, director of North Dakota's Department of Career and Technical Education, reviewed a plan that included the development of a CTE center in western North Dakota and the allocation of dollars to school districts so that they could decide locally what programs to fund.
Lt. Gov. Jack Dalrymple asked whether or not dollars could be distributed regionally through JPAs to fund CTE programs. Wayne Kutzer responded that incentives are currently in place to encourage a regional approach. He added that adequacy is the key issue right now and that additional funding is needed to make more CTE programs accessible to more schools. Mark Lemer added that making CTE a separate appropriation from the main formula would not work. Cooperation is essential for smaller districts, but for larger districts that are currently turning away their own students from CTE programs because of limited space and resources, giving up seats for their own students to accommodate students from other districts in order to receive the funding is not a viable option.
Wayne Kutzer expressed his concern about the use of block grants to fund CTE programs. Absorbing CTE funds into foundation aid could possibly jeopardize federal funding.
Warren Larson provided an update on the special education subcommittee that he also facilitates. The group has not yet met because members are waiting on information currently being compiled by a consultant contracted by the Department of Public Instruction (DPI). The consultant held his final information gathering meeting with DPI's special education committee April 28 in Bismarck and will provide a final written report to the committee in June. At that point, the special education subcommittee for the Commission on Education Improvement will convene to review the findings and seek additional input from special education directors, DPI staff and other school officials.
Mark Lemer added that it appears as though the consultant's final report will not advocate significant changes to the state's current special education funding plan, but rather, would make modifications to the existing system, simplifying it and making it more equitable.
Lt. Gov. Dalrymple said he is encouraged by the study because it doesn't deviate too much from the existing system. Simplifying the current system could cut the number of special education contracts in half and reduce the amount of paperwork. Lt. Gov. Dalrymple also brought up for discussion the idea to tie special education units into JPAs. Legislators could require that by a certain year special education units in the state need to be reduced by a specific number.
Rep. David Monson raised the question of whether or not the state was going to mandate that K-8 schools combine with a local high school. According to Monson, it makes sense to do this, but legislators are not ready to mandate it. Providing incentives for consolidations would be better than mandating by law.
There was no activity to report regarding English language learners.
Jon Martinson, facilitator for the subcommittee reviewing JPAs, capital improvements and transportation, provided an update on discussions that occurred at the subcommittee meeting April 20 in Bismarck. He reported that:
- At that meeting, the subcommittee members agreed that additional funding for JPAs would not be included in the $60 million proposed by the Governor for education funding.
- Anita Thomas reviewed the JPA bill draft presented to the Interim Education Committee on April 18. An appropriation will be added to the bill draft when it is presented at the next Interim Education Committee meeting on July 11.
- There would be more support for JPAs among subcommittee members if special education units were brought under the
umbrella of JPAs. It is highly likely that cost savings would result from greater efficiencies. Three options were
discussed by subcommittee members:
- Decrease the number of special education units from 31 to 9 to coincide with the 9 JPAs.
- Consider consolidating special education units into JPAs as directors retire.
- Study Minot's Souris River Special Education Unit as a potential model to emulate.
- Subcommittee members discussed bringing CTE centers, along with their funding, under the JPA umbrella in order to more equitably meet each region's needs.
Lt. Gov. Dalrymple commented on the subcommittee's suggestion to keep additional funding for JPAs separate from the $60 million proposed by the Governor by saying that the agreement refers to increases in "state dollars" and JPA increases must count because JPAs are funded by state dollars. Lt. Gov. Dalrymple said the commission must produce a $60 million proposal, but could also produce recommendations for additional funds that might become available.
Warren Larson said that rather than including additional JPA funding in the $60 million proposal, legislators should continue their efforts to expand and fund JPAs. Lt. Gov. Dalrymple said that the subcommittee's proposal regarding JPAs would be separate from the main formula and foundation aid.
Rep. David Monson said that getting the proposed $60 million from the Legislature is going to be difficult enough and that adding things on top of that will make it even more difficult. Sen. Tim Flakoll concurred by adding that additional JPA funding should be included in the $60 million because it will be difficult to sell if it is separate and could possibly be deleted. Lt. Gov. Dalrymple added that if proposals exceed budget requirements, the Governor and Legislature will be forced to scale it back and prioritize without the benefit of the commission's input.
Warren Larson summarized by saying that if the commission's recommended package totals $61.5 million it won't be a disaster. Everyone needs to look at the entire package as it addresses equity and adequacy. If JPAs provide equity and adequacy, they should be included. If not, the commission needs to explore other options.
Sen. Tim Flakoll added that legislators consider JPAs as resources for providing equity, and if the commission separates JPA funding from the $60 million, it could negate that strategy.
The commission broke for lunch at noon and reconvened at 1 p.m.
Jon Martinson continued his subcommittee report with an update on the group's discussions regarding capital construction and improvements. He reported that:
- Discussion led to suggestions that would help fund remodeling or building projects:
- The state could fund a percent of the total dollar amount of the project to encourage two or more school districts to combine.
- The state could develop a grant program.
- The state could develop a specific use program such as funding for science labs.
- Subcommittee member discussions focused on two key areas:
- How to subsidize construction that encourages consolidation.
- How to renovate within a district based on a needs assessment in order to bring science labs up to date and provide computers for every student.
Lt. Gov. Dalrymple presented for discussion purposes only a possible school capital improvement assistance program that would include three key programs. A base program would be available to all schools for remodeling and expansion projects. A needs based program would provide assistance for remodeling and expansion projects to schools receiving equalization payments and assistance for new facilities for schools with more than $2,000 of taxable valuation per student below the statewide average. A third program would be available for two or more schools reorganizing and making capital investments.
It was determined that it is prohibited by law for schools to take out a loan to cover their local share for capital construction and improvements. They would have to sell a bond. Rep. David Monson suggested that school districts have some kind of a local maintenance or mill levy in place to show good faith that they are helping.
Mark Lemer raised the question about a 30-year repayment incentive and what happens if schools no longer exist and the state is continuing to pay for construction and improvements on facilities no longer in use. Lt. Gov. Dalrymple responded that schools requesting assistance would need to be approved by DPI and a new facility could only be funded if the school will remain open for a specific number of years. Tom Decker with DPI added that currently the department looks at longevity and possibility of schools consolidating in the near future when determining eligibility for capital improvement assistance.
Sen. Tim Flakoll said that he would be more inclined to put additional funding in foundation aid rather than capital construction. Lt. Gov. Dalrymple responded that capital improvement assistance is important because there are schools that are not necessarily considered poor, but have difficulties financing facilities.
The subcommittee will work with the Bank of North Dakota regarding a possible finance program and with DPI to review and possibly enhance the approval process.
Jon Martinson provided an overview of the subcommittee's discussions regarding transportation. In order for the subcommittee to move forward, the commission needs to determine answers to the following issues:
- Define the state's responsibility for transportation.
- Regarding elementary students, define an isolated student.
- Determine an acceptable distance from a student's residence to his/her school and how many students need to be at that distance in order to fund a school.
- Should availability of family resources play into the equation?
The consensus of the commission was that transportation should be a separate issue because it is considered a non-education program and it doesn't have an impact on the lawsuit.
Mark Lemer provided an update on the progress of the main formula and equalization payment subcommittee that he facilitates. He reported that the subcommittee did not meet in April because its members were waiting for information from other groups. Instead, Mark Lemer, Paul Stremick, Lt. Gov. Dalrymple and Dan Huffman met to review the various ways equalization payments could be distributed.
According to Mark Lemer, the subcommittee is looking at two key questions: is there a need for an equalization payment to be based on the size of the school district, and do we impute the value of certain in lieu of or "county" payments? The main formula needs to be finalized before those decisions can be made. Mark Lemer added that the subcommittee is not ready to share hard numbers at this time, but that members will continue to test numbers to see how close they are to having a more comprehensive formula, as well as work through some possible scenarios for equalization payments. The subcommittee is hoping to have a framework established by the June 8 meeting.
Rep. David Monson said that it would be beneficial to the process if the formula could include imputations rather than deductions. Mark Lemer responded that any deductions would be absorbed into the equalization payment and wouldn't be included as a minus on a school district's foundation aid. Lt. Gov. Dalrymple added that all sources of cash payments will be taken into account in determining wealth. There will be a lower per pupil payment because of the elimination of the mill deduct, but other factors will be added back in. Career and technical education funding will be left out for now.
Wayne Sanstead was added to the special education subcommittee.
The subcommittees met to review information discussed by the commission and to determine next steps for May. The main formula and weighting factors subcommittees met together, as well as the capital improvements and special education subcommittees.
At 2:35 p.m., several members of the public, as well as representatives from school districts and interested organizations provided comments during a public input period. Issues raised by the public included:
- Poverty factor - would rather see more funding for full day kindergarten than to address poverty.
- Concern over mill levy deduct.
- Connection between JPAs and special education units.
- Need clearer definition of at-risk student - may not always be the same as poverty student. Currently, at-risk students are defined as needing free lunch. It might be more effective to define at-risk as a student who reads below his/her grade level.
- Testing for English proficiency.
- Full day versus half day kindergarten - not legally mandated.
- Funding for additional school nurses.
The meeting was adjourned by Lt. Gov. Dalrymple at 3:15 p.m.
