Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-25-2014 Minutes Information MeetingDr. Charles J. Shackett, Superintendent 3497 North Ammon Road, Idaho Falls, Idaho, 83401  (208) 525-4400  Fax (208) 529-0104  www.d93schools.org Board of Trustees  Annette Winchester  Kip Nelson  Amy Landers  Brian McBride  Jeff Bird Bonneville Joint School District No. 93 is an Equal Opportunity Employer Marjean McConnell, Deputy Superintendent Information Meeting District Board Room June 25, 2014 7:30 p.m. I. Call the meeting to order Chairperson Winchester called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. II. Roll Call Those Board members in attendance were Chairperson Annette Winchester, Vice-chairperson Kip Nelson Treasurer Amy Landers, Trustee Brian McBride, and Trustee Jeff Bird. Others in attendance were, Superintendent Chuck Shackett, Deputy Superintendent Marjean McConnell, Director of School Improvement and Technology Scott Woolstenhulme, Director of Human Resources Shalene French, Director of Curriculum and Instruction Michaelena Hix, and Board Clerk Valerie Messick III. Welcome Delegates and Visitors Chairperson Winchester welcomed officer Downey as well as Holly Giglio, Erika Johnson, Janelle Seedall, Shawn Seedall, Heidi Southwick and Boyd Southwick. IV. Amend the Agenda Chairperson Winchester read the Motion and Order to Amend and asked if there would be a motion to amend the agenda as stated. MOTION: Amy Landers made the motion to amend the Agenda as stated. Kip Nelson seconded. Chairperson Winchester asked if there would be any discussion. Hearing none, she called the question. The vote was 5 in favor with 0 opposed and 0 abstentions. Motion carried. V. Rules and Protocol for the Meeting Chairperson Winchester then went over the rules and protocol for the meeting. 1. Come forward to the microphone to present 2. Each of the two patron presenters will have the floor for a maximum of 15 minutes The vice-chairman will give a 2 minute warning, a 1 minute warning, and Time is up by showing cards 3. Do not exceed your time limit 4. No Applause or Cat Calling during or after a presentation 5. Face and address the Board, not the audience 6. Be respectful 7. Do not personally attack or address Board Members, District Administrators, of District Staff 8. If you would like to give the Board more information than time permits, please reduce your concerns to written form and send them to the Board Clerk. Written comments must include your name, address, and telephone number Chairperson Winchester stated that if anyone chooses not to follow this protocol, she will give a warning, then dismiss the meeting if it continues and the Board will enter into executive session as per the amended agenda. VI. Becky Foster testifying against the standards Chairperson Winchester then asked Becky Foster to come forward and address the Board. Ms. Foster stated that she wants to address her comments regarding statements made by the board at the last meeting. (1) The patrons concerns are about the SBAC and not the Common Core and (2) There are no apparent red flags with the common core. There are concerns about standards. Concerns about educational reform that has happened without public scrutiny or debate. There has been a push for a more centralized education system. Looks like a workforce training system. Common Core is taking away local education control, teacher autonomy, and parental responsibility to direct and safeguard the education of their children. It puts student data in the hands of a few powerful people in the testing companies and the federal government. The movement is calculated and strategic. So the common core can’t be separated from the SBAC and data collection. In February 2009 Governor Otter and Superintendent Luna applied for the stimulus money. They made four assurances to the federal government: (1) common standards of testing among other states, (2) improve the data system (3) achieve equity in teacher distribution, and (4) support struggling schools. The program was re-incentivized with race to the top money and the same assurances were required. The ESEA waiver and the memorandum with the SBAC also has the same common standards. The state signed up for the standards and testing without seeing them. The assurances of common core standards, the testing, the data collection, and equity in teacher and principal distribution is all linked together. So, it is easy to see how common core can become a national curriculum. When you use a national test to enforce national standards then you use the results to evaluate teachers in school, curriculum must follow. The Smarter Balanced testing states that the high stakes testing will have a great influence on the classroom. It suggest that high stakes testing should be linked to curriculum and provide training for the designers of curriculum and assessments. The curriculum will align with the standards and the tests ensure compliance. She believes that is why the district chose to adopt the Math in Focus curriculum. We are told that national standards don’t link to a national curriculum but the SBAC will lead to uniformity and conformity. Title 1 funding reinforces the emphasis on the test and change of curriculum. The high stakes nature of the test must be the district’s drive for more testing. Never have our kids experienced such an on slot of testing. Hopefully this will help you see some of the red flags with the assurances and the adoption of the curriculum. Concerned that the educational reform happened without public debate or knowledge. Bill Gates hundreds of millions of dollars in the development, implementation and promotion of common core. The money has been spread to teacher unions PTA to promote common core before the standards were released, written, and implemented. It was also implemented without public vetting, field testing, empirical evidence, or international benchmarking. But there has been no debate or notice of the process because we were in the middle of a recession. So we weren’t paying attention and members of these organizations have no accountability to tax payers. Our elected officials are paying these organizations but we don’t vote them in to the organizations. There are a lot of corporate sponsors of the testing companies and curriculum companies. So, there is a big financial incentive for national standards for these companies. There is an enormous conflict of interest with the testing companies writing the standards. Washington Post article outlining Gates’ involvement with the standards it states that when the common core story is finally told it will be ugly. It will show how the sponsors of the common core made a mockery of the constitution and the democratic process. It will show how the Obama administration pressed an untested reform on the states, evading public debate at both the federal and state levels. A process that should have taken years was compressed into a matter of months. A philanthropic process for reform morphed into a gross abuse of democracy. National testing will affect the values of the community. We must decide if our values are worth fighting for. Do we want to turn over the trust and responsibility we have for our local teachers and schools to those far removed from our community? Do we want to keep those as close to the community as possible? We can’t be naïve enough to think we can keep our values with national testing and standards leading to a national curriculum. When congress tried national history standards it was voted down 99 to 1. Bill Gates’ goals in education are a different agenda than the values and goals she is trying to instill in her children. We should be cautious of the power of one unelected man who is forcing change in the entire education system. Bill Gates and Pearson Foundation are spending $20 million to create a national digital common core curriculum for grades k-12. This just the next logical step in the adoption of common core. Pearson assignments have made national news with the common core curriculum. She wondered who we will allow to influence our kids. With the push to digitalize the curriculum ii is even more concerning? Parents won’t have the chance to counter the agendas. If you don’t believe there is a political agenda, you need to read some of the recommended texts in the Appendix B of the standards. Since it is interdisciplinary goes to all subjects. Constitution passages portrays our founding fathers as racist. You see the theme again with recommended texts in high school. There is a 29 page script for teachers to follow with regard to the Gettysburg address telling teachers not to give historical background on the speech in order to level the playing field for all students. She wonders why the script and what is really behind the suggestions. She wonders about the moral of the common core writers and whether they share our same values. One book on the standards list describe pedophilia and rape. Why do they recommend this from our kids? Although our teachers are not forced to teach to the list, many school are using this book because the national tests are informed by the standards. One of the teachers in our district said she wouldn’t use this book but the reason was that there wasn’t enough copies. Teachers use the books because they are on the AP tests. One of the leading writers of the common core is on the American College Board. They are already rewriting the ACT and the SAT. The new AP history eliminates founding fathers role in forming the country under the guise of eliminating irrelevant facts and replacing actual knowledge with historical thinking skills. We’ve always had questionable books but never has there been such an open door for books competing for influence. The standards are another red flag. Please read the testimony of James Milgram about the standards. He testifies against the standards. The last and most concerning red flag is how common core removes the rights and responsibility of parents to be informed and direct the education of their children. That fundamental right has been dictated by the Supreme Court. The new education reforms are in conflict with this right. This is a direct attack on family and the parental responsibility to safeguard our children and their privacy. She met with legislators who drafted the parental rights bill that was passed in Utah and Arizona. It states that the parents are primarily responsible to direct the education of their children with the states position being secondary. The bill was not allowed a hearing in the state education hearing. When they finished with it, the bill was practically nothing and only stated that parents have a right to participate in their child’s education. The bill passed on a vote of 65 – 5 in the House. The ISBA, IASA, and IEA didn’t want the bill to pass so they lobbied against it. It wasn’t allowed into the senate education committee. The chair would not allow a hearing without the support of educational stakeholders. Apparently parents are not educational stakeholders. That was the end of the parental rights bill. This shows what common core and other reforms are doing to shut out parents. We are in serious times and at a cross roads in our educational system. With every vote you cast with regard to curriculum, testing, and other policy decisions, you are making a choice to keep or give away local education and parental responsibility in safeguarding the education of their children. Chairperson Winchester asked if any Board member had any questions for Ms. Foster. Mrs. Landers asked Ms. Foster to be specific regarding the red flags with the standards. James Milgram said that the standards will put kids behind in math one year by the time they are in fifth grand and two years and by the time they are in seventh grade they will be behind by two years according to other high achieving countries. He states that the approach to geometry is flawed. This was tried in Russia many years ago but failed there. It is extremely technical for teachers to teach it. Another red flag is the constructivist math that patterns after the new math and investigations math that failed in California. It goes to the abstract instead of the algorithms. With the English, Sandra Stotski, who wrote Massachusetts standards which are the best in the nation and has offered that to states for free. She was upset by the process that gunned classical literature. In high school it goes down to 30% classical and 70% informational text. Her statement is available for the Board to read. The curriculum won’t prepare kids for college. Mr. McBride wondered if the curriculum has been tested and what the background of the testing was. Ms. Foster answered that it is the same testing as everyone else has used. She doesn’t know which main test they used but it has been going on for several years. She has read the results that show that Massachusetts has been above everyone else for several years. Mr. McBride asked where the Board can go look at those. Ms. Foster offered to send it to the Board. Chairperson Winchester stated that Massachusetts standards have been very high for a long time. The whole purpose of changing our standards was to become closer to Massachusetts. Our standards are ours and not national standards. Ms. Foster stated that our standards are the same as the national standards and that we have a 15% leeway in what we bring into the standards. All the different agreements that we have made state that we will only bring 15% and that is what we are tested on. It is called Idaho Core, but it is really Common Core Standards with us only being able to bring 15%. That is why we had to adopt cursive back in by resolution. We don’t have time to do all the things we want to do because the testing drives what is in the schools. Mr. Nelson stated that Ms. Foster had explained that there was too much testing with the Common Core and wondered what she felt the difference in that testing vs. what is existing. The response was that the Smarter Balanced Website said that the test would take 7-8 hours and that is about double what ISAT was. Our district is also trying to do interim testing to get ready for the SBAC test. Her daughter is testing all the time. They do STAR tests as well as ISAT and SBAC and that is why they couldn’t do their health professions curriculum because they could never get into the computer lab. We are tested more than ever in history. She doesn’t feel that is ok for our kids. Mr. Nelson wondered if Ms. Foster was looking at the hours of testing and not the amount of testing. She stated that there is too much testing. States are getting out of the testing first and then out of the standards. There are a lot of states that got out of PARC which is the northeastern consortium. They are getting out all the time. Mr. Bird wondered about “The Words We Live By” that Ms. Foster stated that depicted the Founders as racist and asked for a link to that publication. Ms. Foster stated that it is found on the Appendix B of the Common Core Standards and the author is Monk. Just go into their exemplar texts that they suggest teachers teach out of in the 6th – 8th grade literature section. Mr. McBride asked if the SAT as well as ISAT and SBAC were given the high school students this year. The answer was affirmative. He wondered if that was because the SBAC was a field test. The SAT is something that the state department of education is paying for. Mr. Woolstenhulme stated that we will still need to do ISAT Science testing for 5th, 8th, and 10th grades, but the other parts will go away. We will still do ELA testing in language arts and math. Mr. Nelson clarified that our students will do the SBAC for math and language arts and the ISAT for science. Ms. Foster stated that the kids also have the PSAT, the SAT, and the NAEP so there is a lot more testing that is going on now. Mrs. Landers clarified that Mrs. Foster believes that the curriculum is more federally controlled and not locally controlled. Mrs. Foster replied that she doesn’t believe it is federally controlled but that it is controlled by the testing and Bill Gates. When you have such a high stakes test that is evaluating our teachers and our schools, the curriculum will have to match to the standards. We weren’t looking at whether Saxon math was good math, it just doesn’t fit the standards so we have to choose a curriculum that fits the standards because that is what the testing will be on. It will become a more nationalized curriculum. Just look at what is happening in Idaho Falls right now. Everyone is dropping Saxon. Chairperson Winchester stated that if you compare students’ math test scores, they are good for elementary students but there is a drop in middle school. Mrs. Foster asked why we assume that the drop is a problem with Saxon and not something happening at the middle schools. Chairperson Winchester countered that we have been watching the test scores for a long time. When the kids hit middle school, they are not able to maintain the test scores. There is something in our math program that needs to improve as the kids get older. The foundation isn’t doing well. Mrs. Foster suggested that we should field test Math in Focus at a school in the District. We haven’t done any comparisons. Mrs. Landers asked Mrs. Foster if she was aware of the Data Privacy Bill 1372 and read through it. Mrs. Landers wondered if it had anything in it that has alleviated any concerns. The response was that they are still storing a lot of data and because the FERPA law changes they have rights to do that. Chairperson Winchester has read it and doesn’t see red flags. Chairperson Winchester asked if the Board had additional questions for Ms. Foster. Hearing none, she moved on to Stephanie Gifford’s statement. VII. Stephanie Gifford Chairperson Winchester asked Stephanie Gifford to come forward and address the Board. Ms. Gifford stated concerns of parents with the SBAC testing and data collection. (1) The test is paid for by federal government and Bill Gates Foundations neither have any business in education. Since the feds pay the money, they have a significant influence on the test and can insert their own agenda. One of the lead researchers at SBAC is Linda Darling McCammon who believes in redistribution of wealth as a means of achieving equity in education. Mrs. Gifford wonders how her views might be reflected in the testing. She wondered who else is vying for influence. (2) If parents and teachers aren’t allowed see the questions, how will we know? She wondered where the oversight is. We can’t see the questions and don’t know what they are doing. State legislators acknowledge that there are behavior modification questions and some that can be considered indoctrination. It is easy to slip in questions about controversial topics. The practice questions even had questionable material that could undermine what parents are trying to teach their children at home. (3) Test scores will be used to evaluate teachers in schools. We are moving toward a system of equity in teacher distribution. Teachers will be moved around so one area doesn’t have a higher percentage of higher rated teachers. Idaho hasn’t outlined how we will achieve this but it is coming. (4) Time involvement is another problem with the SBAC. One teacher in the District told them that he can’t teach social studies because of time required for math and English. (5) The US Department of Education has expressed the desire to test attributes, dispositions, and attitudes in children. The pieces are in place to do that. The SBAC uses psychometrics in the test design. We are no longer simply testing knowledge. Some think this is good because we can push students toward where they have better ability. That undermines the roll of the home and family in helping children grow toward their abilities and discover who they are. Determining your path in life is not a matter of test scores. Education is becoming a path for college and career readiness and work force training. It doesn’t help kids discover who they are and how to think for themselves. (6) The State Department of Education has said that only 1% of the most cognitive impaired students will be allowed alternative testing. Do the others fit nicely in the same box? 99% of students do not test the same and no amount of IEP accommodations can make this a good test for our kids in the special needs community. It is an insult to tell parents that their questions and concerns are overruled because the state says so. Parents are the experts on their children. If they feel their special needs child will be harmed by taking this test, the child should not take it. (7) Artificial intelligence is being developed to grade these tests. Who is developing the criteria that will be used and do their values align with our values? Now, two teachers will be grading the writing portions and a third brought in if they do not agree. We don’t know what they will be looking for. She wondered if we will get any constructive feedback. She wondered how teachers can turn the scores into useful information if they can’t see the questions, student responses, and grading criteria. (8) Student level data will be made available for research. The government tracks our students from preschool into the workforce. She will do anything she can to limit their access. Data Collection and Our Longitudinal Data System: The State Department claims that data collection has no connection to common core. Data collection does connect to the common core because improving data collection was one of the four assurances the state agreed to with the federal government. Data collection is a vital part of the education reform. The idea of a data system has been pushed since 2011 with the America Competes Act and reinforced through Obamas educational agenda. The original funding for our data system came from the state and then awarded $9 million in federal stimulus money and another $1 from the US department of labor that reemphasizes the link to the work force. Idaho’s ISEE data base is moving away from collection of aggregate data to disaggregate data. The state and links everything to a student’s name and ID number. There is a whole spreadsheet of 400 data points linked to an individual student that tracks her child from preschool to grade 20 and into the workforce (p20w). That is not ok with her. The State board will need to collect ss# to bridge the gap between education and the workforce. Data provides a wealth of information that will attract requests for information. There must be proper processes and procedures in place before requests are received. We wonder what researchers are involved and what information they are given. We are told that the data will be used to evaluate programs to make better data driven decisions. This is done with total disregard to parental decisions. The state has tied the submission of district data to funding. This is another bullying tactic from the state. Any decisions they need to make should be made with aggregate data. Her parental rights trump the states desire to know everything about her child. FERPA has been amended twice to get ready for these education reforms. This why the government can gather data without bothering to tell or ask parents. The law now allows numerous circumstances where parental consent is not required to release private data. This includes biometrics, which include fingerprints, Iris scans, palm scans, and DNA. These have all been done in the name of streamlining education. When education leaders say privacy laws are in place, it doesn’t mean anything anymore. We need to protect our student’s data from the state as well. They are sharing and exchanging it in a multi-state higher education programs that is run through the Western States Commission for Higher Education. “The rise of globalized knowledge economy requires us to understand the distribution of skills and abilities in our population. It is not sufficient to know how many resources are devoted to our nation’s human capital. We need to demonstrate the outcomes of our education systems. This need has built interest in building longitudinal data systems capable of following kids throughout their educational careers. Our children are being referred to as human capital. Her child is not some nameless, faceless piece in their puzzle of human capital development but is a precious individual and deserves more than to be someone’s data experiment. Common education data standards are being created by federal and state governments and the testing consortiums. They are creating a set of common data points to be collected and track people through school, college, and the workforce in different states. Idaho is a member of the stakeholder group creating these standards. Proposed data points include birth weight, weeks of gestation, family income, social security numbers, preschool status, as well as dental, hearing, and vision status. Another stakeholder is the National Center for Educational Statistics has their own set of data points that include after school activities and religious affiliation. Last fall, a few of our legislators flown to Boston to attend an education conference hosted by Jed Bushes organization. One presentation taught them how to talk to constituents about common core and win the kitchen table discussion. Another presentation was about the possibilities surrounding the data collection. On presenter stated that students bleed data. He also said that there is nothing about you regarding what you know and how you learn best that we won’t know because that is how much data you produce. They can develop a learner profile by deciphering how someone learns and using that with achievement data to transform the learning process. That is too much oversight and influence into our children’s lives. That kind of data can be used for nefarious purposes. She wants to know what gives our state the right to unilaterally decide to track every student from preschool through adulthood. As a parent, she has the right to decide has the right to say no if she doesn’t want to do it – the legislators tell us to go to the school board – the parents will decide if the data tracking system and the nationalized assessments are good for her child. She also has the right to say no if she doesn’t want to participate. Parents have the God given right to protect their children. The Board has encouraged her to go to our legislators to seek change because the Board’s hands are tied. They have been there many times but they tell them to go to the local school board because they are responsible for how things work in your local district. When you and they won’t represent them, where does that leave the parents? It leaves them in charge of deciding what is best for their students and they will. Parents are far removed from local control of education. She asked how the Board feels about enacting a policy that takes away the rights of parents to oversee their children’s education. If you feel it is wrong don’t do it. Stand with the parents. Take our concerns back to the state and tell them that you are no longer in a position to trust what comes from the state without doing your homework. They plead with the Board to do their due diligence and research these things. Find out why states are starting to reject the standards and testing. Find out why the republican national committee passed a resolution against common core. Find out why 82% of New Yorkers in a recent poll opposed common core. We need to look at states that are further down the road then Idaho. Find out why teachers are speaking against it and why there are parents all over the country organizing against this. The 10th amendment leaves education to the states and the people. The state derives its power from the consent of the governed. This fact has been blurred and now the government seeks to control the people. Everything is backward and removed from the vision of our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson said, “If we believe these elementary schools will be better managed by the governor, the commissioners of the literary fund or any other general authority of that government than by the parents, it is a belief against all experience.” We have come far down the road of destroying local education control but there is still time to stop and reevaluate what we are doing. She urged the Board on behalf of many parents in the District to take a stand against overreach. You can make a difference. If districts just accept requirements that come down from the state, it will never change. Three are other districts in our state who object to this. Imagine the force we could be if we stood together. First, we need to be informed. She asked the Board to study the information they have given the Board tonight and uphold parental rights in Bonneville School District. Chairperson Winchester thanked Mrs. Gifford and asked if the Board members had any questions. Mrs. Landers wondered what Mrs. Gifford’s specific concerns were after reading the Data Privacy Bill #1372. Mrs. Gifford highlighted every time it states, “As the state board shall determine” or “If the state board shall otherwise determine”. Her pages were filled with yellow highlight marks. When you leave all those openings for the state board to determine otherwise. At another point it talked about that they won’t share data unless for a grant application or other caveats. Mrs. Landers asked if Mrs. Gifford had also read that parental consent to share data. Mrs. Gifford stated that was only in one section. Mrs. Landers stated that the bill requires parental consent for those things. “All school districts, primary, secondary schools and other similar institutions entering into contracts that govern the data bases, online serves, assessments, special education instructional supporst with private vendors include in each such contract a provision that private vendors are permitted to use aggregated data not specific to a student or an individual student’s data for a secondary use only if the vendor discloses in clear detail the secondary uses and receives written permission from the student’s parents or legal guardian. Mrs. Gifford stated that is one section but there are other sections where they talk about it. And that is only private vendors. That is all we have is private vendors. Mrs. Gifford wondered why the state government has a right to all this information. It talks about the different agencies. It is not just the education department. In her opinion, data should not be leaving this district and going to the state without parental permission. Parents don’t know where the data ends up. Mrs. Landers appreciates the concern over children’s data. But looking at the bill they are using data to help make the test better and make it appropriate. That has always been done with any kind of test. They always collect data to improve it. The more data they have, the better test they can produce. Mrs. Gifford believes it doesn’t matter. They can have any reason they want, but she is the parent and she is in charge. They can’t just say trust me, this is for your own good. If it was just for the testing it wouldn’t continue on into the workforce and measuring psychometrics and all the other things we are seeing. Mr. McBride doesn’t see that type of data collection happening in Idaho. Mrs. Gifford stated that Mr. McBride is talking about the biometrics but the psychometrics is part of the SBAC. They have testimony from one teacher in the state that they are concerned that SBAC is testing different things like inferences and how you react to different situations in the name of evaluating critical thinking. You have to always look at the other side and what that could be used for in the wrong hands. Mr. McBride wondered if that is through the wording of the questions. Mrs. Gifford agreed. Mrs. Landers was curious about the Supreme Court affirming parental rights to direct the education. She then asked what Supreme Court? The response was the United States Supreme Court, Justice Foundation, Prince vs. Massachusetts. Mrs. Landers had another question. Mrs. Gifford is saying that a lot of states re opting out and Mrs. Landers knows that is true. That is the point, it is the states. We cannot opt out as a district. Mrs. Gifford agreed but stated that as a district, you have influence. Mrs. Landers as a Board member has no more influence with our legislators than Mrs. Gifford has. Her response was that a school board in Colorado got together and wrote a board resolution rejecting the common core standards and saying that their district would go above and beyond. The Board does have influence when it comes to the policy regarding testing. You don’t have to tell parents they cannot opt out of testing. Chairperson Winchester stated that the law has been here for many years or students couldn’t graduate from high school. Mrs. Gifford wondered why we have to change policy now. Chairperson Winchester explained that we have to have our own district policy to go with the state policy. Mrs. Gifford wondered why we can’t we just say no state of Idaho, our parents don’t want to give you their children’s data? She questioned why the parents were never told about the state policy. She complained about the district handing over hundreds of data points on children, including disciplinary records to the state linked to the student’s names. She wondered why that letter has never gone home informing parents that they can go to their school and request the records. Chairperson Winchester also stated that each Board member has raised their right hand and taken an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution and the laws this state and that they will faithfully discharge all the duties of the Office of Trustee of Bonneville Joint School District No. 93 according the best of their ability”. She understands that the patrons in attendance feell like that if the Board isn’t arguing with the state, the Board isn’t doing what they want them to do. However, the Board also has to work with the state and all board members have sworn an oath that they will do that. Mrs. Gifford wondered where the parents fit and what role parents have in education. Chairperson Winchester feels like our legislators are listing to the parents. She asked about the data collection bill. Mrs. Gifford maintains that they are still doing it without parental control. Mr. Bird asked about the District in Colorado and what consequences followed their actions. They have been sued by their state and they won. They are taking on one challenge at a time. Mr. Bird wondered if they were able to recoup legal fees. Mrs. Gifford didn’t know the answer to that question. She will give Mr. Bird the trustee’s phone number if he would like to talk to him. Mr. McBride would like the phone number. It is a challenge and everyone on the board was concerned about the testing and they talked to legislators at Day on the Hill. They see our unity as a board that testing is a problem. We are in support of the standards. Mr. McBride believes the standards are where they need to be. The Board members have students in the District as well. This is not us against you, we are in this together. We recognize that there is a law and we are bound to support the law. Mr. Bird has another concern that if 95% of our student do not participate in testing, we cannot have a school rating over 3 Stars and we lose federal funding. That funds Title 1.Mr. Nelson wondered if able to opt of testing where will it stop? What about end of course assessments? Mrs. Gifford stated that the SBAC is completely different than STAR testing or end of course assessments. She asked if there is never a line that should be drawn between what is acceptable. Mrs. Landers stated that there is a line and it needs to be incompliance with state law. Mr. McBride is concerned about the precedence about where the district stands on testing. Mrs. Landers also stated that the state does not allow an alternate route to graduation if you opt out of the test. There was a question from Mrs. Gifford whether anyone sees a problem with that. Mrs. Landers personally does not. Chairperson Winchester stated that is the same rules as with ISAT even though it is a different test. Chairperson Winchester asked Mr. Woolstenhulme to comment. Mr. Woolstenhulme stated we need to change the policy now because for the first time in his career, we have received requests from parents to opt out. Before that happened, there wasn’t a need to amend the policy. Now we need an answer for parents. The SBAC is different than before. However the latest opt out forms were regarding any testing in the classroom. We have to have an answer regarding what we allow parents to opt out of. Whether we agree or disagree, the State Constitution says that the State Board has the authority to direct education in the State of Idaho. We can’t adopt a policy that is against law because that is illegal. In the democracy we live in, our venue to change is with the State Board and with the legislators. So, we need to elect people that will get our viewpoint across. Being an advocate with the state is not the Board’s role. You role is to adopt policies that are in conformance with state rules and laws. As far as data collection is concerned, we have voiced concerns to state department for three years. We have had lots of conversations with the State board and State Department of Education. We argued and consulted our attorney. Ultimately whether he agrees or not the State Board can tell us what data points they are going to collect. We don’t have a choice about what we send to the state. If we fail to send one piece of information, then we fail to send the information the state needs to fund our schools. The appropriate way to change that is through the legislature and the State Board. Mr. Woolstenhulme has been talking with Representatives Wendy Horman and Jeff Thompson about concerns with the SData Law. Your role is really no different. We need to talk to our legislators if we feel there is something that needs to be changed. When the State Board is in our area, which is another place to voice your concerns. We need to address things at the level and the person that makes that decision. We legally can’t adopt policies that don’t conform to state law and State Board rule. The state rule is clear about state testing and Mr. Woolstenhulme feels that it needs to be the same for District testing because we can’t make the appropriate educational decisions for students if we don’t know how they are progressing. That applies to STAR assessments and the formative classroom assessments. Mr. Woolstenhulme stated that the only Supreme Court he knows of that actually addressed parental rights in schools is TLO and that had to do with a strip search and whether the school was acting as a parent or an agency of the state. The reality is that the school acts as both and it is a fine line depending on what they are doing. The case before you didn’t have anything to do with schools. Schools have to function under a legal concept called en loco parentis which means that when students enroll in school, we assume a lot of the functions of a parent especially when it comes to directing education. We really can’t have 600 parents directing what their children will or won’t do in school. That really creates chaos. Legally the concept that has been upheld legally is en loco parentis that says that in schools, schools assume some of the responsibility of parents in directing the education of their children. So, as a parent, I disagree with the State Board and the rules regarding data collection, my only choice is to not publically educate my child. In connection with the SData law the legislature also created a statewide committee comprised of 30 people representing every region in the state to review specifically computer adaptive tests. That would be the SBAC. The committee will review content appropriateness and those concerns that have been expressed. So, the committee will be established and will have the opportunity to review the test. Mrs. Gifford and Mrs. Foster have heard about the committee but, they are not psychometricians and in other states they used the committee as a way to say parents have reviewed the test they really didn’t have much input. Chairperson Winchester asked if the Board had any comments, concerns or questions. Mrs. Landers wants the parents to understand that a need drives policy that the district creates. The fact that we are amending the testing policy is because there is a need that is driving it. The need is the simple fact that with the large number of requests that the District has been receiving for opting out this past year, it wasn’t just the SBAC testing, it was opting out any testing in a classroom that was teaching to the common core standards as well as any end of year course assessments which are final exams offered by the teachers. We can’t uphold that so we have to amend our District policy. It isn’t us against you and we aren’t trying to be mean. We have to maintain order in the District. We cannot allow a handful of kids to not take the test. Mrs. Landers doesn’t know what we would do with the kids if they don’t test and they cannot graduate if they don’t pass the test. It creates a nightmare because we wouldn’t be following state policy. Mrs. Gifford wondered if the opt out forms had just referenced the summative smarter balanced assessment, would that have been acceptable. Would that have caused a need to amend the policy? Mrs. Landers responded that it would have needed to be amended because we need to be incompliance with the state and the federal government. That is our job as school board members as we swore to uphold those laws. We would be out of compliance by allowing patrons to opt their child out of testing. There are those kids who have been opted out because their friend opted out and they want to go skiing. They are opting out just because they don’t want to take the test not because of real concerns with the SBAC. Mr. Nelson stated that if the Board allowed that, then the people in attendance would be satisfied but then we would have another group in here requesting equality. We need to remain unified. Mrs. Gifford asked the Board to think about if a line exists where the federal government or the state would ask you to do something you’re your principles would stand against and you would say no. What if they come in with a grant from Bill Gates to have palm scanners to make the lunch lines go super fast in the high schools, what then? Mr. McBride stated that our society is governed by laws. He doesn’t really like driving between Rexburg and Idaho Falls at 55 miles per hour, he would rather go 85. Mrs. Gifford contends that there is a little difference in the analogies. Again we need to go to our legislators. They are the ones making the laws. Chairperson hoped that the patrons would have faith in the Board. It appears that the patrons have no faith in what the Board is doing. We have researched and talked to our attorney and this is what we have to do. They countered that it is not accurate. The only person they can trust when it comes to their children is themselves. Chairperson Winchester appreciates the parents concerns and what they are doing for their children. It is noble and great but she cannot take up their fight. Don’t stop your fight if you feel this is what you need to do. As a Board member she has to fight a different fight because of the many things the Board has to deal with, this is just one of them. She appreciates the parents and they need to do what is right for their children. But as a Board, they have to follow a different path. She encouraged the parents to not give up the fight but to please understand why the Board is doing what they are doing. She expressed appreciation to the parents and wished it were easier. She asked that they try to work together. Let the Board know when you are taking something to the state board and Chairperson Winchester will go with them. This is not over and she is glad that we are so aware. The teachers, parents, administration, the public and legislature are more aware. She believes we can monitor it on our local level. Our administration has concerns with the data and will continue to fight. She thanked them again for what they are doing and asked that the patrons and the Board work together. Just email the board if you are taking something to the state or the legislature so the Board is aware. She asked for any other comments. Mr. Nelson marvels at all the parents. One of the most frustrating things his wife as a teacher encountered was parents that don’t look out for their children. Parents like all of you here are fighting a good cause. He echoes what Mrs. Winchester has stated. Chairperson Winchester asked if the Board had any additional questions. Hearing none, she then moved on to executive session. VIII. Executive Session Chairperson Winchester stated that the Board will enter into Executive Session pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-2345 (1)(b) To consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student. The Executive Session will be closed to the public as permitted by law. She then asked for a motion to move into Executive Session for the reasons stated. MOTION: Kip Nelson made the motion to move into executive session for the reasons stated. Jeff Bird seconded. The roll call vote was: Jeff Bird - yes Amy Landers - yes Brian McBride – yes Kip Nelson - yes Annette Winchester – yes The motion carried and the Board moved into Dr. Shackett’s office for executive session. The Board discussed contracts for the executive team, agreed to support the request for one year, and review again in June 2015 after the budget has been approved. They will vote on these contracts under the Consent Calendar at the July 9, 2014 Regular Meeting. Chairperson Winchester then asked for a motion to move back in to open session at 9:15 p.m. MOTION: Kip Nelson made the motion to move back into open session. Jeff Bird seconded. The vote was 5 in favor with 0 opposed and 0 abstentions. Motion carried. Chairperson Winchester then asked for a motion to adjourn at 9:16 p.m. MOTION: Brian McBride made the motion to move back into open session. Kip Nelson seconded. The vote was 5 in favor with 0 opposed and 0 abstentions. Motion carried. APPROVED: __________________________ Chairperson ATTESTED: __________________________ Clerk Date: ___________________