California Continuation Education Association
Council of District Representatives
Spring Meeting
Hilton Hotel - Glendale, California
April 7, 2000

Minutes

Call to Order: The spring meeting of the Council of District Representatives was called to order by President Janet Knoeppel at 9:10 AM.

Seating of Representatives: Members present included: Ross Bauer, Joyce Bowcock, Jim Caswell, Barbara Curran, Karlene Dockery, Myrtle Foster, Georgeanne Fulstone-Pucillo, Gerry Catanzarite, Arlene Glucer, Linda Gragg, Jim Ingram, Dennis W. King, Janet Knoeppel, Sherry Kropp, Janis Lehmann, Bill Lincoln, Michael Madalinski, Lee Newman, Leo Petty, Bill Pierce, David Scott, Sunshine Sepulveda, Eric Spears, Bill Spencer, Joe Stits, Bob VanCleave, Bernard Vigallon, Bob Werner, and Jeanne Yttreness.

Janet introduced and welcomed guests. They included Dennis Fischer and Kathi McCulla who were representing the California Department of Education. Also introduced were Dick Kester, Fuschia Ward, and a variety of representatives from District XII.

Lee Newman presented the Jerry Dean Award to Jim Caswell. He was selected by his district last year. Jim thanked Lee for the presentation.

Janet then acknowledged the good work done by Bob Werner for organizing the conference. Bob thanked everyone and said he believed the conference committee had done an outstanding job in organizing the conference.

Minutes: Mike Madalinski presented the minutes from the October 15, 1999 fall CDR.   Karlene pointed out that Dick Kester’s name was incorrect on page three. Dennis King moved to accept the corrected minutes. Eric Spear seconded the motion. The motion carried.

President’s Report: Janet gave an overview of the Executive Board’s activities since October. She pointed out that it had been a really busy year. She emphasized that the main goal was to get a funding bill passed. Her report included:

• Assemblyperson, Calderon from Montebello, introduced Assembly Bill 2634 on February 25, 2000.  She said that the Executive Board had been to Sacramento many times. She said that they had met with several legislators, including Assemblyman, Calderon. She said that the State Budget surplus may be as much as eleven billion dollars. There is a feeling among legislators that education may receive a large portion of that money, particularly money for  equalization.  
• She asked that every person present send a letter of support for AB 2634 to his/her local Assemblyperson and State Senator. CCEA will pay for the postage if the letter is sent from the conference.
• She asked everyone to ask local board members to send letters of support as well.
• The legislative policy committee of ACSA is also supporting AB 2634.
• She reported that the Executive Board has made three trips to Sacramento during the year. The Executive Board will continue to meet as the bill goes forward.
• She said that professional members will receive a pin this year, she has not forgotten.
• She shared that she visited many CCEA Districts and will visit more next year.
• She spent a lot of time in Sacramento at the Drop-out Prevention Conference and at the API subcommittee meetings. She presented to the alternative education subcommittee the CCEA’s position on accountability models.  The recommendation is to take a “menu approach” to an API for alternative education.  One criterion will be the Sat 9 test and then a menu of several items in which districts and schools may choose. They may include graduation rates, transition rates, attendance rates, etc. Continuation schools will not be a part of the rewards and sanctions until the finalized alternative assessment program is in effect.    
• We’ve had a very successful year with Model Schools and Exemplary Programs. Dennis and Jim will share more information regarding both programs.
• Finally, I want to thank everyone who’s stood behind me. First, thanks to Jim all his work with membership, the State Conference and Exemplary Programs. Thanks to Bob for organizing the treasury and the State Conference. Thanks to Mike for sending newsletters and for taking notes, and making t-shirts and designing the logo. Thanks to Joe for all his support and encouragement. Thanks to Gerry for his work on the web site and keeping everyone up to date on information. Thanks to Peter Birdsall and Teresa Inslee for keeping everyone abreast of legislation and general lobbying efforts.  Thanks to Dennis for all his work with the Department of Education and for the hard work he’s done with Model Schools. Thanks to Sue Bennett for her support and for listening to our concerns about the API. Thanks also to Lynn Wilen for volunteering to give a presentation on the alternative assessment committee’s work. You will find that she’s very knowledgeable and she understands the needs of continuation educators. To Fuschia for all her work on arranging meeting rooms and the hotel meals, etc. Thanks to Dick Kester for his work on life memberships.
• The job-alike meeting in December will be suspended until more new officers are in place.
• The fall CDR is tentatively scheduled for October 13, 2000 in Los Angeles. Site TBD. October 20, 2000 is the drop-out prevention conference and I believe we should be a part of that. The weekend of November 3, 2000 is the District V conference and I promise to attend this year.
• The budget will be introduced by Bob Werner later.

Because Jim was registering conference participants, Bob was asked to give the treasurer’s report.

Treasurer’s Report: Bob directed everyone’s attention to the folder he had distributed. In the folder, was the treasurer’s report and the reimbursement checks from membership dues for each district. Also in the packet are lists of professional members. There are 391 professional members as of the closing of the books two days ago. If there are errors, please let him know.

The second item is the number of school memberships as of April 6, 2000. There are 164 school members this year. Enclosed are data about each school including addresses, size, etc.

Another item is the financial statements. There are three entities: general checking, the c.d., and a market rate account of fifty thousand dollars.  The overall total is listed.

An emphasis on updating and correcting the data base has taken place during the year. Bob was pleased to announce that out of the twelve hundred labels generated for the fall newsletter, only eleven were returned. The professional members list is as accurate as he can get it. The school membership list is also accurate. The three data bases are going to be merged into one data base to ensure better accuracy and to stop some duplication of addresses, etc.

Bob also thanked Dick Kester for “chasing down the life membership list.”

Joe Stits then recognized Dick Kester for finally learning how to use email during the arduous process of tracking down life members. A general round of applause ensued!

Bob then recognized the district which had the largest percentage increase in professional memberships from the previous year.  He reported that generally speaking, there was a sixteen percent decrease in professional memberships statewide, but that there was an increase in school memberships. He asked that everyone work at increasing the number of professional memberships.  District II showed a fifty-three percent increase in professional memberships from the previous year. 

Eric Spears notified Bob that LA Unified had a problem sending the money for memberships through the system. He told Bob that there should be a significant increase in his district once the memberships are processed.

Janet then asked Jim to give the vice presidents report.

Vice President’s Report: Jim reported that the Executive Board has thus far made four trips to Sacramento.

He gave a brief overview of everyone with whom the Executive Board members have met. He reiterated the need for everyone to contact local legislators to pass AB 2634.  He also encouraged everyone to send the letter of support from the conference and that the CCEA would pay for the cost of postage. He reminded everyone that sample letters were available at the registration table.

He also distributed the model school information. He suggested that everyone might want to visit the model schools.

Enclosed was a list of all schools that submitted an application for model school status. He thanked members of the State Department of Education for the help in making the model school program so successful. Jim also explained some reasons why some schools were not selected as model schools. Including was a reminder that every part of the application needed to be completed before a school would be considered for model school status.  A few other comments regarding why or why not a school received model school status were explained. Jim reported that a check-list will be developed for next year’s application process. He hopes that next year’s process will clarify any confusion.

He stated that the purpose of the model school program is to make sure that selected schools are true models of continuation education. He said that next year the standards will be even tougher.

Eric Spears had a concern about rigid indicators. His concern is that some schools have no power over certain elements and they can not adapt. Specifically, his concern is a school not having a counselor.  He suggested that the flexibility to offer counseling services in other ways should be considered, especially for schools with only three teachers and no money budgeted by the district for a counselor. He agreed that there needs to be high standards, but there needs to be a way  to offer some flexibility.

Jim invited anyone who wanted to attend a meeting on Saturday at 11:30 AM to review the application for next year and to address any concerns about the application process.

There was a question about how the new API will factor into the model school program.  Janet shared that Dennis had taken the model school criteria to the API subcommittee members.

Bill Spencer asked if the WASC process would play a part in the model schools program. Jim suggested that by going through the WASC process, a school “puts its ducks in a row” and it helps to identify specific indicators.

Janet asked Kathi McCulla if she had any comments about how WASC fits into the model school process.  Kathi said that the Focus On Learning process is evolving too. Eventually, the API will be included in the WASC requirements.  Student data will become the driving force of allocation of resources.

Sherry Kroop asked if a school could be identified as a model school without being WASC accredited. Janet said that in order to be considered, a school must either be WASC accredited or have competed a successful PQR. This is one of the quality criteria.

Dennis Fischer said that the overall process was positive and he believes very beneficial. For schools not selected, he believes that it becomes a resource issue for the CDE if a school does not have the financial means to meet all criteria.

Jim said there’s some confusion among members regarding professional member status versus school membership status. He thanked Bob Werner for cleaning up some of that data and information.

Jim reported that there were 475 people officially registered to attend the conference at that moment. He predicted that there would be about 600 people registered before the end of the day. 

He also made a comment about the blue binders. He reported that the cost of the binders was about nine dollars a piece.  There was a general consensus that the binders were beautifully done and that everyone was pleased to get them.

Janet thanked Jim for his report. She then introduced some folks who had come into the room since the meeting began. She introduced Sue Bennet and Lynn Wilen and thanked them for being able to make the meeting.

Janet then asked Mike Madalinski for the secretary’s report.

Secretary’s Report: Mike asked that everyone please give their names before asking a question so that he could transcribe the information from the tape recording. He also asked members to send him any information they would like to see in the next newsletter. He reported that almost 2000 newsletters were sent in February.

Janet thanked Mike and then asked Joe for the past president’s report.

Past President’s Report: Joe reported that he had a very pleasant trip to the District I conference. He thanked members of District I for making him feel comfortable. He also went to a variety of schools this year, especially in the Central Coast area. He reflected back on his twenty years of service to CCEA. He commented on the change from being “care taker” schools to schools of high academic rigor and standards. He stressed the importance of everyone maintaining the vision of maintaining quality through high standards. He waxed philosophic about how high academic achievement has a greater effect on  students’ self esteem than the old care taker mentality.  He then thanked everyone for everything. General applause ensued.

Janet thanked Joe for his years of service and told him that she’s already thinking about ways in which he can continue to serve CCEA. 

Janet then asked Dennis and Kathy to share what’s going on at the CDE level.

CDE Reports: Dennis shared that the model school application process was a very positive experience. He was able to visit a number of schools. He reminded everyone that the model school’s review committee would meet tomorrow at 11:30. He believes that the entire process is very beneficial. He also shared that everyone in the CDE with whom he talked were very impressed. He suggested that CCEA members be more proactive in spreading the word about how successful continuation education can be.  He said that some of the programs and skills can be exported to traditional high school settings.  He told everyone that every high school student, regardless of placement, will be required to take the high school exit exam.

Sue Bennett reminded everyone that any organization may offer input to the committee in charge of the high school exit exam. She strongly recommended that someone from alternative education attend these committee meetings.

Dennis said he was working with the pilot instruments for alternative ed. accountability. He said that there are a total of twenty-one alternative programs which participated in these pilot assessment models.  He also expressed how glad he is that representatives from CCEA will participate in the drop-out prevention conference. He also mentioned the there is a “drop-out prevention certificate” being offered through the CSU system. Most of the course work will be done via distance learning. Once one has the certificate, one can become a drop-out prevention specialist.

Eric Spears asked if a student can pass the high school exit exam in sections or if it had to be passed all at one time.

Dennis said that parts can be passed, the whole test does not have to be passed at once.

Sue Bennet suggested that the final concept is still be discussed, but she did say that students can retake parts they do not pass.

Eric shared that LA Unified has discussed having continuation educators becoming “exit exam specialists.”

Dennis shared that one of the schools that he and Fuschia visited has aligned the entire curriculum to the state standards and are very proud of this. He mentioned how tough this process can be.

Doc stated that in his thirty-one years in continuation education, he’s always had to fight the notion that our schools are full of “bad kids.” He shared that his concern is that our schools will become programs full of students who can’t pass exit exams and will become eighth grade drop out recovery programs for kids who can’t pass eighth grade exit tests.

Janet and Eric shared similar feelings.

Joe Stits shared that what is being sited should be for opportunity classes. He said that because opportunity classes are only funded at grades seven - nine, people forget that it’s actually a K - twelve program.

Janet asked if Kathi McCulla had anything to add to this accountability conversation.

Kathi stressed that continuation educators should have input into the development in all the changes happening in education. She shared some of her background. She suggested that anyone interested become a visiting educator with the CDE. She said that the CDE is attempting to open up its thinking and not become isolated.  She reminded everyone that in her twenty-seven years in alternative education, it has always been one of the “best kept secrets” in education. She further suggested that alternative educators fostered that thinking. She said that she’s never seen a time like now where there is so much change happening to education in the state. She stressed that alternative educators must keep their issues in the forefront of this thinking and of this change.

Kathi then shared that her other hat is that of “WASC Diva.”  She shared that there are a lot of exciting things happening, one of which is Comprehensive Integrated School Planning where PQR, Focus On Learning, Etc. are put all together into one comprehensive school-wide plan. (There was applause.) She said that in the next couple of years, simple modifications of the school plan will be the only requirement for every process.

Janet thanked Kathi and asked Sue Bennet if she had anything to add. Sue did not. Janet then introduced Lynn Wilen.  Before Lynn’s presentation, Janet said it was time for a break.

Morning Break at 10:36 AM

Janet called the meeting back to order at 10:48 AM and once again introduced Lynn Wilen.

Lynn thanked everyone and explained her role on the alternative education assessment committee. She said she had been able to receive input from many organizations. She shared that she had twice been a principal at continuation high schools and felt most comfortable talking for continuation education. She continued to share her background with the CDR members. She said that in her current role as superintendent, she fights hard tor continuation education and kids in alternative education programs. She is particularly proud of the two small continuation programs in her district. She believes that everyone working in alternative education are “missionaries.”

She then gave an overview of the background of the alternative API (refer to handouts distributed at the CDR meeting for greater detail). Highlights of Lynn’s presentation:

• group appointed in April, 1999.
• Public School Accountability Act  initiated by Governor Davis.
• goal is to improve academic achievement for all students.
• three main components.
• awards and incentives.
• API is cornerstone of whole program.
• explained ranking criteria.
• advisory committee composed of a wide variety of constituents.
• worked with researchers and technical experts.
• API adopted in November, 1999.
• main component to show academic growth.
• all schools included but alternative schools or schools fewer than one hundred students.

Doc asked if independent study schools were included. Lynn said that if a school is a separate independent study school with its own code, it is exempt from the API.

• calculations are somewhat complicated.
• five quintiles work better.
• breakdown of emphasis (language arts 60% in elementary -  20% for every area in high school).
• score of 800 means school is a “high performing school”.
• goal is to have a 5% increase in achievement.
• numerical subgroups also need to show growth.
• for incentives, all subgroups and overall scores must improve by 5%.
• English Language Learners are not considered a subgroup.
• header sheet must be done properly (subgroups based on parent’s education level).

There were some general questions about how accurate the parent’s education levels are.

Doc made a comment about where people’s heads are located in reference to SAT 9 scores and the mathematics section of the test.

Lynn suggested she’s only the messenger. She continued to explain how growth targets will be calculated.

• ranking scores are confusing.
• she gave an overview of the socio-economic indicators necessary to similarly rank schools.
• 96 million dollars is in the state budget for schools which meet targets.
• incentive money will be based on total point growth.
• incentive money has not been directed toward continuation education.
• staff development money will be allocated to universities.
• by July 1, 2000 the State Board is to have alternative evaluation in place.
• thanks to Janet and Gerry for their input during sub-committee meetings.
• other groups represented on this sub-committee: independent study, court schools, etc.
• recommend that schools with fewer than one hundred students be allowed to participate.
• pull special education centers away.
• will be called Alternative Accountability System not an API - it will not contain a ranking due to the varied nature of individual school and district missions for continuation education.
• continuation school personnel (site based or district driven) may choose to have a school be a part of the API.
• Texas Model is being looked at by members of sub-committee. Twenty-two states have accountability systems.
• student must be enrolled for at least ninety days for his/her score to count for that school, otherwise it  will count in the feeder school’s score (general applause).
• base indicators with options for other indicators.
• possible indicators: Star 9, drop-out rate, attendance rate, graduation rate, GED rate, affective domain.
• seniors don’t take test and they are more indicative of continuation school success.
• looking for ways to find awards for continuation education gains.
• set growth goals from menu.

Gerry has a concern about using the drop-out rate as an indicator. Others had some similar concerns and comments.

Lynn reiterated that because there are so many different missions of alternative education settings, quality indicators are difficult to determine.  She also reiterated that there will not be any ranking in the Alternative System.

Janet suggested that individual student’s growth plans will look like an IEP. She then thanked Lynn for her fine presentation (general applause).  Janet said that we should email anyone on the sub-committee or Sue Bennet, Dennis Fischer and Kathi McCulla.

Janet recessed the meeting for lunch at 12:10 PM.

Janet called the meeting back to order at 1:15 PM.

Janet reminded everyone that Lynn had all of her notes on her computer and she would be happy to email it to anyone who requests the information.

Janet then introduced Peter Birdsall who told us about lobbying efforts.

Peter distributed information concerning bills about to be introduced. He said that the budget process is well under way and that there is an estimate that the state budget may have a surplus of over ten billion dollars.  He suggested that Governor Davis is naturally conservative and he is not sure where the money will be allocated. He did say that all school districts have indicated to legislators that any extra money should be discretionary and be allowed to go into the general fund.  He said that our bill, AB 2634 will be harder to sell since money may be allocated in a discretionary manner. Peter then distributed a copy of AB 2634. He briefly described the bill (please refer to copy of bill). Two main components from AB 2634 which was introduced by assembly person Calderon, are equalization money and a grant program.  Peter gave an overview of the specifics of the equalization money. He also asked if anyone could assist with contacting state senators to champion our bill. He answered some questions about the funding formula. Specifically, he answered questions about add-on to the current revenue limits.

Peter also gave an overview about AB 1354.  Included was the inclusion of an algebra 1 requirement and summer school caps.   He also talked about SB 1504 which expands access to advanced placement courses.  It provides grants for staff development materials to start a.p. courses.  Finally, he gave very brief overviews about three other bills including staff development through the UC system, other staff development models and distant learning models for advanced placement courses.

Janet asked if there was a need to discuss access to advanced placement classes. A general conversation about access to advanced placement courses for continuation high school students ensued. A variety of opinions were expressed. There was a general consensus that having access to advanced placement classes via the Internet for continuation high school students would be most beneficial.

A question about the Honda Bill came up. Peter said that since Honda is running for congress, the bill is stalled. If it is not passed by June of 2000, the bill dies.

Janet thanked Peter for his informative presentation. She then asked to take thirty minutes to break for committee meetings. She directed everyone to look at the agenda for their committee assignments. She asked a couple of people to change assignments.

Fuschia Ward began to give a brief overview of the tentative dates and places for future state conferences. She asked Bob Werner to tell everyone about how the 2000 conference was organized. He gave an overview of whom was responsible for different aspects of the conference. He suggested that the state-wide organization worked well and he suggested that this model continue. Fuschia then reviewed the hand-out she distributed regarding future dates and locations for the CCEA state conferences.

Janet thanked Fuschia for her presentation. She then recessed the meeting at 2:15 for committee meetings.

At 2:45, Janet reconvened the meeting for committee reports.

Standing Committee Reports:

Nominations Reports: Bill Lincoln explained that Bob Werner is stepping down as treasurer. He then presented Ross Bauer’s biography and suggested he become the treasure. There were no other nominations from the floor. He moved that the nomination be accepted and it was seconded by Jim Ingram. Gerry reminded Janet that there were not enough folks in the room for a quorum.  After enough people entered the room, Ross was unanimously elected as treasurer.

Advisory/Liaison: No report.

State Conference: Bob reminded everyone about the President’s Reception and that night’s dinner.

Award’s Committee: Lee gave an overview of the teacher of the year nomination process and asked everyone to work at getting nominations. She said that the teacher of the year is an outstanding candidate. She also reminded everyone to get a model school flag since there aren’t too many left. She also said she’s going to get the Jerry Dean pins that afternoon.  Gerry had a concern about last year’s teacher of the year not being invited to events. He stressed that these teachers represent the best in our profession and they should be invited to events. Joyce said that this information should be listed on the web site. Gerry said that it’s in place and he’ll add anything if folks email him.

Lee wanted to add a classified person as a state award. Janet said that she would like to add that and an administrator of the year classification too. She asked Lee to chair a committee to expand the idea of adding a classified and administrator of the year categories.  A committee was formed.  Lee will chair the committee and other members are Barbara Ahern and Joyce Bowcock.

Gerry asked for everyone’s email addresses.

Legislative Committee: Peter reminded everyone about the presentation he already gave.

Dick Kester shared an anecdote about his experiences with a legislature. He also said he’s been working on  an up-to-date list of CCEA Life Members. He distributed the list.  He gave some recommendations for keeping the list up to date.

Janet then introduced Ross Bauer as the new treasurer. She offered her congratulations.

Audit Committee Report: Jim Ingram reported that there were no problems. He said that his year, the treasury was the cleanest he’s ever seen.

Other News:

Janet reminded everyone that she had sent an email to everyone about the Jaycee’s Young Educator Award. She has two nominations.

Janet then introduced an idea to develop an Professional Development Institute for professional members. This institute can have many aspects. Some benefits could be listening to educational  speakers, team building and workshops.  She suggested that this institute be held in the summer and be available for professional members. She asked to form a committee to explore this idea and bring the information back to the fall CDR for discussion and adoption. Arlene suggested that this is a great idea. She will serve as a resource, but can’t be on the committee.

Several people volunteered to serve on a committee with Janet, they are Barbara Curran, Gerry Catanzarite, and Joe Stits.

Janet expressed thanks on Jeanne’s behalf for donating the door prizes.

Janet then directed everyone’s attentions to the distributed budget. She said there are a couple of changes (see budget). Carlene motioned to accept the budget with the changes. Dave Scott seconded the motion. The motion carried and the budget was approved.

Joyce Babcock motioned to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Jim Ingram. The motion carried. The meeting was adjourned by Janet at 3:20 PM.

Respectfully Submitted By: Michael J. Madalinski