The following Commission Members were in attendance:
Matt Arthur, Brad Bryant, Brooks Coleman, Mike Dudgeon, Kent Edwards, Tina Fernandez, Tyler Harper, Hannah Heck, Bonnie Holliday, Amy Jacobs, Audrey King, Chuck Knapp, Chairman; Cynthia Kuhlman, Nels Peterson, Hunter Pierson, Noris Price, Will Schofield, Valencia Stovall, Lindsey Tippins, Tony Townsend, Alvin Wilbanks and Pam Williams.
The following Commission Members were absent:
Madelyn Adams, Robert Avossa, Greg Beadles, Tom Dickson, Terry England, Fran Millar, Mike Glanton, Barbara Hampton, Jack Hill, Kylie Holley, Freddie Powell Simms, Elizabeth Rhodes and Dick Yarbrough.
The Meeting was called to order by Dr. Charles Knapp, Chairman.
Welcome by Dr. Charles Knapp
Dr. Knapp welcomed commission members and all guests. He also welcomed new Commission member, Valencia Stovall.
Approval of Minutes from April 17, 2015
The minutes from the April 17, 2015 Education Reform Commission meeting were disseminated. A Motion was made to approve the Minutes as presented. It was Moved and unanimously approved after one correction was noted – Greg Beatles was actually present during April 17th meeting.
Report from Sub-Committees
- Funding Sub-Committee – Report to Commission by Dr. Charles Knapp
- Dr. Knapp reiterated the Governor’s vision to develop a funding formula which provides local school districts with greater flexibility, is simpler and more transparent, and allows the money to follow the child. The Funding Committee’s charge will be to allocate the funds efficiently.
- The goals of the Committee:
- Develop a student-based model where the funds will follow the child to the public school
- Develop the most effective and efficient way to distribute the funds allocated by the Governor and General Assembly
- Provide maximum flexibility to districts to determine the use of funds
- The goals of the last meeting were to:
- Present a framework for a student-based model
- Have robust discussions on what should be included in the specifics of that framework
- Reach consensus on the structure of the framework
- Preliminary consensus reached. The new funding formula model would include four categories:
- Base funding
- Categorical grants
- Weights for student characteristics (ESOL, Exceptional Students – SWD and Gifted, Economically Disadvantage – Working on metrics to determine poverty)
- Weights for State initiatives
- Base Funding would include:
- High School General, EIP K-2, Remedial 6-12, Nursing Services, Alternative Education, Central Administration, School Administration, Facility M&O, Media Center Program, 20 Days Additional Instruction, Staff and Professional Development; Principal, Staff & Professional Development, Teacher Training and Experience, State Health Benefits, Teacher Retirement Contribution and CTAE
- Teacher Training and Experience (T&E)
- Salary should be tied to effectiveness; the districts would have the ability to make this decision. The process will involve continuing to calculate T&E for a period of time which will allow the districts to develop their own compensation model. The change will be part of the process. We are trying to make sure we are doing it in an orderly way. The T&E proposal will continue in terms of what it will look like.
- Health Insurance and TRS will be tied to salary.
- Weighted Characteristics
- We are proposing an additional weight for K-3. Governor would like reading on level by grade 3.
- 9-12
- An additional weight on 9-12;
- ESOL
- ESOL students will receive additional weight
- SWD
- Students with disabilities will receive additional weights
- Economically Disadvantaged
- The staff at GOSA will present at next funding meeting. We would like to find an index for students that are working poor, as well as disadvantaged.
- Erin Hames commented that there had not been a consensus on placing CTAE in the base or weighting it. She suggested placing CTAE as a weighted group of students for further discussion.
- Categorical grants:
- Sparsity,
- Hold Harmless,
- State Charter Systems Supplements
- System Charter Supplements
- There will be some sort of hold harmless provision.
- Goals for next Funding Meeting:
- Next meeting on May 28 we will begin the debate on student characteristics. OPB will be prepared to give us an allocation sheet about the weights and categorical grants.
- Other Funding Issues:
- Five Mill Share, RESA Funding, GNETS Funding, State Schools for the Deaf and Blind, Residential Treatment Centers, Pre-Kindergarten Handicapped, Special Needs Scholarships, Department of Juvenile Justice Schools and Virtual Schools
- The following questions were asked by Commission members:
- Question: How would teacher effectiveness be measured if moving away from T&E?
- Answer: We are giving districts the flexibility to decide. (Charles Knapp)
- Comment: Our discussion was to put control in districts hands so to be able to provide flexibility. (Martha Ann Todd)
- Question: Are there any weights on test scores in terms of teacher effectiveness?
- Answer: We have not discussed this concept; currently looking at data from last three years. In the Race to the Top districts, using only observation we are still seeing 98% of teachers being rated as Proficient; however, when student growth is factored in, we saw about 16% exemplary, about 40% proficient, about 40% Needs Development; and a small percentage of Ineffective. The growth piece is important. (Martha Ann Todd)
- Comment: One of the things we will have to look at is giving the districts flexibility. (Dr. Knapp)
- Question: Is the committee looking at equalization?
- Answer: Equalization will be discussed at a future meeting.
- Early Childhood – Report to Commission by Amy Jacobs
- The Early Childhood Subcommittee has completed five meetings. The participants include 16 representatives from child care providers, school systems, advocacy organizations, Head Start and other State agencies. The other five are from the Education Reform Commission.
- Overview of Early Childhood Education and Georgia’s Pre-K
- Early Childhood Basic Facts
- Brain and social science research supports the importance of early education.
- Many children are in some type of early learning environment; the quality of those environments impacts later years.
- Nationally, Georgia has been a leader in early education:
- The state created a distinct early education department in 2004 that aligns key ECE programs and services.
- Georgia’s Pre-K program has existed for over 22 years and serves as a model for providing higher quality ECE services
- Georgia’s current rating system uses nationally recognized standards of quality.
- Access to Georgia’s Pre-K Program
- 2014-2015 school year data
- 84,000 slots
- 3,827 classes in 1,819 sites
- Approximately 5,000 children are on the waiting list
- 53% of students are classified in Category One (similar to free and reduced lunch)
- Process for Recommendations
- DECAL staff reviewed and presented national research related to Pre-K funding and access
- Surveyed Georgia’s Pre-K Project Directors
- 346 respondents (40% response rate)
- Results indicated support for increasing lead and assistant teacher pay, decreasing class size, and increasing funding for teacher benefits
- Subcommittee divided into small groups to draft recommendations
- The group came up with 23 recommendations and went through the process of fine tuning the final recommendations to be presented
- This resulted in six recommendations that are being presented to the Commission
- Recommendations for Pre-K
- Increase Pre-K class start-up funds to $12,000
- Develop a pay structure for base salary
- Maintain a certified level
- Add base level for Masters
- Add experience scale
- Cap at 20 years
- Retention of lead teachers impacts quality
- Allows for differentiation of pay based on credential and experience
- Currently we do not have the tool to allow for teacher effectiveness in Pre-K
- Subcommittee has made a recommendation for DECAL to study possible teacher effectiveness measure that would be feasible and reliable across multiple program types.
- Increase Assistant Teacher salary by 8%-11%
- Assistant teachers are integral to the classroom
- Reduce class size to 20 children with a lead and assistant teacher
- Combine benefits and non-instructional costs into a single budget line known as operating costs.
- Allow for program flexibility to use funding for additional teacher salary based on performance
- Provide bond funds for a pilot project to expand Georgia’s Pre-K classes in public schools where the need is the greatest
- Final Thoughts
- Enacting these recommendation will:
- Increase access
- Expand capacity
- Ensure sustainability
- Raise quality
- Enacting these recommendation will:
- Next Steps for Subcommittee
- Review and refine recommendations related to access and Quality Rated
- Document and track policy recommendations
- Write and publish report that includes all recommendations
- Submit report to full Commission for approval
- Question: What does recruitment look like?
- Answer: It’s difficult to retain teachers due to capped salary.
- Comment: Need to lose the revolving doors by providing incentives and retain highly qualified teachers.
- Move on When Ready – Report to Commission by Matt Arthur
- Comments from Educators
- More diverse classrooms are needs
- Not all can move on at the same pace
- Reading is key
- Real world application is important
- No benefit to CRCT standardized testing
- Current Action Items
- K-3 and Reading
- K-8: Moving Students on by Subject When Ready. There are students that need to go year round and some parents are in agreement with this concept. Skipping a grade is more than just grades, it also involves being mentally able to move on.
- K-12: Postsecondary Options. We are working on pathways for kids to go to college or technical school
- Testing: Looking at ways to provide flexibility with testing; perhaps a pre and post test
- Innovation Grants for Systems and Schools
- Why Should We Change?
- Student centered
- High quality, customized learning
- Increased partnerships with community and business
- Proper support for students when they need it
- Reasons Given not to change
- 100+ years of tradition
- Comment: On the topic of dual enrollment, what about partnerships (internships) as added incentives to get students involved? (Valencia Stovall)
- Answer: We are exploring many different partnerships.
- Comments from Educators
- Expanding Education Options – Report to Commission by Nels Peterson
- Mr. Peterson presented a report from the Charter School Association that compares Georgia’s charter schools law with other states across the nation.
- Each year, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools analyzes each state’s charter school laws against 20 essential components of a strong charter law and then releases an annual state law rankings report. The findings of this analysis show:
- Georgia’s charter school law ranking has dropped since the first state ranking report. The 2015 ranking lists Georgia #23 out of 43.
- Strengths of Georgia’s charter law:
- No caps
- Allows for a variety of schools
- Transparent application and review processes
- Transparent renewal criteria and right to an appeals
- More than one authorizer
- Right to due process
- Exemption from existing collective bargaining agreements
- Clear lottery and enrollment provision
- Adequate authorizer funding
- Identified Weaknesses:
- Inequitable operational funding
- Lack of access to facilities and facility funding
- Inadequate autonomy
- Lack of authorizer accountability requirements
- Lack of statutory provisions to govern expansion of high quality public charter schools
- Recommendations to improve Georgia’s Law:
- Close the facility and operational funding gap
- Improve authorizer accountability requirements
- Assure full autonomy
- Enact guidelines or laws to govern expansion efforts
- Facility Challenges for Charter Schools:
- Fifteen percent of a charter school’s operating funds are devoted to facilities costs
- Charter schools have little to no access to E-SPLOST funding
- Locally approved charter schools do not receive any of the state’s capital outlay funds
- Statutory language
- Property is not exempt from property taxation
- Facility Challenges for Charter Schools -- Recommendations:
- Require consideration of charter schools for inclusion in E-SPLOST funding
- Provide locally approved charter schools with a per-pupil carve out of the state’s capital outlay funds
- Better define “unused district facility” to meet the intent of the law
- Fund Ed Setzler’s House Bill 831 (passed in 2007) allowing for a grant program for qualified charter school contributions
- Exempt charter schools from property tax
- Create a state authority with the power to issue debt for charter schools modeling the “Private Colleges and Universities Act”
- Next Steps
- May 29 meeting to discuss ESA’s and SSOs – CLOB 406 at 10am
- June 9 meeting regarding additional choice issues
- Comments: The goal is that the State needs a comprehensive strategy for school choice communities to ensure everyone on the same page.
- Questions: Will you discuss money following students in terms of school choice?
- Answer: The Funding Committee will discuss this topic. (Erin Hames)
- Teacher Recruitment, Retention, Compensation – Report to Commission by Pam Williams
- The Teacher Recruitment, Retention and Compensation Subcommittee has:
- Met with over 130 teachers across the state in 4 sessions to gain feedback
- Met with Deans of Colleges of Education to gather input and concerns
- Heard presentations from Fulton County Schools and Marietta City Schools regarding strategic compensation models
- Questions the Subcommittee are pondering:
- How do we blend new strategic compensation modes with veteran teachers with advanced degrees?
- How do we balance equality between Milestones and SLOs in new strategic compensation models?
- How can we offer/fund career “ladders/pathways” that allow teachers to grow professionally without leaving the classroom?
- How can we work with GaDOE and Legislature to place a moratorium on changes to Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment? The teachers stressed there is not enough time to master the current changes before other changes take effect?
- Next Steps
- In June, the committee will meet with the following:
- Representatives from TNTP (The New Teacher Project)
- Representatives from NCTQ (National Center for Teacher Quality)
- Representatives from GaPSC Certification to talk about Tiered Certification and Professional Learning
- Follow-up meeting with Teacher Advisory Council
- Question: Will the Teacher Recruitment, Retention and Compensation committee advance some ideas or recommendations for the Funding committee?
- Answer: The Teacher committee will communicate frequently with the funding committee.
- The Teacher Recruitment, Retention and Compensation Subcommittee has:
Public Comment
- There was one request for public comment -- Carolyn Salvadore
- “I would like to thank the Governor for creating the commission. Our Georgia Pre-K has been a national leader. Pre-K providers lose money. Private companies take money from Pre-K. Salary increases are huge recommendations. Incremental raises and benefits are great for teachers. I would like to thank Commissioner Jacobs and the committee for their work.”
Meeting adjourned