Back to home page.
Back to home page.

EDUCATION OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
November 20, 2002 9:00 A.M.
Oklahoma State Capitol Building
Conference Room 512A
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Pete Churchwell, Kenneth Bridges, Gerald Dickerson, Ron Dryden Ed Long, Don McCorkell, Karen Yarbrough
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Sen. Penny Williams, Rep. Larry Roberts
OTHER REGULAR ATTENDEES: Office of Accountability Staff: Robert Buswell, Matt Hesser, Jerry Hsieh, Leonard Hall
VISITORS: Lu Norman, SDE; Katie Dunlap, SDE; Dean Ketchum, SDE
Call to Order and Roll Call: Mr. Churchwell called the meeting to order at 9:00 am and declared a quorum present.
Approval of Minutes: Minutes of the October 16, 2002 meeting were approved as submitted.
Approval of the 2003 EOB Meeting Dates: The board chose to keep the calendar the same as previous years. The meeting dates for 2003 will be the third Wednesday of every month January through May and September through December, with the meetings starting at 9:00 am except for those months when the legislature is in session during which the meetings will start at 8:00 am. The schedule was approved unanimously with the caveat that a later time may be needed to better accommodate those board members who travel two hours, or more, to attend the meetings.
Report of FY 2003 Expenditures: Report was distributed to board members, with discussion from Mr. Buswell. He alerted board members that they would start to see some activity related to the Oklahoma Educational Indicators Program, first of which would be postage related to the 2002 Questionnaire which was sent to every principal in the state. He also alerted board members to the fact that the office was now subject to a 6.5% cutback, or $17,643, most of which had already been accounted for in the 4.75% cutback instituted earlier this year. The office would realize these savings by leaving the Informational Representative position vacant until sometime next year. Also, all out-of-state travel has been eliminated for this fiscal year.

Mr. Buswell then distributed a report on the Oklahoma School Performance Review budget. He noted that there were a few expenditures related to the start-up phase of the program and pointed out that because this money was carry-over, it was not subject to the cutbacks that the agency budget is experiencing.
Report on the Oklahoma School Performance Review Program: Dr. Hall reported that the program was off to a running start and that much work had already been done to rewrite the Texas version into an Oklahoma plan. Dr. Hall is currently in the process of forming an Advisory Committee. Mr. McCorkell suggested that a member of the business community be added to the advisory committee. There was general agreement that a member of OBEC would be a good choice. Dr. Hall went on to say that the first stages of the first review might start as early as the beginning of March.
Report on the Oklahoma Educational Indicators Program: Mr. Hesser stated that the office was still in the data-gathering phase of the process and that progress was very similar to previous years.

He went on to discuss the 2002 Questionnaire that had been mailed out on November 8. Roughly 40% of the 1,796 surveys had been returned and were entered into the database as of the time of the meeting.
Report on Interim Study Committee on HR-1, the No Child Left Behind Act: Mr. Churchwell asked Dr. Katie Dunlap from the State Department of Education to answer a few questions regarding HR-1, and to generally explain Oklahoma's current status in the HR-1 application process. A lengthy discussion followed.

Dr. Dunlap stated that the Academic Performance Index (API) had been submitted as the proposed measure of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), but it had not yet been approved by the U.S. Department of Education (USDE). She explained that schools and school districts will be responsible for producing their own school report cards, however, the State Department of Education will be generating API scores for each of the sub-groups required under HR-1 for each school and district in the state. Change in the API over time will be the measure of AYP. Dunlap said that the SDE would be sending data out to schools in a standardized format and that many of the smaller schools would likely send those documents out as fulfillment of their requirement to distribute report cards.

Mr. Churchwell voiced the EOB's concern that it had not been involved in the HR-1 planning process and iterated that the law clearly states that existing accountability systems should be used for the school report cards whenever possible. He indicated that he believed that the reporting requirements went beyond just producing the API scores.

Mr. McCorkell also expressed his dissatisfaction with the SDE's unilateral attempts to develop a HR-1 plan for the state of Oklahoma. He felt it was clearly the intention of HR-1 that in states with existing accountability systems, that the existing accountability system be integrated into the state's plan, which is not happening in Oklahoma. Mr. McCorkell said that he understood that the SDE had historically been responsible for reporting to the federal government but thought that the SDE should have made an effort to coordinate with other entities in the state, such as the Office of Accountability and the Commission for Teacher Preparation, when it was crafting the Oklahoma HR-1 plan.

Ms. Yarbrough expressed frustration that there had been no effort on the part of the SDE to make a coordinated response from Oklahoma as a state. In her opinion the SDE has been the sole agent creating the Oklahoma plan and had made little or no effort to keep the public informed about the plans that are being forwarded to the U.S. Department of Education or how those plans are being received.

Dr. Dunlap explained that the SDE has been required by federal law to file reports with the USDE and the EOB and the Office of Accountability has been required by state law to do their reports. Dr. Dunlap indicated that the federal law refers to existing Title 1 programs and HR-1 is just an extension of the reports that the SDE has always submitted to the USDE. She explained that the SDE has been progressing along with its federal reporting, they have been monitored, have had lengthy negotiations with the USDE about getting standards approved, the assessment system, and the AYP methodology.

Dr. Dunlap went on to explain that some of the conflict had been created by state law. The SDE was required by law to do the API. She indicated that the SDE already had the API in place when HR-1 came along. Dr. Dunlap explained that the API scores generated by subgroup along with a teacher quality component are all that is required for report cards under HR-1. Dunlap said that the SDE is hoping to have the reports completed sometime in December. She indicated that the timeline was now too short for the Office of Accountability to develop an alternative report card.

Mr. Churchwell then communicated his concern about having two entitles that essentially do the same thing. He felt that HR-1 had provided an opportunity for the EOB and the SDE to work together on report cards.

Mr. McCorkell also voiced concerns over the duplication of effort. He thought that the SDE's behavior was less than honorable because by ignoring the existence of the EOB and the Office of Accountability's school report cards during the creation of Oklahoma's HR-1 plan, the SDE had created the duplication of effort. He indicated that he had been part of the creation of the EOB as a part of HB1017, and that he and others around the state realized what a monumental effort it was to create an independent accountability system and the integrity and public trust that comes with it.

Mr. McCorkell again questioned why the Office of Accountability staff had not been involved in crafting an HR-1 application that would maintain the integrity of what the EOB and the Office of Accountability has already done and integrate it seamlessly with what is needed under HR-1. Mr. McCorkell questioned why there could not be a team to integrate the two systems so that there is no overlap in effort. He believed that the state would be best served if there were a coordinated effort where the SDE does what they do best and the EOB and the Office of Accountability continue to do what they do best.

Mr. Churchwell agreed with Mr. McCorkell and explained that he believed what the SDE had done under HR-1 was contrary to the intent of the state legislature when they crafted HB1017.

Mr. Long agreed with Mr. Churchwell and thought that the business people who were supportive of HB1017 would be outraged! He went on to explain that the Education Oversight Board and the Office of Accountability had been created so the public could trust in the information that was being relayed to them about the performance of public schools in this state. He stated that he thought the public, year-in and year-out, is going to trust the Education Oversight Board and the Office of Accountability more than they are ever going to trust the State Department of Education.

Mr. Churchwell further explained that the EOB is not trying to diminish what the SDE does in regard to reporting to the USDE, commenting that the common man in Oklahoma doesn't have any idea about that reporting. Mr. Churchwell indicated that he believed that what Oklahoma parents look at is the EOB's reports and that what the principals across the state hand out is the EOB's report card. He reminded members of the board that the Office of Accountability is getting 8,000 to 10, 000 of report cards downloaded each month with twice as many report cards going to parents than any other user group.

Mr. Churchwell thanked Dr. Dunlap for coming to the meeting and hoped she better understood some of the board's concerns. He hoped Dr. Dunlap would share the board's concerns with Superintendent Garrett and let her know that the EOB, or some of its members, would be happy to meet with her to discuss matters.
New Business: Mr. McCorkell thought that there might need to be some legislation enacted which would prohibit the State Superintendent from holding the position of Secretary of Education in that the Secretary is the CEO of the Office of Accountability and it would create a conflict of interest. Also, Mr. McCorkell pointed out that the Secretary of Education should hold the interest of all education (common, higher and career-tech), not just common education. Mr. McCorkell also voiced concerns that there needed to be a concerted effort to look into how schools should meet the budget shortfalls with which they have been faced. He made a motion, which passed unanimously, to have Mr. Churchwell, on behalf of the EOB, host a meeting covering this topic and invite business leaders across the state to get engaged in creating a solution to the funding crisis. Mr. Churchwell accepted, but then suggested this type of project might be better received if it were to come from the Governor's office. He agreed to look into the project with the help of the board.
Announcements: None
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 a.m.
The minutes of the November 20, 2002 Meeting of the Education Oversight Board were approved (as submitted) or (with corrections) on December 18, 2002.