Summary of Proceedings
Education Merit Scholarship Committee
July 28, 2006
Meeting
Attendance
Committee
Members (present)
Senators:
Representatives: Steve Harshman and Jeff Wasserburger
Other
members: Reed Eckhardt, Andrew Hansen, State Superintendent Jim McBride, Dr.
Joe Megeath and Marta Stroock
Absent: Tom Kinnison and Bryan Monteith
Legislative
Service Office
Dave
Gruver
Others
Present
Please
refer to Appendix 1 to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet for a list of other
individuals who attended the meeting.
Written
Meeting Materials and Handouts
All meeting materials and
handouts provided to the Committee by the Legislative Service Office (LSO),
public officials, lobbyists, and the public are referenced in the Meeting
Materials Index, attached to the minutes. These materials are on file at the LSO and are
part of the official record of the meeting.
Executive summary
The Committee discussed the
implementation of the Hathaway scholarship program, including emergency rules
adopted by the department of education and the development of a future success
curriculum. The Committee voted to
recommend slight changes to the emergency rules and to draft legislation to be
used to make future recommendations for the implementation of a high school
success curriculum for the Hathaway program.
The Committee will meet again on September 13, to review and refine the
requested draft legislation. The full summary
of proceedings follow.
Call To Order
Cochairman Harshman called
the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. He
apologized for the short notice of the meeting and thanked all for
attending. The agenda which was followed
is attached as appendix 2.
Hathaway program rules
Mary Kay Hill and Kay Post,
department of education briefly explained the process of developing emergency
rules for the Hathaway program.
Cochairman Boggs asked LSO staff to address changes made to the first
set of emergency rules and asked staff to address any issues remaining with the
second set of emergency rules.
Staff first noted that the
LSO does not normally review administrative agency rules until the final rules
are adopted. Given the importance of
beginning the Hathaway program on time and the continued legislative oversight
role the Hathaway legislation provided, LSO reviewed the first set of emergency
rules and made comments for the department's consideration. (See appendix 3.) Most of the suggested changes had been made. LSO staff reviewed those portions of the
rules which were not changed and were significant enough to be discussed by the
Committee. A copy of the revised rules,
showing changes from the first set by strike and underscore is attached as appendix
4.
The first issue discussed was
the limited exception allowing those convicted of felony to qualify for a
Hathaway scholarship. The legislation
requires "completion" of the all terms and conditions imposed by a
court. LSO staff noted the rules reflect
the statute but there is some concern as to whether the Legislature intended
"full completion" or rather "full compliance" with those
terms at the time of application. For
example a high school senior placed on five years probation could not have
"completed" probation in time to apply for a Hathaway scholarship,
although he might be in full compliance with all court ordered terms of that
probation. After discussion, the
Committee took no action.
The next issue appeared in
section 5(c) and concerned residency requirements. The provision states that "students
graduating from an eligible high school are considered as residents for
purposes of Hathaway eligibility." The
LSO took the position that the provision should be deleted as it could be inconsistent
with law and subsection 5(a) of the rules, which provides for the colleges and
the University to determine residency. For
example a foreign exchange student or student in a border state attending a
The next issue was section
14(f) which deals with high schools verifying compliance with curriculum
requirements. The first set of rules
required verification and LSO noted a lack of statutory authority to do
so. The revised rules provided that high
schools "should" verify curriculum requirements. The LSO suggested that the use of the word
“should” is ambiguous and meaningless as far as providing or enforcing any
mandate. Senator Scott suggested that
the Committee recommend a statutory change that would require school districts
to verify compliance with Hathaway curriculum requirements. Cochairman Boggs suggested that the Committee
make a recommendation along the lines that high schools identify the courses
that do qualify. The Committee noted the issue dealt with the broader issue of
success curriculum. Senator Scott
suggested the issue of compliance with a success curriculum could be addressed
with a group of trustees and advisory committees addressing whether the curriculum
was met. No action was taken.
The final rule issue raised
by LSO staff concerned section 13(c) which requires students attending multiple
colleges or a college and the University in the same semester to designate a
home institution, and further provides for Hathaway scholarship funds for that
student to flow only to the home institution.
Staff stated that the law appears to contemplate each institution
receiving its pro rata share of those funds.
The department responded that the rules reflect the current handling of
this issue for other scholarships. Senator
Scott moved that the law be conformed to allow the reimbursement provided by
the rules process for these situations. The
motion passed.
Success curriculum
Superintendent McBride
explained the process of developing a success curriculum. The process has been lengthy and the Department
has received considerable input on the issue and on Hathaway scholarships in
general. He noted that in some ways the Department
has been almost whipsawed in the process; quoting one elected official stating
that the intent was not that every student should receive a Hathaway
scholarship, while another noted that 84% of students could receive a Hathaway
scholarship. He further noted the
department and numerous districts are also involved in high school reform, with
each of the reform efforts requiring a rigorous core curriculum. Finally, the Superintendent emphasized that the
success curriculum recommendations have not been finalized, but will be ready
by the October 1 deadline for submission to the Education Committee. Superintendent McBride looked forward to
additional input of the Committee members in order to further develop the
success curriculum.
Kay Post provided a number of
documents to the Committee including the draft success curriculum, the number
and names of task force members and some preliminary data on Hathaway
scholarship numbers. (Appendix 5) The task force had a large number of members in
order to include a number of representatives from all stakeholders. The task force meetings finished last week
and final recommendations for a success curriculum had been made to the Department.
The Committee discussed the
success curriculum requirements, including the motivation intended to be
provided by the curriculum requirements and the means to encourage the students
to continue to take challenging classes.
Members of the public, including secondary teachers, principals, and
other administrators addressed the issue.
Comments included using current competency testing rather than adding
additional assessments, and incorporating current assessments into the
curriculum requirements. Members of the
audience noted that incorporating the existing body of evidence provisions into
the Hathaway requirements could help equalize instruction and competency across
districts. Other concerns were how to address
small schools with limited curriculum.
Rather than using only course names, defining course content was
proposed in order to ensure that the same named course includes the same
instruction from district to district. Other
views were that it was important to use course names, while school districts
could show that the material taught met the requirements regardless of the
name.
Addressing the proposed
success curriculum in appendix 5, Senator Scott moved that LSO draft
legislation for the Committee to propose to the Education Committee.
He moved that the math
requirement should include Algebra 1, Algebra 2 and geometry and an additional
rigorous math class. Courses which are
the functional equivalent of those could count as far as satisfying the level
of the requirements, including work done prior to high school, if that work is
one of those courses. Further discussion
clarified that there would still be a
four year math requirement in high school, but if the eighth grade course contained
the same material as one of those listed above, it would be included. The motion passed.
Senator Scott moved that for any
additional rigorous math course requirement a statistics course would qualify as
well as any higher math course which requires either Algebra 2 or geometry as a
stated or practical prerequisite. The
motion passed.
Superintendent McBride
suggested that should an additional course be taken in response to a low ACT
test score then that additional course should qualify. Senator Scott noted that could be part of a
subsequent motion. The additional course
can be a course consisting of Algebra 2 and geometry only if the ACT scores
received were low enough such that the student is counseled to take that course
in response to the ACT score. Senator Scott
moved that a student taking an integrated math course designed to ensure
competence in either geometry or algebra be included as one which meets the
additional rigorous course requirement if the student fails to achieve a score
on the ACT test as defined by the department in rules and regulations. Cochairman Boggs suggested that it should be
any course the student is advised into in order to avoid only the student deciding
to take the same course over. Senator Scott
suggested that the Department should be authorized to establish by rule and
regulation the requirements for such an additional course. The motion passed, with the requirement to include
that the student has been advised into the course.
Senator Scott moved that for
math there be a provision allowing a waiver of the four year requirement for
the classes to be taken in grades 9-12, if a student has taken the equivalent
of any of the four classes some before high school and does not have the
practical ability to get a fourth year in high school because the school does
not provide additional options and no additional courses are available to the
student at a postsecondary institution.
The motion passed.
Senator Scott questioned
whether for those in the career vocational track, the curriculum requirements
should be altered after the Algebra 2 level is met. A number of members advocated against the
change. No motion was made on the issue.
Language arts was discussed
next. Dr. Hansen noted the curriculum should be 4 years
of grade level English to avoid counting remedial classes. Ms. Post noted that the English classes could
not be classified by grade level because they are embedded in other
classes. Mr. McBride suggested that the
districts and Department should designate the courses in each district's
curriculum as those which are grade level appropriate and qualify for Hathaway
scholarships. He noted that integrated
courses present a special challenge. Senator
Scott moved that the provision on language arts should be as written and
presented in the success curriculum proposal, with the additional qualification
that they be at the college or industry preparatory level. The motion passed.
Science was discussed. Senator Scott suggested that geology be
included with the physics, chemistry and biology courses listed on success
curriculum proposal as a fourth course, with the requirement then that three of
the four be required. The fourth course requirement
could be one of those four or an additional course which requires one of the listed
four as a prerequisite. The Committee
discussed the availability of the classes and necessary qualifications of the
teachers for the courses being listed.
Senator Scott moved that the science
requirement be four years of science in grades 9-12, the requirement would include
three years from the following six courses; physics 1 and 2, chemistry 1 and 2
and biology 1 and 2. The fourth year would
be either one of the following courses: geology, astronomy, earth science or
physical science or one of the first six listed earlier or an additional course
which requires one of those listed six as a prerequisite. The motion failed.
Dr. Hansen moved that the
science requirement should be as written, with an amendment that for the three named courses of physics, chemistry and
biology all could be levels 1 or 2 or their named equivalents and another
rigorous science course. Three classes of
the six named would be required and the fourth rigorous course could be one of
the six named or another rigorous science course. The intent is that the requirement could be
met with two classes in any of the three named and two classes of another of
the three, thereby allowing only two of the three listed subjects to be taken,
so long as at least three years are taken from at least two or all three of the
named subjects, with the fourth year being an additional course of any of the
listed six or another a rigorous science course. The motion passed.
Social Studies - Representative
Wasserburger moved to rewrite the proposed curriculum to insert after "include,"
"world history, American history,". Senator Scott moved to amend the amendment by
inserting a period after "12" and inserting "The subject matter
covered shall include, world history, American history”… [then as written]. The amended was accepted by Representative
Wasserburger. The motion as amended
passed.
Foreign language – the Committee
discussed the proposal. Senator Scott
moved that the draft include only the first sentence of the proposal. The remainder being explanatory only. A sentence should be added that a proficiency
examination be allowed to meet either or both of the years of the foreign
language requirement. After discussion, Senator
Scott moved an amendment to the motion that “An integrated foreign language
program in grades K through 5 may be substituted for the first year in a
sequenced program if a level of knowledge achieved is equivalent to the level
achieved in the first year in a sequenced program.” The amendment to the amendment failed. The remainder of the motion, including the proficiency
substitution portion of the motion passed.
Ms. Post noted that the task
force was recommending only a single curriculum. Not a separate requirement for career scholarships. Senator Scott noted disagreement with the
single curriculum, but no motion was made.
Ms. Post addressed the phase-in. The task force suggested that there be no
phase-in for classes before 2011. The
Committee discussed that suggestion. Representative
Wasserburger moved that a phase be adopted as follows: for the high school graduating
class of 2008, algebra 1 and one of the listed 6 science courses, for 2009 - algebra
1 and geometry and two of the listed six science courses plus world history;
for 2010 – algebra 1 and 2 and geometry, three of the listed sciences and world
history and American history; for 2011 - all success curriculum should be
required. The motion passed.
The task force recommended
that the state assessment not be used to augment qualifications until at least
two years of data is collected on the state assessment. The Committee discussed whether to integrate
the current content areas and proficiencies or the current state
assessment.
The task force recommended that
remedial courses not be allowed as a Hathaway course qualification. The Committee discussed whether those classes
should be included. There was no motion.
Ms. Post addressed the other
issues raised by the task force. Those
included grading scales and courses varying from district to district.
Implementation of the success
curriculum – Ms. Hill noted that rules on success curriculum would not be
implemented until subsequent legislative action.
Senator Scott moved that the
draft include a provision for curriculum oversight as follows:, "Primary
responsibility for designating which courses meet Hathaway requirements rests
with the several school districts. The
Senator Scott moved to amend
the motion to state the review committee may structure one or more visiting
committees composed of individuals engaged in teaching undergraduates at the
University or community college level, individuals engaged in teaching at the
high school level and members of the general public. The amended motion failed.
Success curriculum - Dr.
Hansen presented information on the issue of rigorous curriculum
requirements. Since 1950, the nation has
gone from 20% of its jobs requiring postsecondary education to over 80%
requiring postsecondary education. He
presented information regarding the number of
Dr. Hansen reviewed the
changes
Cochairman Harshman stated
that for the success curriculum there should be an opt out provision for all students,
as opposed to having to opt into the necessary classes. It was agreed that will be worked on by LSO
with the cochairmen as a separate bill from the other changes proposed.
The Committee tentatively set
the next meeting for September 13th in
The meeting adjourned at
approximately 2:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Representative
Steve Harshman
![[Top]](/images/nav-top.gif)
![[Back]](/images/nav-back.gif)
![[Home]](/images/nav-home.gif)