Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Date:02/23/2006
ATTENDANCE
Time:02:44 PM to 05:34 PM
Benefield
X
King
X
Place:HCR 0107
Larson
X
Massey
X
This Meeting was called to order by
McKinley
X
Representative Merrifield
Penry
*
Pommer
X
This Report was prepared by
Rose
X
Cathy Eslinger
Solano
X
Todd
*
White
X
Paccione
X
Merrifield
X
X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call
Bills Addressed: Action Taken:
HB06-1236
HB06-1284		Postponed Indefinitely
Referred to the Committee of the Whole

02:44 PM -- Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Representative Merrifield.

02:44 PM -- House Bill 06-1236

Representative T. Carroll, prime sponsor, reviewed the provisions of House Bill 06-1236, concerning providing funding for all students enrolled in a public on-line education program on the budget-year count date.

02:46 PM

The following persons testified:

02:47 PM -- Tony Salazar, Colorado Education Association (CEA), testified in opposition to the bill. He discussed the potential costs of increasing the number of on-line students. Mr. Salazar pointed out that CEA does not oppose additional funding for on-line education, but is asking for consideration of the policy implications of House Bill 06-1236. Mr. Salazar responded to questions about the way that on-line funding is distributed and to questions about CEA policies on alternative educational opportunities and learning environments. Mr. Salazar voiced concern about striking quality indicators in the bill.

02:56 PM

Representative Carroll responded to the discussion around quality indicators in statute. Mr. Salazar was asked about the impact of current on-line provisions on rural school districts. Representative King responded to the discussion.



03:01 PM -- Jared Polis, representing the State Board of Education, testified in favor of the bill and said that increased access to on-line education is a priority of the State Board. Mr. Polis testified that the fundamental issue is one of fairness. He discussed the potential fiscal impact of the bill. Subsequently, Mr. Polis urged the committee to distinguish between accountability and accessibility and to consider the issues as separate issues. Representative Paccione asked Mr. Polis to discuss further accountability measures for on-line education programs. In his testimony, Mr. Polis stated that on-line programs tend to serve students who might be characterized as "at-risk" in some manner.

03:07 PM

Representative Merrifield asked Mr. Polis about ensuring compliance of on-line programs with accountability measures. Representative Pommer discussed the impact of on-line funding and school finance provisions on the school district he represents in Boulder. Mr. Polis responded to additional issues around the fiscal impact of the bill and the variety of providers of on-line programs.

03:13 PM -- Evie Hudak, representing the 2nd Congressional District on the State Board of Education, testified on the bill.

03:15 PM -- Alex Medler, representing the Colorado Children's Campaign, testified in favor of the bill. He noted that the bill may encourage students who are out of the system to re-enter the public schools. He discussed issues of access and the growing role of on-line education across the nation. Mr. Medler was asked about balancing priorities in funding choices. Representative Benefield commented on the fiscal impact of a shift in school funding from local share to state share on the state budget. Representative King made additional comments on the choices in school finance

03:24 PM -- Kin Griffith, representing the Colorado Virtual Academy, testified in favor of the bill and reviewed the recent studies of issues concerning on-line funding. He said that there has been wide consensus on issues of access and fairness. He relayed his experiences with parents who wish to enroll their children in his program but who may not be eligible under state law. Mr. Griffith answered questions regarding the current enrollment in his program, and the potential impact of the bill on his program. Representative Paccione commented on accountability measures for on-line education program.

03:34 PM

Mr. Griffith continued to respond to questions regarding the cost of Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) assessments for on-line students and regarding negotiations between a school district and an on-line program when a student enrolls part time in a traditional school.

03:36 PM -- Elle Lothlonen, representing herself as a parent, testified in favor of the bill. She described the experiences she has had as a parent who has home-schooled and who has sought to enroll her daughter in an on-line education program.



03:39 PM -- Judith Stokes, representing Branson School District, and Dr. Kristan Enright, representing Branson School District, came to the table together to testify in support of the bill. Ms. Stokes testified in favor of the bill and discussed issues of choice and student access. She provided data on the students in her school district who have enrolled in on-line programs. She responded to questions about provisions for waivers for students seeking on-line enrollment.

03:48 PM

Ms. Stokes responded to questions regarding Branson School District's enrollment in "brick and mortar" schools and in on-line programs. Representative Paccione commented on the issues involved in funding for the district. The committee continued to discuss the accountability measures for Branson's on-line program. Dr. Enright described the way in which the program's teachers interact with on-line students.

03:57 PM

Representative Carroll responded to the concerns raised by committee members in regard to enrollment issues when the October 1 count date has passed. Representative Paccione made further comments on access to on-line programs. Representative Carroll responded to Representative Paccione's comments regarding allowing additional access to on-line programs.

04:01 PM

Dr. Enright responded to questions about the academic ratings in the district and the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) participation of its students. He concluded his comments by describing current students applying to Branson's on-line education program. Committee members continued to comment on the types of students enrolled in on-line programs and the availability of waivers for these programs.
BILL:HB06-1236
TIME: 04:11:01 PM
MOVED:King
MOTION:Moved amendment L.001 (Attachment A). The motion passed on an 11-2 roll call vote.
SECONDED:Rose
VOTE
Benefield
Yes
King
Yes
Larson
Yes
Massey
Yes
McKinley
No
Penry
Yes
Pommer
Yes
Rose
Yes
Solano
Yes
Todd
Yes
White
Yes
Paccione
Yes
Merrifield
No
Not Final YES: 11 NO: 2 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


BILL:HB06-1236
TIME: 04:12:54 PM
MOVED:Larson
MOTION:Moved a conceptual amendment on page 7, to restore current statutory language in (6)(c). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:King
VOTE
Benefield
King
Larson
Massey
McKinley
Penry
Pommer
Rose
Solano
Todd
White
Paccione
Merrifield
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


04:15 PM

Committee members made final comments on the bill. Representative Carroll also made concluding remarks about the bill and the committee discussion.
BILL:HB06-1236
TIME: 04:22:06 PM
MOVED:King
MOTION:Moved to refer HB06-1236, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion failed on a 6-7 roll call vote.
SECONDED:Rose
VOTE
Benefield
No
King
Yes
Larson
Yes
Massey
No
McKinley
Yes
Penry
Yes
Pommer
No
Rose
Yes
Solano
No
Todd
No
White
Yes
Paccione
No
Merrifield
No
Not Final YES: 6 NO: 7 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL
BILL:HB06-1236
TIME: 04:24:54 PM
MOVED:Paccione
MOTION:Moved to postpone indefinitely HB06-1236. The motion passed on a 7-6 roll call vote.
SECONDED:Merrifield
VOTE
Benefield
Yes
King
No
Larson
No
Massey
Yes
McKinley
No
Penry
No
Pommer
Yes
Rose
No
Solano
Yes
Todd
Yes
White
No
Paccione
Yes
Merrifield
Yes
Final YES: 7 NO: 6 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS



04:25 PM -- House Bill 06-1284

Representative King, prime sponsor, requested that witness testimony begin the discussion House Bill 06-1284, concerning the tenure process for faculty members at state

04:26 PM

Mike Feeley, representing the Mesa State College Board of Trustees, testified in support of the bill. He provided some history around the issue of post-tenure review and an executive order issued by former Governor Roy Romer in 1997. He indicated that several institutions have studied and implemented post-tenure review and said that the bill would implement efforts at consistency in the application of post-tenure review.

04:29 PM

Representative King reviewed the specific provisions of the bill and testified to the history of bipartisan discussion in the executive branch around the issue. He responded to questions about current processes at specific institutions. Representative Paccione asked whether problems or issues at institutions have arisen since the executive order was issued in 1997.

04:35 PM

Representative King responded to additional questions about the current processes at institutions and the goals for the legislation. Committee discussion centered on what an effective post-tenure process may achieve. Representative King further discussed the standards that would be put in place under the bill. Representative Paccione discussed the post-tenure process she has seen at the higher education institutions with which she has been affiliated.

04:41 PM

Representative King continued to discuss concerns he has heard about the lack of communication with the Colorado Commission on Higher Education concerning post-tenure review policies. He said he supported having consistent statewide standards for post-tenure review.

04:44 PM -- Steve Mumme, representing the Colorado State University chapter of the American Association of University Professors and Myron Hulen, representing the Colorado chapter of the American Association of University Professors, came to the table together and testified in opposition to the bill. Dr. Mumme discussed his experience at the Colorado State University campus and said that the current process is working. He voiced concern about the definitions in the bill. A position paper was distributed (Attachment B).

04:50 PM

Mr. Mumme responded to questions about concerns over the language in the bill defining "tenure." He continued to respond to questions about what would change if the bill were to be implemented.



04:56 PM -- Laura Connolly, representing the University of Northern Colorado chapter of the American Association of University Professors, testified in opposition to the bill. She discussed the policies that are already in place at institutions in the state and that are accessible to the public. She discussed the annual evaluations that tenured professors undergo, in addition to formal post-tenure review. She said she is concerned that the bill would undermine the notion of tenure.

05:00 PM

Dr. Connolly responded to questions regarding the hearings may take place in the course of a post-tenure review. She also discussed the involvement of administration in a post-tenure review process.

05:03 PM -- Cathy Hazouri, Executive Director of the Colorado chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), testified in opposition to the bill and expressed concern with the language for "adequate cause" and "tenure" and how ambiguous standards might violate constitutional due process guarantees. She responded to questions from committee members about her concerns with the language in the bill.

05:09 PM -- Jake Zambrano, representing Mesa State College and Western State College, testified in favor of the bill. He responded to questions regarding the concerns about definitions in the bill raised by committee members. He said it would codify policies already in place at the state colleges he represents.

05:14 PM -- Jenna Langer, representing the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE), came to the table to clarify the role of the governing boards and the CCHE in the bill. She indicated that the bill would require the boards to file the policies with the CCHE. She responded to questions about what types of policies the CCHE currently has on file.



05:19 PM

Ms. Langer responded to additional questions about the original executive order issued in 1997 and the way it compared to the provisions in the bill. Representative Pommer asked about the necessity for the bill and the aims for the bill beyond the executive order. Representative King laid out his approach for the bill and stated that each institution could establish its policies through the bill.

05:25 PM -- George Walker, representing himself, testified on the bill. He testified to his experiences.
BILL:HB06-1284
TIME: 05:28:40 PM
MOVED:King
MOTION:Moved to refer HB06-1284 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed on a 7-6 roll call vote.
SECONDED:Rose
VOTE
Benefield
No
King
Yes
Larson
Yes
Massey
Yes
McKinley
Yes
Penry
Yes
Pommer
No
Rose
Yes
Solano
No
Todd
No
White
Yes
Paccione
No
Merrifield
No
Final YES: 7 NO: 6 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

05:34 PM

The committee adjourned.