board of public education - montanabpe.mt.gov/portals/119/pdf/bpeagendas/2017/bpeagenda...january...

Conference Call Meeting

OPI Conference Room

1300 11th AVE

Helena, MT

January 20, 2017

BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION

AGENDA

January 20, 2017 Board of Public Education Page 1

BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION CONFERENCE CALL MEETING AGENDA

Friday January 20, 2017 OPI Conference Room

1300 11th AVE Helena, MT

Call in Information: Local (Helena) 444-7956

Long distance: 1-888-224-5889 Password: 7072

Friday January 20, 2017 8:30 AM

CALL TO ORDER

A. Pledge of Allegiance

B. Roll Call

C. Statement of Public Participation

D. Welcome Visitors

PUBLIC COMMENT

CONSENT AGENDA

(Items may be pulled from Consent Agenda upon request)

A. Correspondence

B. November 17-18, 2016 Meeting Minutes

C. Financials

ADOPT AGENDA

INFORMATION ITEMS

REPORTS – Sharon Carroll (Items 1-6)

Item 1 CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT

Sharon Carroll

Exiting Board Member Recognition

Item 2 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT

Pete Donovan

Item 3 STATE SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT

State Superintendent Elsie Arntzen


Item 4 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION’S REPORT

Angela McLean

Item 5 GOVERNOR’S OFFICE REPORT

Siri Smillie

Item 6 STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE’S REPORT

Molly DeMarco

DISCUSSION ITEMS

MACIE LIAISON – Mary Jo Bremner (Item 7)

Item 7 MACIE UPDATE

Mandy Smoker-Broaddus

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE – Sharon Carroll (Items 8-9)

Item 8 FEDERAL REPORT

BJ Granbery

Item 9 SCHOOL NUTRITION ANNUAL REPORT

Christine Emerson

ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE – Paul Andersen (Item 10)

Item 10 ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Jessica Eilertson

LICENSURE COMMITTEE – Tammy Lacey (Items 11-15)

Item 11 EDUCATOR LICENSURE REPORT

Kristine Thatcher

Item 12 PROPOSED NEW CURRICULUM PROGRAM IN COMPUTER SCIENCE

PHYLLIS J. WASHINGTON (PJW) COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN

SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA

Dr. Linda Vrooman Peterson, OPI

Dr. Lisa Blank, University of Montana

Item 13 PROPOSED NEW CURRICULUM PROGRAM IN EARLY CHILDHOOD

EDUCATION PRESCHOOL THROUGH GRADE 3 – COLLEGE OF

EDUCATION AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY

BOZEMAN (MSU)


Dr. Christine Lux, MSU


ACTION

PUBLIC COMMENT

The public will be afforded the opportunity to comment before the Board on every action item on

the agenda prior to final Board action.

Item 14

Item 15

APPROVAL OF FORM: VERIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE

Kristine Thatcher

BPE CASE #2016-08 – REQUEST FOR LICENSE SUSPENSION

Kristine Thatcher

ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE – Erin Williams (Items 16-18)

Item 16 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REVISIONS TO INTENSIVE

ASSISTANCE PROCESS

Dr. Linda Vrooman Peterson

Item 17 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE TIMELINE

Nathan Miller

DISCUSSION ITEM

Item 18 VERIFICATION OF STEP 2 INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE PARENTAL

NOTIFICATION LETTER TEMPLATE

Patty Muir

MSDB LIAISON - Mary Jo Bremner (Items 19-20)

Item 19 MSDB REPORT

Donna Sorensen

ACTION

PUBLIC COMMENT



Item 20 MSDB Superintendent Contract Extension

Sharon Carroll

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS March 12-13, 2017

Assessment Update Federal Update Accreditation Report MACIE Update Initial Presentation of MSDB School Calendar Tentative Licensure Hearings

PUBLIC COMMENT

ADJOURN


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Montana Board of Public Education is a Renewal Unit Provider. Attending a Board of Public Education Meeting may qualify you

to receive renewal units. One hour of contact time = 1 renewal unit up to 8 renewal units per day. Please complete the necessary

information on the sign-in sheet if you are applying for renewal units.

Agenda items are handled in the order listed on the approved agenda. Items may be rearranged unless listed “time certain”. Action

may be taken by the Board on any item listed on the agenda. Public comment is welcome on all items but time limits on public

comment may be set at the Chair’s discretion.

The Board of Public Education will make reasonable accommodations for known disabilities that may interfere with an individual’s

ability to participate in the meeting. Individuals who require such accommodations should make requests to the Board of Public

Education as soon as possible prior to the meeting start date. You may write to: Kris Stockton, PO Box 200601, Helena MT, 59620,

email at: [email protected] or phone at 444-0302.

mailto:[email protected]

CALL TO ORDER

A. Pledge of Allegiance

B. Roll Call

C. Statement of Public Participation

D. Welcome Visitors

CONSENT AGENDA

Items may be pulled from Consent Agenda if

requested

A. November 17-18, 2016 Meeting

Minutes

B. Financials

CONSENT AGENDA

MINUTES

November 17-18, 2016 Board of Public Education Page 1

BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION MEETING MINUTES

November 17-18, 2016 Holiday Inn Park Plaza

Ballroom Helena MT

Thursday, November 17, 2016 1:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 1:06PM. The Chair welcomed guests and the board said the

Pledge of Allegiance. Roll call was taken by Ms. Stockton and Chair Carroll read the Statement of Public

Participation.

Board members present included: Ms. Sharon Carroll, Chair; Ms. Tammy Lacey; Ms. Molly DeMarco,

Student Rep; Ms. Erin Williams; Ms. Mary Jo Bremner; Mr. Jesse Barnhart. Staff present included: Mr.

Pete Donovan, Executive Director Board of Public Education; Ms. Kris Stockton, Administrative Assistant.

Ex-officio members present included: Ms. Angela McClean, OCHE; Ms. Candy Ubansky, OPI; Ms. Siri

Smillie, Governor Bullocks office. Guests present included: Ms. BJ Granbery, OPI; Ms. Nancy

Coopersmith, OPI; Mr. Nathan Miller, OPI; Ms. Patty Muir, OPI; Dr. Linda Peterson, OPI; Ms. Karin

Billings, OPI; Ms. Tiffany Loeffer, Agency Legal Services; Mr. Rob Stutz, Agency Legal Services; Dr. Kirk

Miller, School Administrators of Montana; Mr. Dennis Parman, MREA; Mr. Bob Vogel, MTSBA; Ms. Ann

Gilkey, OPI; Ms. Marga Lincoln, Helena Independent Record; Jonathon Ambarian, KTVH News; Mr. Jack

Copps, Helena Public Schools; Ms. Aiden Myhre, Chair of Helena School Board; Ms. Kristine Thatcher,

OPI; Ms. Sue Mohr, OPI; Mr. Eric Feaver, MEA-MFT; Ms Donell Rosenthal, OPI; Ms. Madalyn Quinlan,

OPI; Ms. Jael Prezeau, OPI; Ms. Fran Penner-Ray, OPI; Ms. Kara Sperle, OPI; Mr. Michael Hall, OPI; Mr.

Ken Morrison, Helena MT; Ms. Diane Burke, MQEC.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Dr. Kirk Miller presented to the Board the most recent publication from the Montana Public Information

Center.

CONSENT AGENDA

The Consent Agenda was approved as presented.

ADOPT AGENDA

Ms. Erin Williams moved to approve the agenda. Ms. Mary Jo Bremner seconded

the motion.

No discussion. Motion passed unanimously.

************************Items are listed in the order in which they are presented. ********************

INFORMATION ITEMS



Item 1 CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT

Sharon Carroll

Chair Carroll announced that committee Assignments will be completed after the January meeting. Ms.

Mary Jo Bremner updated the Board on the ESSA meeting she attended in October noting in particular

how other states are handling parental involvement in their student’s education in a positive manner.

Chair Carroll gave a report on the MEA-MFT Conference in October.

Item 2 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT

Pete Donovan

Mr. Donovan updated the Board on the ESSA Stakeholder meeting he and Dr. Schottle attended held by

the Office of Public Instruction. Mr. Donovan also reported on a meeting he attended held by

Superintendent elect Elsie Arntzen and discussed a few of the priorities she has for her term. Mr.

Donovan also noted he has also been asked to be on the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Taskforce

initiated by Commissioner Christian and the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education’s Office.

ACTION

PUBLIC COMMENT



Item 3 STATE SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT

State Superintendent Denise Juneau

Ms. Candy Ubansky gave the Superintendent report on behalf of Superintendent Juneau, discussing with

the Board that the ESSA draft plan has been posted and is now open for public comment. Ms. Ubansky

distributed the Montana College and Career Readiness document which outlinines goals for the state,

updated the Board on progress with the Schools of Promise Initiative, discussed 9 schools working on the

NASA Research Project who are working with NASA to develop parachutes to go with the astronaut

uniform, Montana graduation rate of 86% is 3 points above the national average, College Application

Week sponsored by GEAR UP, and an update on the content standards revision process which in the

future will include computer science. Ms. Ubansky read a statement from Superintendent Juneau

thanking the Board for their work. Ms. Ubansky requested the Board’s approval of the MACIE

Appointment.

MACIE Appointment – Erna Granbois

Ms. Mary Jo Bremner moved to approve the Superintendent’s request to

appoint Ms. Erna Granbois to MACIE. Ms. Tammy Lacey seconded the

motion.


Item 4 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION’S REPORT

Angela McLean

Ms. McClean updated the Board on the Native American enrollment in the University System up to 32 for

the 2016 fall semester. Ms. McClean updated the Board on the Recruitment and Retention Taskforce

initiated by Commissioner Christian and the work the taskforce will be working on and meetings which

began in August to work on this project including working to recruit students from small communities to

come back and teach in their small communities. Ms. McClean announced that this will be rolled out at

the Board of Regents meeting tomorrow as a program with a scholarship attached to encourage student

teachers to do their student teaching in small communities and hopefully obtain employment in their small

community. Ms. McClean also announced that the NBC news station has a story on the College and

Career Readiness project she encouraged the Board to review.


Item 6 STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE’S REPORT

Molly DeMarco

Ms. DeMarco updated the Board on activities occurring at CMR High School including the Pre-SAT,

College Application Week where 55% of high school seniors participated, an effort at Great Falls High to

increase AP and Dual Enrollment, a blood drive held at CMR this week was very successful, and the AA

Choir Festival at CMR. The Student Council at CMR is working on promoting attendance at MORP, and

Ms. De Marco also reported on the State Student Council conference in Glasgow recently and updated

the Board on sessions she attended and activities during the conference. Ms. DeMarco updated the

Board on resolutions the State Student Council agreed upon at the conference.


Item 7 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE PROCESS

Dr. Linda Vrooman-Peterson

Dr. Peterson presented the proposed revisions to the Intensive Assistance Process the OPI is working

on. Dr. Peterson gave a brief history of how the processed has evolved over time. Dr. Peterson noted

that this is an information item and walked through the proposed changes with the Board. Board

members Williams and Carroll commented on the process and Chair Carroll requested this as an Action

item for the January meeting. Member Lacey asked the difference between Step 3 and Step 4, which Dr.

Peterson clarified Step 3 is the preparation for the hearing which takes place in Step 4. Ms. Lacey asked

clarification regarding what happens if in Step 4 loss of accreditation is not the final action, as well as a

couple wording clarifications in Step 2. Dr. Peterson will make adjustments to the wording of the

document before final Action takes place in January.

Item 8 VERIFICATION OF STEP 2 INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE PARENTAL NOTIFICATION

Patty Muir

Ms. Muir presented to the Board the parental notification process of the previous schools which have

previously appeared before the Board to present corrective plans to resolve their accreditation deviations.

ACTION

PUBLIC COMMENT



Item 9 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: HELENA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HELENA HIGH SCHOOL

STEP 2 OF THE INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE PROCESS, WRITTEN CORRECTIVE

PLAN, AND PLAN TO NOTIFY HELENA HIGH SCHOOL PARENTS

Patty Muir

Ms. Aiden Myhre, Chair of the Helena School Board, addressed the Board. Ms. Patty Muir requested on

behalf of Superintendent Juneau the Board approve the written corrective plan for Helena Public Schools.

Ms. Erin Williams moved to approve the2015-2016 revised written corrective plan

and timeline to remedy Helena High School’s deviations and approve the trustee’s

and district’s plan to notify parents of the appearance before the BPE. Mr. Jesse

Barnhart seconded the motion.



MSDB LIAISON - Mary Jo Bremner (Item 10-11)

Item 10 MSDB REPORT

Donna Sorensen

Ms. Sorensen updated the Board including the first Listening Session held November 3rd, and update on

Donna’s mentorship program she is participating in, an award received by teacher Diane Moog as the

national Teacher of Students with Visual Impairments and Multiple Challenges. Updates on Student

Enrollments, Student Services, and the Prison Braille program the MSDB is partnering with to teach

inmates to be Braille transcribers.

Approve MSDB Policy Revisions (2nd Reading)

Ms. Mary Jo Bremner moved to approve the MSDB policies for second reading and as heard before the Board at the September 2016 for first reading, MSDB policy 2310, 2310P, 2312, 2340, 3612, 3612F. Ms. Tammy Lacey seconded the motion.

No discussion. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting closed at 3:24PM ************************************************CLOSED**************************************************

Item 11 EVALUATION OF SUPERINTENDENT OF THE MONTANA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF

AND BLIND

Sharon Carroll

Meeting re-opened at 4:30PM

Meeting recessed at 4:32PM

Friday November 18, 2016

8:00 AM

Chair Carroll reconvened the meeting at 8:03 AM, and asked Ms. Siri Smillie to update the Board with the

Governor’s Office Report. Ms. Smillie was unable to give the report on Thursday due to the Board of

Regents meeting.

DISCUSSION

Item 5 GOVERNOR’S OFFICE REPORT

Siri Smillie

Ms. Smillie gave the Governor’s Office report updating the Board on the Governor’s budget particularly

pertaining to Education, which includes an inflationary increase for BASE Aid, a $12 million proposal for

preschool, and funding from resources. In addition, the Governor is also requesting a $1 million

investment for suicide prevention. Ms. Smillie noted that the Governor places a high priority on public

education and will continue to support it during the upcoming Legislature. Ms. Smillie updated the Board

on other projects including a report from the Work Based Summit in September, and an expressed

appreciation for Superintendent Juneau’s contributions.


EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE – Sharon Carroll (Items 12-15)

Item 12 FEDERAL REPORT

Nancy Coopersmith, BJ Granberry

Ms. BJ Granberry updated the Board with the Federal report specifically the work on the ESSA draft plan

which is to be submitted to the Department of Education as required by law. Ms. Nancy Coopersmith

reported on the budget and funding regarding the new ESSA plan. In addition, Ms. Coopersmith reported

on the Carl Perkins Act, and reauthorization pending for Special Education, both of which will likely not

happen with the new Administration and Congress coming in January. Chair Carroll recognized Ms.

Coopersmith on her work for Montana students and all her contributions and wished her well in her

retirement. A standing ovation was given Ms. Coopersmith by the Board and guests.

Item 13 TRAFFIC EDUCATION REPORT

Fran Penner-Ray

Ms. Fran Penner-Ray updated the Board on the Traffic Education Report, ongoing efforts to decrease

teen driver accidents, recruitment of new instructors, training for school bus drivers, and that funding for

the program comes from a portion of driver’s license fees paid.

Item 14 PROPOSED CHANGES TO ARM 10.64.301, BUS STANDARDS

Kara Sperle, Donnell Rosenthal

Ms. Kara Sperle updated the Board with the proposed changes to the Bus Standards and the process.

Ms. Donell Rosenthal answered questions from the Board on the proposed changes as presented.

Discussion took place on several topics including left hand drop off, transportation for homeless students

and foster care students, and a discussion on seat belts for school buses. Ms. Sperle reviewed the

timeline for the proposed changes with the Board.

ACTION

PUBLIC COMMENT



Chair Carroll announced that the following items will be heard but Action will be delayed until Board

member Schottle can call in to the meeting to establish the quorum required for the Board to take action.

Item 15 APPROVE CRITICAL QUALITY EDUCATOR SHORTAGE REPORT

Madalyn Quinlan

Ms. Quinlan updated the Board with the Quality Educator Shortage Report by briefly reviewing the

program, how distributions are made, and the qualifications for teachers to receive the loan forgiveness of

up to $3,000/year for four years. Ms. Quinlan explained the Board’s responsibility is to approve the report

so that the funds can be disbursed. Ms. Quinlan referred to the report for a list of the impacted schools

for the Boards review. Ms. Quinlan fielded questions from the Board.


Item 16 CONTENT STANDARDS REVISION PROCESS AND SCHEDULE

Pete Donovan, Jael Prezeau

Ms. Prezeau reported to the Board and distributed information regarding one small change to the process

since the Board last heard this item in September per feedback from the CSPAC. Ms. Prezeau has also

presented this process to the MACIE and the County Superintendents. Ms. Prezeau reviewed the


changes which have been made to the schedule. Questions from the Board were answered by Ms.

Prezeau.

9:35 AM Dr. Darlene Schottle called in to the meeting.

Ms. Tammy Lacey moved to approve the proposed Content Standards

Revision process as presented today. Motion seconded by Mr. Jesse

Barnhart.

No discussion. Motion passed.

Ms. Prezeau announced that she will be leaving the Office of Public Instruction and thanked the Board for

their support.

Item 15 This item is being brought back for a motion.

Mr. Jesse Barnhart moved to approve the Critical Quality Educator

Shortage Report. Motion seconded by Ms. Tammy Lacey.


Ms. Coopersmith announced that Ms. Quinlan, Ms. Ubansky, and Ms. Gilkey will all be leaving the Office

of Public Instruction with the new Superintendent coming in January. All are personal administrative staff

to Superintendent Juneau and with a new Superintendent they will not be returning with the new

administration. The Board thanked them all for their service to public education in Montana.

Item 17 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE ACCREDITATION OF THE GLASGOW

MIDDLE SCHOOL

Michael Hall

Mr. Hall explained the new structure of the Glasgow Middle school which was previously a 7-8 school but

the school now holds 6th grade students and is moving from a 7-8 Junior High style school to a Middle

School. With this change comes a new set of standards for the school to comply with, new accreditation

status, and Mr. Hall explained for the Board how the school has incorporated those changes successfully.

Mr. Hall answered Board member questions.

Ms. Tammy Lacey moved to approve the Glasgow 7-8 to Glasgow Middle

School, and congratulated the school on their hard work. Mr. Jesse

Bremner seconded the motion.

Dr. Schottle echoed Mr. Lacey’s congratulatory comments. No further

discussion. Motion passed unanimously.

DISCUSSION

ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE – Paul Andersen (Item 18)

Item 18 ASSESSMENT REPORT

Jessica Eilertson

Ms. Eilertson introduced herself to the Board as the new Assessment Director at the OPI and presented

her report to the Board. Ms. Eilertson covered some new options for teachers to use for assessment

tools in their classrooms and fielded questions from the Board.


LICENSURE COMMITTEE – Tammy Lacey (Items 19-22)

Item 19 UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE PROPOSES

TO ADD A SECONDARY COMPUTER SCIENCE ENDORSEMENT

Dr. Linda Vrooman-Peterson

Dr. Peterson discussed the approval being sought by the University of Montana for an endorsement in

Computer Science Secondary Education endorsement. The endorsement is based upon the Computer

Science minor at the University of Montana. Dr. Lisa Blank from the UM presented the item to the Board.

Dr. Blank reviewed the program and discussed the need for employment in computer science vs. the

number of students enrolled in computer science programs and that the number of students in the

pipeline does not meet the demand in the workforce.

*********TIME CERTAIN @10:30 AM********

Item 20 LICENSE SURRENDER OF BPE CASE #2016-04

Rob Stutz

Mr. Stutz reviewed the case as originally a revocation request from the Superintendent. Mr. Stutz turned

the item to Ms. Ann Gilkey, Chief Legal Counsel for OPI who reviewed the case for the Board and

discussed the Boards review of the case in September. Since the September BPE meeting Mr.

Goldhahn, has surrendered his license, and no action is required of the Board.

Item 21 HEARING ON BPE CASE #2016-05

Rob Stutz

Mr. Stutz reviewed the appeal of Denise Campbell who withdrew her appeal on November 17, 2016. The

item requires no action by the Board.

ACTION

PUBLIC COMMENT



Item 22 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF ARM

TITLE 10, CHAPTER 57 LICENSURE RULES

Ann Gilkey

Ms. Gilkey reviewed the public hearing held on November 9th and the proposed requests from the MT

PEC organization for additions to the recommended rules from the Superintendent, but emphasized that

the OPI is not recommending those proposals in the rule revision. Ms. Gilkey reviewed the revisions the

OPI has requested as additions at the public hearing which include defining a year of teaching experience

as requested by CSPAC, and to clarify that applicants for a Class 3 are not required to submit PRAXIS

scores for licensure. Mr. Donovan clarified for the audience that the Board members received all the

written comment that was submitted during the public comment period. Chair Carroll described the

parliamentary process the Board will use for this item.

Ms. Tammy Lacey moved to approve the amendment to ARM 10.57.101,

10.57.102, 10.57.107, 10.57.109, 10.57.201A, 10.57.215, 10.57.218, 10.57.410

through 421, 10.57.424, 10.57.427 through 10.57.433, 10.57.435, 10.57.438,

10.57.601B, and 10.57.602 with corrections from the Superintendent, and

repeal ARM 10.57.201, and authorize filing of the Notice with the Secretary

of State for publication in the Montana Administrative Register. Mr. Jesse

Barnhart seconded the motion.


No discussion. Comment from Ms. Lacey that she is comfortable with the

Superintendent’s recommendation.

Ms. Tammy Lacey moved to amend the motion to amend 10.57.413 Class 3 Administrative License (4) An applicant for a Class 3 administrative license who completed an educator preparation program which does not meet the definition in ARM 10.57.102(2), who is currently licensed in another state at the same level of licensure, may be considered for licensure with verification of five years of successful administrative experience as defined in ARM 10.57.102 as documented by a

recommendation from a state accredited P-‐12 school employer on a form prescribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and approved by the Board of Public Education and that the requirements in 10.57.414(1)©(i-iii) must be met by an applicant seeking a superintendent endorsement. Mr. Jesse Barnhart seconded the motion.

Dr. Kirk Miller provided public comment in support of the amendment to

the motion.

Mr. Bob Vogel, MTSBA concurred with Dr. Miller.

Mr. Eric Feaver, MEA-MFT spoke in support of the amendment.

Mr. Ken Morrison, Helena, thanked the board for their consideration of the

amendment.

Ms. Diane Burke, MQEC spoke in support of the amendment.

Mr. Jesse Barnhart spoke with concerns regarding the amendment.

Dr. Schottle spoke in support of the amendment.

Ms. Lacey spoke in support as well allowing the local control necessary to

determine the best candidate for their district.

Chair Carroll also provided comment with her concerns with the

amendment but stated that the form approved by the Board eases her

concerns to support the amendment

Amendment approved unanimously.

Mr. Jesse Barnhart moved to amend the original motion to amend ARM

10.57.102 for the Montessori Accreditation Council for Teacher Education

(MACTE). A MACTE educator preparation program is subject to the

following restrictions: Completion of a MACTE accredited program may

only be used by an applicant for licensure who has also completed at least

a bachelor’s degree; and the resulting license granted for an applicant for

licensure who has completed a MACTE accredited program shall be limited

to elementary and/or middle grades licensure and only for the grade

level(s) covered by the MACTE accredited program completed by the

applicant. Motion seconded by Ms. Tammy Lacey with the correction that


the language should say “early grades”, rather than “elementary grades”,

to remain consistent with language throughout Chapter 57.

Mr. Eric Feaver, MEA-MFT spoke in support of the amendment.

Mr. Bob Vogel, MTSBA, spoke in support of the amendment.

Dr. Kirk Miller, SAM spoke in support of the amendment.

Ms. Diane Burke, MQEC spoke in support of the amendment.

Several clarification questions from the Board were discussed.

Amended motion passed with members Carroll, Schottle, and Barnhart

approving and member Lacey dissenting.

Chair Carroll commented that these are the Board’s rules and they can

amend or change them if necessary, though she has concerns surrounding

the bachelor’s degree portion of the MACTE amendment.

Member Lacey thanked the staff and the public for their hard work on this

process. Comments echoed by Chair Carroll with specific thanks to

CSPAC on their advice to the Board on these revisions.

Original motion as amended passed unanimously.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS January 20, 2017 (Conference Call)

Exiting Board Member – Last Meeting and Recognition Transportation Report MACIE Update School Nutrition Annual Report Assessment Update Federal Update Accreditation Report

PUBLIC COMMENT

Dr. Darlene Schottle moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Mr. Jesse

Barnhart.

No discussion. Meeting adjourned at 11:48 AM.

ADJOURN

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Montana Board of Public Education is a Renewal Unit Provider. Attending a Board of Public Education Meeting may qualify you

to receive renewal units. One hour of contact time = 1 renewal unit up to 8 renewal units per day. Please complete the necessary

information on the sign-in sheet if you are applying for renewal units.

Agenda items are handled in the order listed on the approved agenda. Items may be rearranged unless listed “time certain”. Action

may be taken by the Board on any item listed on the agenda. Public comment is welcome on all items but time limits on public

comment may be set at the Chair’s discretion.


The Board of Public Education will make reasonable accommodations for known disabilities that may interfere with an individual’s

ability to participate in the meeting. Individuals who require such accommodations should make requests to the Board of Public

Education as soon as possible prior to the meeting start date. You may write to: Kris Stockton, PO Box 200601, Helena MT, 59620,

email at: [email protected] or phone at 444-0302.


CONSENT AGENDA

FINANCIALS

51010 Board of Public EducationORG Budget Summary by OBPP Prog, Subclass, FundData Selected for Month/FY: 01 (Jul)/2017 through 07 (Jan)/2017

This report compares ORG Budgets (ORG_BD) to Actuals expended amounts

Business Unit (All)Program Year (All)FY_BudPer (All)Month (All)Source of Auth (All)Fund Type (All)Account (All)Acct Lvl 2 (All)Account Type EProject (All) Return to MenuLedger (All)

OBPP Program Subclass Fund Org Acct Lvl 1 ORG Budget Actuals Amt A Accrual Amt ORG Bud Balance01 K-12 EDUCATION 366,588.10 163,095.64 0.00 203,492.46

235H1 ADMINISTRATION 327,255.00 150,236.73 0.00 177,018.27(blank) 327,255.00 150,236.73 0.00 177,018.27

1 BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 148,286.00 67,927.38 0.00 80,358.6261000 Personal Services 111,019.00 67,779.29 0.00 43,239.71

62000 Operating Expenses 35,485.00 148.09 0.00 35,336.91

69000 Debt Service 1,782.00 0.00 0.00 1,782.00

30 Advisory Council Program 01 123,969.00 43,050.37 0.00 80,918.6361000 Personal Services 123,969.00 43,050.37 0.00 80,918.63

50 Research Program 01 55,000.00 38,194.78 0.00 16,805.2262000 Operating Expenses 55,000.00 38,194.78 0.00 16,805.22

6 School Renewal Commission 0.00 1,064.20 0.00 (1,064.20)62000 Operating Expenses 0.00 1,064.20 0.00 (1,064.20)

235H2 AUDIT (RST/BIEN) 8,835.10 417.90 0.00 8,417.20(blank) 8,835.10 417.90 0.00 8,417.20

1 BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 8,835.10 417.90 0.00 8,417.2062000 Operating Expenses 8,835.10 417.90 0.00 8,417.20

235H3 LEGAL EXPENSES (RST/OTO) 30,000.00 12,441.01 0.00 17,558.99(blank) 30,000.00 12,441.01 0.00 17,558.99

1 BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 30,000.00 12,441.01 0.00 17,558.9962000 Operating Expenses 30,000.00 12,441.01 0.00 17,558.99

235Z1 WORKERS COMP. REDUCTION 498.00 0.00 0.00 498.00(blank) 498.00 0.00 0.00 498.00

1 BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 260.00 0.00 0.00 260.0061000 Personal Services 260.00 0.00 0.00 260.00

30 Advisory Council Program 01 238.00 0.00 0.00 238.0061000 Personal Services 238.00 0.00 0.00 238.00

Grand Total 366,588.10 163,095.64 0.00 203,492.46

Refresh

ORG Bud by OBPP Prog,Subcl,Fund 1 of 1

CALENDARS

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

December 2016

3

4 5 9 10

16 17

23 24

11 12

18 19

25

6 87

13 1514

20 2221

26 27 28 29Christmas Day

1 2Notes:

30 31

Winter Begins

Rural Educator Conference Call - Pete

Healthy Schools Committee - Pete

TLLC Meeting - Pete

Accreditation CommitteeConference Call - Pete, Erin, Darlene

Governor's Office of Indian Affairs Tribal Relations Training -Pete

MT Digital Academy Conference Call -Pete

Computer Science Meeting - Pete

MSDB Conference Call - Sharon, Kris

Conference Call with Elsie Arntzen - Pete, Sharon, Kris

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

January 2017

3 4 51 2

10 11 12

7

8

6

9

17

14

15

13

16 18 19 20 21

22 2523 24 26 27 28

BPE Meeting - Helena

29 Notes:3130

Education Committee Presentation - Pete

Joint Appropriations Committee - Pete, Kris

Rural Educator Task Force Meeting -Pete

Appropriation Sub Committee Hearing -Pete, Kris

TLLC Work Group - Pete Check in with Siri

Smillie - Pete

Board of Regents Meeting - Helena

Healthy SchoolsAlliance - Pete

MCDE Meeting - Pete

INFORMATION


ITEM 1

CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT

Exiting Board Member Recognition

Sharon Carroll

ITEM 2

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT

Peter Donovan

Meetings Attended by Peter Donovan

12/01/2016 – 01/20/2017

December

1. Rural Educator Conference Call 12/02/2016

2. Healthy Schools Committee Meeting 12/06/2016

3. TLLC Work Group Meeting 12/06/2016

4. Accreditation Committee Conference Call 12/07/2016

5. Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs Tribal Relations Meeting 12/08/2016

6. MT Digital Academy Conference Call 12/09/2016

7. Computer Science Meeting Webinar 12/15/2016

8. Conference Call w/Sharon Carroll, Elsie Arntzen 12/19/2016

January

9. Education Committee Presentation 01/04/2017

10. Rural Educator Task Force Conference Call 01/06/2017

11. Appropriations Committee Hearing 01/09/2017

12. TLLC Work Group Meeting 01/10/2017

13. Check in w/Siri Smillie 01/12/2017

14. Board of Regents Meeting – Helena College 01/12,13/2017

15. Healthy Schools Network 01/19/2017

16. Board of Public Education Meeting – Conference Call 01/20/2017

ACTION

ITEM 3

STATE SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Elsie Arntzen

INFORMATION

ITEM 4

COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION

REPORT

Angela McLean

ITEM 5

GOVERNOR’S OFFICE REPORT

Siri Smillie

ITEM 6

STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE’S REPORT

Molly DeMarco

MACIE LIAISON – (Item 7)

Mary Jo Bremner

ITEM 7

MACIE REPORT

Mandy Smoker-Broaddus

Montana Board of Public Education Executive Summary

Date: January 2017

Presentation MACIE Update Presenter Mandy Smoker Broaddus Position Title Director of Indian Education OPI Overview Will share updates from Nov 2016 MACIE meeting

held in Helena. Topics included an Indian Achievement Data Report, Native American Heritage Day efforts (collaboration with CSI Division), Indian Education Division updates, an update from the Governor’s Indian Affairs Director on programs/initiatives, GEAR UP report, OCHE American Indian Achievement update. Lastly, an OPI tribal consultation was held with Tribal Education Directors and Tribal government representatives regarding ESSA.

Requested Decision(s) None Related Issue(s) None Recommendation(s) None

http://opi.mt.gov/

Denise Juneau, Superintendent Office of Public Instruction

PO Box 202501 Helena, MT 59620-2501 www.opi.mt.gov

MontanaaMerican indian Student achieveMent data report

Fall 2016

MontanaaMerican indian Student

achieveMent data report

Fall 2016

Published by the

Montana Office of Public Instruction

2016

Indian EducationMontana O�ce of Public InstructionDenise Juneau, Superintendent

1 Montana American Indian Student Data Report

Montana American Indian Student Data Report

Fall 2016

From Montana’s urban centers to our rural and reservation communities, the strength,

determination and resiliency of our American Indian youth serves as an inspiration and impetus

to advocate for the very best educational environments we can provide. As the Office of Public

Instruction, school districts, communities, families and various partners work together across

the state of Montana to ensure that all students’ graduate career and college ready, it is

important to use reliable data and effective data practices to make certain those goals are

being met. For American Indian students in particular, in light of disparities in education and

other life outcomes, this work is especially important. This data report is intended to cultivate a

growing awareness, and to assist local schools in their ongoing efforts to properly support

American Indian youth in achieving their hopes and dreams for the future. This important work

will provide greater equity and ensure we are providing all students with rigorous and

meaningful educational opportunities for lifelong success across our state.

Mandy Smoker Broaddus, Director of Indian Education

2007 MCA 20-9-330 In 2007, the Montana State Legislature passed Montana Code Annotated 20-9-330,

appropriating $200 per American Indian child, totaling over $3 million dollars per year, to

provide funding to school districts for the purpose of closing the educational achievement gap

that exists between American Indian students and non-Indian students. According to MCA 20-

9-330 (2) (a), funds were to be determined by “…using the number of American Indian students enrolled in the district based on the count of regularly enrolled students on the first Monday in October of the prior school year as reported to the Office of Public Instruction” and deposited into the district’s general fund.

This report is provided to track the American Indian achievement gap and provide data on the

Montana American Indian student population.

2


2015-2016 Student Population Data

6.6% of Montana’s total population is American Indian (2015 Census Estimate), made up mostly

of the twelve tribal nations of Montana: Assiniboine, Blackfeet, Chippewa, Cree, Crow, Gros

Ventre, Kootenai, Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa, Northern Cheyenne, Pend d’Oreille, Salish,

Sioux

For the 2015-2016 school year there were 20,401 American Indian/Alaska Native students in

Montana that report American Indian/Alaska Native as at least one of their races. The number

of American Indian students in Montana is increasing every year. 14.0% of Montana’s students

are American Indian.

o 44.9% or 9,151 of American Indian students attend a school physically located within a

reservation with 55.1% or 11,250 located outside a reservation boundary.

Of 821 public schools in Montana:

o 61 public schools report 75 – 100% American Indian students within their school population.



Figure 1 shows the distribution of American Indian student enrollment numbers for Montana

public schools by grade.

16691753 1796

1704 17531665 1628

1544 1545 1541

13281214

1032

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Grade

Figure 1: 2015 - 2016 American Indian Enrollment by Grade

3


The following maps show the distribution of American Indian students in public schools across

Montana by high school districts. Map 1 shows the total number of American Indian students and

Map 2 shows the percent of all students in that district that are American Indian.

Map 1: American Indian Student Counts

Map 2: Percent of American Indian Students

4


Smarter Balanced Test

In December 2015 the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), P.L. 114-95 was signed and officially replaced

No Child Left Behind (NCLB). ESSA continues the requirement that each state much develop a statewide

assessment to assess their students. In the spring from 2006 - 2013 the criterion-referenced test was

given in Reading, Mathematics and Science to meet the requirements of the law (the science portion of

the test was not given in 2006 and 2007).

Starting during the 2013 - 2014 school year the state of Montana started administering the Smarter

Balanced Assessment in English Language Arts and Mathematics to properly align the assessment with

the Common Core curriculum. Science is still tested using the CRT. The first year of the Smarter

Balanced test in 2014 was a pilot run of the test and therefore no test results were available. During

testing of the 2014 - 2015 school year issues were encountered during the administering of the Smarter

Balanced test and results were determined to be unreliable. The 2015-2016 test is the first year that

reliable results are available for the Smarter Balanced assessment.

The Smarter Balanced assessment was given to 3rd – 8th grade students during 2015 - 2016. 10th grade

students were not tested using the Smarter Balanced test as that portion of the test has been replaced

by the ACT testing of 11th grade students. Similar to the CRT the Smarter Balanced assessment has 4

proficiency levels: Novice, Nearing Proficiency, Proficient, and Advanced. Scale scores for the Smarter

Balanced Assessment range between 2000 and 3000, with each grade having a slightly different range.

Because of this, the scale scores can’t be compared between grades and only proficiency levels will be

discussed in this report.

Figure 2 shows the English Language

Arts (ELA) results when comparing

American Indians to White students.

There is a significant difference in the

distributions shown in Figure 2 with

23.7% of American Indian students

scoring proficient or above, 55.2% of

White student’s scoring proficient or

above. The difference can also be seen

in the larger number of American

Indian students (50.4%) scoring in the

Novice category as compared to White

students (20.2%). The achievement

gap when comparing for proficiency in

ELA between American Indian students

and White students in ELA is 31.5%

(55.2% for White students vs. 23.7%

for American Indian students)

50.4%

20.2%25.8% 24.6%

18.4%

34.5%

5.3%

20.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

American Indian White

Figure 2: Smarter Balanced ELA Proficiency Level

Novice Nearing Proficiency Proficient Advanced

5


In Figure 3 the results of the

Mathematics portion of the test is

shown. These results are similar to the

ELA results. 53.4% of American Indian

students in Montana scored as Novice

with only 17.5% scoring proficient or

above in mathematics. These scores

leaves the achievement gap between

American Indian students and White

students in Mathematics at 28.5%

(17.5% for AI students vs. 46.0% for

White Students). Although exact scores

from the Math and Reading domains of

the CRT assessment from 2006 – 2013

will not be discussed in this report,

these achievement gap trends follow

closely with what was seen in that

assessment.

Figures 4 and 5 show the Smarter

Balanced test results for American

Indians in regard to whether or not they

go to school on a reservation. For this

report students are considered “On

Reservation” when the school the

student attends is physically located

within the reservation boundaries. This

does not include all Indian Country

schools as some are just outside the

boundaries of the reservations. In

Figure 4 it can be seen that American

Indian students attending schools

outside the reservation boundaries are

scoring better than those within the

reservation. This is clearly seen by

looking at the percentage of students

that score at the lowest level, Novice.

For students “On Reservation” it is a

much higher percentage, almost 60%

are novice compared to 38.2% of

students off the reservation. In

53.4%

21.3%

29.1%32.7%

13.0%

28.0%

4.5%

18.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%


Figure 3: Smarter Balanced Math Proficiency Level

Novice Nearing Proficiency Proficient Advanced

59.8%

24.1%

13.3%

2.9%

38.2%28.1%

25.1%

8.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Novice NearingProficiency

Proficient Advanced

Figure 4: American Indian ELA Results By Location

On Reservation Off Reservation

63.2%

24.9%

9.3%2.6%

40.6%34.6%

17.9%

6.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Novice NearingProficiency

Proficient Advanced

Figure 5: American Indian Math Results By Location

On Reservation Off Reservation

6


Mathematics, shown in Figure 5, the gap is very similar. In math, 63.2% of American Indians students on

the reservation score novice, compared to 40.6% off the reservation. It is also worth noting that while

White students also do not score as well on the reservation compared to off the reservation, the

difference is not as large as it is for American Indian students.

CRT

Since the Smarter Balanced Assessment does not offer a Science domain, the Science portion of the CRT

is still given. The CRT Science test has been given to 4th, 8th, and 10th grade students since 2008. Science

scale scores on the CRT are scored on a scale from 200 to 300 with 200 being the low score. The

proficiency levels are broken down as (there is some variability in the cut-off between Proficient and

Advanced scores based on the grade the student is in):

Novice 200 – 224

Near Proficient 225 – 249

Proficient 250 – 275

Advanced 276 – 300

A student who scores 250 or above in a subject is considered to be proficient. The CRT results are

modeled such that if a student scores 250 in a subject during one school year and makes the appropriate

progress in skill level for the next school year, his or her score for that subject will remain relatively

unchanged.

Figure 6 and 7 show the trends for the past 5 years of the CRT Science scores for American Indian and

White students in Montana. The percent of student’s proficient or above went up in 2016 compared to

2015. However the long term trend shows that the Science proficiency rates have remained fairly

constant for both American Indian students and White students since the 2012 school year. The larger

32.3% 33.7% 31.2% 29.1% 31.2%

65.2% 65.5% 65.9% 62.6% 65.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 6: CRT Science Proficiency Rate


240 240 240 237 241

259 259 260 257 259

200.0

210.0

220.0

230.0

240.0

250.0

260.0

270.0

280.0

290.0

300.0

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 7: CRT Science Mean Scores


7


concern here is the achievement gap between American Indian students and White students is a

difference of 34% for 2016 (65.2% vs. 31.2%).

National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP)

The NAEP test is a national assessment that is given every two years to randomly selected schools across

the nation and Montana. This test does not test every student in every school, but uses sampling to get

their results. The most recent NAEP test was given during the 2014-2015 school year. The NAEP test in

Montana has historically only been given to 4th grade and 8th grade students in mathematics and

reading. The NAEP scores are on a scale of 0 – 500 with 500 being the highest score. Scores across

grades or across subjects can’t be compared to each other because they are not scaled the same, i.e. a

4th grade scale score can’t be compared to an 8th grade scale score. The NAEP scores and results also

can’t be compared to the CRT or Smarter Balanced tests; the NAEP tests are designed differently and are

essentially testing for different things. Any statistically significant changes discusses in the NAEP report

are done at the α = .05 level.

4th Grade

Figure 8 shows the 4th grade reading scores of American Indian students for the past 5 testing cycles. 4th

grade reading scores showed a slight increase from 2013, although the scores have remained mostly

unchanged since 2011. None of the differences from year to year are statistically significant changes in

Reading. There are 13 states that have a significant enough American Indian population in 4th grade

reading that sample sizes and test results are large enough to report. Of those 13 states Montana was

5th in 4th grade reading.

204

206

200

198199

206 206

204

206 206

190

192

194

196

198

200

202

204

206

208

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Figure 8: Mean NAEP Scale ScoresAmerican Indian 4th Grade Reading

Montana Nationwide

222

228

220 222216

229

227

227 228 228

200

205

210

215

220

225

230

235

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Figure 9: Mean NAEP Scale ScoresAmerican Indian 4th Grade Math

Montana Nationwide

8


Figure 9 displays the 4th grade mathematics scores for American Indian students. 4th grade math scores

declined by 6 points between 2013 and 2015. This decline is statistically significant and the difference

between the national mean score and Montana mean score is also statistically significant for 2015. This

is especially concerning since even as recent as 2009 Montana scored above the National mean score in

4th grade math. Of the 12 states that have a significant enough population to report American Indian

test scores, Montana ties for last with two other states.

8th Grade

Scores for 8th grade reading increased while scores for 8th grade mathematics decreased in 2015.

Figures 10 shows the mean scale scores for 8th grade reading for the past 5 testing cycles. The increase

in reading scores is not statistically significant from the 2013 results. The 2015 results for Montana are

also not statistically significant from the nationwide mean. Of the 12 states that tested enough

American Indian students to report test scores, Montana was 6th for 4th grade reading.

In Figure 11 the mean scale scores for 8th grade math are displayed for both Montana and nationwide.

8th grade math scores did experience a large decrease (7 points) in the mean scale score. The decrease

in mean scale score in 2013 of 263 to 256 in 2015 is not statistically significant. However the difference

between the nationwide mean and the Montana mean for 2015 is statistically significant. Of the 13

states that tested enough American Indian students to report test scores in 8th grade mathematics,

Montana was 11th.

249

253

257

245 249

248 252253

252

253

240

242

244

246

248

250

252

254

256

258

260

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Figure 10: Mean NAEP Scale ScoresAmerican Indian 8th Grade Reading

Montana Nationwide

260 260

264 263

256

265267 266

270

267

245

250

255

260

265

270

275

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Figure 11: Mean NAEP Scale ScoresAmerican Indian 8th Grade Math

Montana Nationwide

9


English Learner (EL) students and English Language Proficiency

(ELP) Test

LEP students in Montana are generally students who have impact from a language other than English in

their environment, usually at home. All LEP students in Montana are required to take the ELP test, as a

result of NCLB and this requirement is continuing in ESSA. The students can then test out of LEP status

and become Former LEP. Former LEP status is then tracked for at least two years. The ELP test is used

to test the LEP students for English proficiency but other factors such as grades, state assessments, and

teacher input are the determining factors for whether or not a student is moved to Former LEP.

During the 2015 – 2016 school year there were 3189 LEP students enrolled in Montana. 73.1% of all LEP

students were American Indian. The percent of LEP students who have been LEP for 5 or more years is

23.7% of all LEP students. Decreasing this number of students that have been LEP for 5 or more years

has been a focus of OPI and these students are now a focus in the ESSA law. It is well known in the

education community, both nationally and in Montana, the lowest scoring demographic of students are

the LEP students. The longer the student is an LEP student the more effect it has on that student later

on. Figure 12 shows the difference between LEP students and other students on the Smarter Balanced

test during the 2015 – 2016 school year. LEP

students also have the lowest graduation rate

of any student group, for 2015 – 2016 it was

62.2%

For the 2015 – 2016 school year there were

2,951 total students that took the ELP test.

The ELP test has 5 different domains for

testing LEP students: Writing, Listening,

Speaking, Reading, and Literacy. A total score

is then found using the result from the 5

domains. To be considered proficient in

Montana a student must score at least 4.0 on

literacy and 5.0 on total proficiency. Of the

students who took the test in 2016, 394 of

them, or 13.4% were tested as proficient.

Graduation Rates

The graduation rates discussed in this report are the rates that determine the percentage of students

who graduate from high school in four years or less. For the fifth year in a row, the graduation rates in

19.4%

26.6%

3.7% 4.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Math ELA

Figure 12: American Indian ELA Proficiency Rates

Not LEP LEP

10


Montana continue to increase. The overall

graduation rate in Montana for 2014 –

2015 was 86.0% which is an increase from

85.4% the year before.

In figure 13 the graduation rates for White

and American Indian students over the

past 5 years are displayed. Both student

groups have increased their graduation

rates steadily since 2011. In 2015 the

American Indian graduation rate increased

1.6 percentage points compared to 2014.

However the American Indian graduation

rate is still 22.1 percentage points lower

than the White student graduation rate.

Dropout Rates

The dropout rates presented in this report are an event rate, which is the percentage of total students

who dropped out during that year. Dropout rates in Montana continued to drop during the 2014 – 2015

school year. The overall dropout rate in Montana was 2.3% with the American Indian dropout rate at

6.3%. Figure 14 shows the breakdown of dropout rates by race and school grade for 2014 – 2015.

As evidenced by the 7th and 8th grade dropout

rates, American Indians start dropping out at a

younger age than White students. The dropout

rate for 7th and 8th grade students is 10 times

higher for American Indian students than White

students, while for high school students it is 3.7

times higher for American Indian students. The

grade with the highest dropout rate in the state is

the 12th grade.

The chart in Figure 15 shows the change in dropout rates over time. The general trend is that dropout

rates are decreasing and have been for quite some time. While the decreasing rates are a great sign, the

American Indian student dropout rate is still much higher than the White student subgroup. What is not

shown in Figure 15 is American Indians that do end up dropping out are staying in school longer than

they have in the past. Up until the 2013 – 2014 school year, a grade other than 12th grade always had

the highest dropout rate for American Indians but in 2014 and 2015 12th grade had the highest dropout

rate of any grade among American Indian students. There is also a slight difference in the dropout rates

Figure 14: 2014 – 2015 Dropout Rates by Grade

Grades 7 – 8 Grades 9 – 12 Total

American

Indian 1.0% 9.5% 6.3%

White 0.1% 2.6% 1.8%

Overall 0.2% 3.4% 2.3%

84.8% 86.8% 87.0% 88.3% 88.7%

62.8% 62.9% 65.4% 65.0% 66.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Figure 13: Graduation Rate Trends

White American Indian

11


of American Indian students dependent on whether they attend a school physically located within the

reservation boundaries or not. American Indians that attend schools located within a reservation

boundary have a 10.6% dropout rate for 2015 – 2016 where students in schools located outside the

reservation boundaries have a dropout rate of 8.6%.

Another piece of information that can’t be seen in Figure 15 is why the students are dropping out.

When investigating the reasons why students dropped out in 2014 - 2015 there are some significant

differences for American Indian students when compared to all other students. While 8.1% of Non-

American Indian dropouts specify “Academic Difficulty” as the reason for dropping out, only 2.6%

American Indians specify this as the reason for dropping out. The most common reason for American

Indians dropping out is “Attendance Difficulty” which is at 53.3% compared to 27.8% of Non-American

Indian dropouts. Another significant difference is the number of students leaving school because of the

HiSET tests (replacement of the GED in Montana). 33.1% of Non-American Indian dropouts cite

“Pursuing HiSET” or “Completed HiSET” as the reason for dropping out when only 7.2% of American

Indians do so.

College Data

College data presented here does not include Montana Tribal College enrollment numbers and data

since it is not available from those schools. One way of determining what students are doing after

graduating from high school is the college capture rate. This is the rate of students who enroll in college

within the U.S. within 16 months of graduating. Capture rates for Montana students entering the

Montana University System are shown in Figure 16. Figure 16 shows the capture rates for American

10.6% 10.3%9.6% 9.7% 9.5%

3.7%3.3%

2.8% 2.9% 2.6%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Figure 15: High School Dropout Rates

AmericanIndian

White

12


Indian students are much lower than White students. The data for 2015 is not shown in Figure 16 since

at the time of this report those students still had time to enroll in a school

Remediation rates are another way of tracking students once they enter college. A Remediation rate is

the rate of students who enter college within 16 months of graduating high school and enroll in either a

remedial writing or math class (remedial courses are usually courses with course numbers less than

100). The rates presented in this report are only for campuses of the Montana University System.

Figure 17 shows the remediation rates for Montana students attending a school in the Montana

University System. Remediation rates are much higher for American Indian students. Math remediation

rates are much higher than writing remediation rates for both races. Math remediation rates for

American Indian students are 40% while it is 20% for White students. Writing remediation rates are

lower for both subgroups with the American Indian remediation rate for writing at 19% compared to 9%

for White students. When comparing the remediation rates of math and writing it indicates that many

students who take a remedial course in one subject also take on in the other.

Student Surveys

There are two student surveys administered in the state of Montana, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey

(YRBS) and the My Voice Student Survey. Neither survey polls every student and both surveys use

sampling procedures to estimate for the entire population. The YRBS survey has been conducted once

every two years since 1993, with the last one being during the 2014-2015 school year. Some results are

discussed here but you may find the entire YRBS report at http://www.opi.mt.gov/yrbs. The My Voice

survey has been conducted annually since the 2010-2011 school year. The full My Voice report for

2014-2015 can be found at http://opi.mt.gov/Programs/SchoolPrograms/MBI/index.html#gpm1_8.

26%22%

27% 28%

42% 42% 43%46%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 16: MUS College Capture Rates


45% 47% 49%

42%46%

28% 28% 28% 26% 24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Figure 17: MUS College Remediation Rates


http://www.opi.mt.gov/yrbs

http://opi.mt.gov/Programs/SchoolPrograms/MBI/index.html#gpm1_8

13


The 2015-2016 My Voice report was not available at the printing of this report, but it will be posted on

the OPI website when it is available. The 2014-2015 results will be discussed in this report.

Figure 18 shows some selected questions and demonstrates the differences between American Indian

students on or near reservations and those in urban schools. Some of the differences in Figure 18 also

demonstrate a difference between American Indian students and all students.

There are a few things of note in Figure 18. The percentage of students that were bullied on school

property during the past 12 months does not have big differences between the different populations.

The reason the results for this question were selected is in the past the American Indian students on

reservations used to be lower than the all student percentage, this percent went up from 21.1% in 2012-

2013. The same percent for American Indian student in urban schools decreased since 2012-2013 from

31.8%.

For question #3, “Felt so sad or hopeless for two weeks or more in a row that they stopped doing some

usual activities during the past 12 months”, all the student groups had their highest percentage ever

seen since the question was introduced to the YRBS in 1999. There are several more questions related

to suicide on the YRBS that all were either the highest they’ve ever been or close to it for all subgroups.

The YRBS reports also include a trend analysis report which allows you to see the change over time of

the responses to the survey. Figure 19 shows some selected questions and how they have changed

since 1999 (some questions in the YRBS report have been asked for longer than that). All of the

questions in Figure 19 have decreased steadily since 1999 for all subgroups.

Figure 18: 2014 – 2015 Selected YRBS Results AI – R: American Indian students on or near reservations AI – U: American Indian students in urban schools

All AI – R AI - U

Carried a weapon anytime in the past 30 days. 26.4% 16.5% 34.3%

Were bullied on school property during the past 12 months. 25.3% 26.0% 28.6%

Felt so sad or hopeless for two weeks or more in a row that

they stopped doing some usual activities during the past 12

months.

29.3% 37.5% 41.1%

Attempted suicide during the past 12 months 8.9% 19.3% 19.8%

Were physically active at least 60 minutes per day on 5 or more

days during the past 7 days

54.0% 46.4% 79.9%

Ever tried cigarette smoking in their life. 39.1% 66.1% 54.4%

Ever drank alcohol 69.9% 59.3% 72.6%

Currently used marijuana, past 30 days 19.5% 40.6% 29.8%

14


Figure 19: YRBS Trend Data AI – R: American Indian students on or near reservations AI – U: American Indian students in urban schools

Subgroup 1999 2015

Rode in a car driven by someone who had been drinking

alcohol during the past 30 days.

All 43.1% 23.0%

AI – R 53.3% 27.6%

AI - U 49.3% 25.9%

Used any form of cocaine in their life. All 9.8% 5.2%

AI – R 21.4% 8.0%

AI - U 21.2% 8.2%

Used methamphetamines during their life. All 13.5% 3.0%

AI – R 26.8% 6.6%

AI - U 24.1% 7.3%

The My Voice survey asks different types of questions than the YRBS survey. Examples are questions

relating to the students belonging in school, sense of accomplishment, curiosity, and leadership. There

are several ways the MyVoice survey data may be disaggregated. Three groups of students will be

focused on for this report: American Indians in schools where the majority of students are American

Indian (AI majority), American Indians in schools where the majority of students are not American Indian

(AI minority), all White students.

Figure 20 shows some questions that were selected from the My Voice survey. Some questions were

selected for differences between White students and American Indian students. Others were selected

because of the difference in answers provided by American Indian students. The full My Voice report

has breakdowns by race, gender, and grade.

Figure 20: Select 2015-2016 My Voice Survey Results

White AI majority AI minority

I think bullying is a problem at my school 38% 48% 43%

I have a teacher who is a positive role model for me 78% 64% 73%

Teachers have fun at school 49% 41% 45%

Teachers let my parents know what I do well. 50% 57% 49%

I feel comfortable asking questions in class 63% 55% 53%

I am a good decision maker. 68% 59% 58%

I feel accepted for who I am at school. 68% 72% 62%

School inspires me to learn 61% 67% 59%

I enjoy being at school. 53% 59% 50%

15


Advanced Placement (AP) Tests

There were 4789 total AP exams given to Montana public school students during the 2014-2015 school

year, data for the 2015-2016 school year was not available at the time of the printing of this report. The

number of AP exams given was slightly down from the previous year but in general the number of AP

exams taken in Montana has been increasing for the past 30 years. Some students took more than one

AP exam. 106 of the exams were given to American Indian students, with English being the most

common subject tested at 58 exams.

On any AP exam taken for any subject, a passing test is scored as a 3 or higher. For 2014-2015 there

were 2,971 exams passed, which results in a passing rate of 62.0%. For American Indians there were 32

passing scores resulting in a passing rate of 55.2%.

ACT Test

The ACT is a national college admissions examination that consists of subject area tests in Mathematics,

Reading, English, Writing and Science. Montana students are given the opportunity to take the ACT test

during their 11th grade year free of charge thanks to grant money provided by the GEAR UP program.

Many 12th grade students also take the test a second time for their college admissions requirements.

The test results discussed in this report are from the 11th grade students. During the 2015-2016 school

year there were 7708 White students and 975 American Indian students who took the test as 11th

graders.

The ACT College Readiness scores are the scores ACT has determined a student needs in that domain to

have at least a 50% chance of getting a B or higher in the corresponding college courses. Keep in mind

these test scores are for 11th grade students, and the college readiness score is used from their 12th

grade ACT score. Figure 21 shows the mean scores for 11th grade test takers during the 2015-2016

school year. It can be seen in Figure 21 that American Indian scores are lower in all domains with the

biggest difference coming in Writing. Most domains have increased just slightly from the 2014-2015

results but the difference is not significant.

Figure 21: 2015-2016 Mean ACT Test Scores by Domain and Race

Composite English Math Reading Science Writing

American Indian 17.0 15.3 17.2 17.6 17.5 14.0

White 20.3 18.9 20.3 21.0 20.5 18.0

College Readiness 22 18 22 21 24 -

16


Special Education Students

For the 2015 – 2016 school year there were 17,051 total special education students in public schools in

Montana. This was an increase in the number of students for the third year in a row. Of those students,

3,074 are American Indian students. Of all America Indian students in Montana, 15.1% were identified

as special education students. This compares to only 9.7% of all White students that are identified as

special education students.

Attendance Rates

Before discussing attendance

rates a few things should be

mentioned first. There is no

statewide policy for how

attendance should be counted

at schools. Each school is left

to count attendance in a way

they see best. This leads to

differences between schools

on how they count things such

as missing school for school

related activities, tardies,

missing partial days and other things. That being said, when looking at the statewide data that OPI does

have, we can get some ideas of what may be occuring.

For 2015 – 2016 the statewide attendance rate for American Indian students was 88.7% compared to

93.8% for White students. This is a significant difference between these two subgroups. While the

attendance rates have remained relatively stable for subgroups since the 2011 – 2012 school year there

has been a slightly decline for American Indian attendance rate from a high of 90.0% in 2011 – 2012.

Chronically absent students are currently defined as students missing 10% or more of school. The data

then reflects that the average American Indian student in Montana is chronically absent from school.

There are many reports and studies showing the negative effects on students from being chronically

absent.

Suspension / Expulsion Data

As of the writing of this report, the 2015 – 2016 suspension and expulsion data had not been finalized.

The 2014 – 2015 data will be discussed in this report. Statewide, 9.7% of all American Indian students

Native Traditional Foods and Culinary Arts Day at Ronan High School

17


were given at least one out of

school suspension during the

2014 – 2015 school year. That

compares to only 2.7% of White

students who were given an out

of school suspension. All

suspension data shown here

reflects out of school suspension

data, as OPI does not collect in-

school suspensions for the entire

state.

Figure 22 shows several different

trends that are occuring in

Montana. First, regardless of

race, students located in schools

within reservation boundaries

were about twice as likely to be

suspended compared to those

located outside the reservation boundaries. Also, regardless of their location, American Indian students

are much more likely to be suspended than White students. This trend is not unique to Montana, as

numerous studies have shown nationally that minority students are more likely to suspended. The good

news is that American Indian suspension rates have been declining every year since 2010 – 2011 when

the suspension rate was 11.7%

Students expelled from school for any time frame also show similar trends to that of the out of school

suspensions. Expulsion counts for the state are relatively small, which causes a lot of fluctuation from

year to year and makes comparisons difficult. There were 32 American Indian students expelled for

some time period during the 2014 – 2015 school year while the number of White students expelled was

24. This means that even though the White student populatioin in Montana is much larger than the

American Indian population, there were more American Indian students expelled.

Summary

The American Indian student achievement gap is shown in several areas throughout this report.

However, there is improvement shown in narrowing that gap but there is obviously still room for more

improvement. Improvements in these areas will not happen overnight, but it is important for the future

of Montana for the American Indian student achievement gap to continue to narrow.

This document is also located electronically on the OPI webpage at http://opi.mt.gov/Reports&Data.

12.9%

7.6%

6.3%

2.6%

9.7%

2.7%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%


Figure 22: Supension Rates

On Reservation Off Reservation Statewide

http://opi.mt.gov/Reports&Data

5Montana American Indian Student Achievement Data Report Fall 2012

The Office of Public Instruction is committed to equal opportunity and non-discriminatory access to all our programs and services.

For information or to file a complaint, contact Tom Antonick,OPI Title IX/EEO Coordinator

at (406) 444-3161 or [email protected]

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE – (Items 8-9)

Sharon Carroll

ITEM 8

FEDERAL REPORT

BJ Granberry


Date: January 2017

Presentation Federal Update

Presenter BJ Granbery

Position Title Assistant Superintendent for Education Services OPI

Overview This update will cover recent developments concerning implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

Requested Decision(s) None

Related Issue(s) None

Recommendation(s) None

Tricky Balance in Shifting From ESSA Blueprint to K-12 Reality

As ESSA passes its first birthday, states take on the hard work of turning the new law into policy on the ground.

By Alyson Klein

December 30, 2016

One year ago, President Barack Obama and longtime education leaders in Congress burst

through years of deadlock to pass the Every Student Succeeds Act, the first

update to the nation's main K-12 law in over a decade.

Now the law remains a work in progress, as states, districts, and a shifting cast of federal

officials work furiously to prepare for its full rollout this fall.

ESSA's architects said the law struck a careful compromise. On the one side, it moved

away from what they saw as the worst aspects of the No Child Left Behind Act—the

previous version of the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act—including

what many deemed an overemphasis on standardized tests and a too-heavy federal

footprint. At the same time, it kept key safeguards for historically overlooked groups of

students.

But as the new law passes its first birthday, it's an open question whether ESSA will be

able to maintain that balance once it hits state education agencies, district central offices,

and classrooms in full force in the 2017-18 school year.

ESSA gives states and districts greater flexibility, but it also asks a lot of them.

Instead of relying primarily on test results to gauge school performance, as policy

officials did under No Child Left Behind, states must use a jumble of measures, including

test scores, graduation rates, and at least one factor that gets at school quality or

student success, such as school climate or achievement in advanced coursework.

And states can move away from teacher evaluations based on student test scores and

come up with their own definitions for what makes a teacher effective. States and

districts also get to decide how to intervene in their lowest-performing schools and those

http://www.edweek.org/ew/contributors/alyson.klein.html

http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/every-student-succeeds-act/index.html

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/09/28/essa-clears-out-underbrush-on-school-improvement.html

where long-overlooked groups—such as students of color, English-language learners, and

children with disabilities—aren't performing up to snuff.

"Given the range of state capacity, and states' different K-12 priorities, ESSA

implementation could look radically different on the ground from one state to the next,"

said Maria Voles Ferguson, the executive director of the Center on Education Policy, a

public education advocacy group at the George Washington University's Graduate School

of Education and Human Development.

"I think there's going to be a lot of different stories told throughout the country," said

Ferguson, who served in the U.S. Department of Education working on K-12 policy and

communications under President Bill Clinton. "There are bright-shining-star [states] that

are going to run and do really interesting things, and then there'll be some sad, not-great

stories. It's a little bit of survival of the fittest."

For their part, state education chiefs recognize the challenges ahead, but say they

welcome the opportunity to move toward what they hope will be more-nuanced

accountability systems that present a clearer picture of student progress. And they know

that the greater leeway may not be around forever.

"If we just use the flexibility to get out of things and not serve kids better, we're going to

be right back here soon with more federal prescription," said Chris Minnich, the executive

director of the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Meanwhile, President-elect Donald Trump's upset victory in November has muddied the

waters at the federal level.

For one thing, the Obama administration has spent the past year crafting regulations that

flesh out ESSA's accountability, testing, and spending provisions.

But it's unclear how much of that work will end up influencing the law's direction in the

long run. The incoming Trump administration will get to decide whether to delay, tweak,

or toss those regulations.

For now, state chiefs say they are not waiting for Trump and his pick for education

secretary, school choice advocate Betsy DeVos, to put their stamp on the law.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/12/14/school-choice-a-singular-focus-for-education.html

Instead, states are pressing forward with their own ESSA blueprints, honed in many

cases after months of outreach, multiple listening tours, and hours of meetings.

For instance, Virginia is leaning toward a plan that incorporates chronic absenteeism

alongside test scores in gauging school performance, said Steven Staples, the state

superintendent of public instruction. And he'd like to see the new system take stock of

whether schools are closing the achievement gaps that have often left minority students,

those with disabilities, and other groups lagging behind.

But some sticky issues still must be worked through, Staples said. For instance, the state

will need to decide how to figure out whether a school is truly helping struggling students

improve, or if the top students are simply slipping.

And more generally, the Every Student Succeeds Act requires a shift in mindset for

states, districts, and schools, said Jillian Balow, Wyoming's superintendent of public

instruction.

Under No Child Left Behind, which President George W. Bush signed into law in 2002,

"our accountability systems really were designed to give us information about how well

schools and school districts were playing the accountability game, and gave us very little

information about how our students were really doing," Balow said. "We're trying as a

state to really close that gap between accountability for compliance and accountability for

responsibility" for student learning, she said.

Equity Focus

And the question that loomed over the celebrations hailing ESSA's passage in December

2015 remains: What will more state control mean for historically overlooked groups of

students?

Tony Evers, Wisconsin's superintendent of public instruction, recalled that when ESSA

became law, an influential civil rights leader in his state tweeted that he'd lived through

states' rights and it hadn't worked out very well, a reference to segregation.

"I took that to heart, I took it as a personal obligation" to make equity for all groups a

central tenet of Wisconsin's plan, Evers said.

Civil rights advocates are heartened by such sentiments, but caution that states have a

lot of decisions left to make.

"We're still kind of in the thick of it," said Daria Hall, the interim vice president for

government affairs and communications at the Education Trust, which advocates in

support of poor and minority students. "There's a lot of conversation going on right now,

but I don't think we're at a point where we can definitively say here's where that

conversation is leading us, for good, bad, or other."

Hall said civil rights advocates should keep an eye on where ESSA implementation stands

in their states.

"We have to be really cautious because we know that states have a long track record of

not making tough decisions when it comes to the interest of low-income students,

students of color, English-language learners," she said. "If states are going to walk away

from those students, we are going to lose whatever progress we've made with those

students, who now make up the majority of our public school population."

Teachers' unions are also working to make sure their members are at the table helping to

craft state accountability plans.

"We are hopeful that states have not dug in on ESSA," said Donna Harris-Aikens, the

National Education Association's director of policy and practice. The union and its

affiliates, she said, have been telling state education officials: "Don't go off into a room

somewhere in the back and build a plan. … Don't wait until you have a final draft of a

plan before you reach out to your stakeholders. Make sure you've really gotten buy-in by

the time you're done building your plan."

School Choice Twist

Even though the Trump administration will eventually be consumed with approving

states' ESSA plans, the president-elect has suggested that expanding school choice could

be his initial focus in education policy.

Some of Trump's campaign proposals—like redirecting $20 billion in federal funding to

help students attend the private, public, or home school of their choice—would likely

require renegotiating the portion of ESSA that deals with the formula for distributing Title

I dollars to states and districts.

But plenty of opportunities for expanding school choice are already written into the law,

said Lindsay Fryer, who worked as an education aide to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.,

the chairman of the Senate education committee, when Congress was writing ESSA.

For instance, states can reserve up to 3 percent of their Title I dollars and channel it to

such purposes as public school choice, distance learning, personalized learning, tutoring,

and Advanced Placement coursetaking.

Already under ESSA, "choice can be utilized in a broader sense than where we hear the

rhetoric now," said Fryer, who is now a vice-president at the Penn Hill Group, a

government relations firm in Washington.

And overall, she said, ESSA offers states a chance to shift their thinking.

"States have so long been in compliance mode, the bureaucratic back-and-forth of, 'Can I

do science tests this way?' " Fryer said. "Now is the opportunity for states to figure out

what they want to do," she said. "States will learn a lot from each other as these plans

move forward."

Vol. 36, Issue 16, Pages 2-5

Published in Print: January 4, 2017, as Tricky Balance In Making Shift From Blueprint To K-12 Reality

ITEM 9

SCHOOL NUTRITION ANNUAL REPORT

Christine Emerson


Date: January 2017

Presentation School Nutrition Programs Annual Report 2016

Presenter Christine Emerson

Position Title Director, School Nutrition Programs Office of Public Instruction

Overview The presentation will include information about the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Afterschool Snack Program, Special Milk Program, USDA Foods Program, Team Nutrition Program, and Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program for the 2015-16 school year.

Requested Decision(s) None.

Related Issue(s) The presentation will be designed to show changes in program participation and funding over five school years. It will also cover nutrition education activities for schools, parents and the community to improve nutritional value and acceptability of school meals, and promote the health and education of children.

Recommendation(s) The presentation is informational. Nothing will be recommended to the BPE other than its continued support of the School Nutrition Programs to help children get the nutrition they need to learn, play and grow.

http://opi.mt.gov/

2016 MONTANA

School Nutrition Programs

Fueling Success in the School Day

MT SCHOOLS SERVE

19 MILLION MEALS A YEAR

$46,011,609

REIMBURSEMENT TO MONTANA

SCHOOLS

88% of schools that offer lunch also

OFFER BREAKFAST

45% OF MONTANA STUDENTS QUALIFY FOR FREE

OR REDUCED PRICE SCHOOL MEALS

13

5

SCHOOLS OFFER FREE MEALS TO

ALL STUDENTS THROUGH THE

COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY

PROVISION (CEP)

MISSION

To ensure that schools serve healthy meals, promote active lifestyles, and provide nutrition

education through the USDA’s Child Nutrition Programs.

VISION

Our vision is to help every student succeed through equal access to nutritious and sustainable

sources of food.

The Montana Office of Public Instruction (OPI) School Nutrition Programs administers eight

U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Child Nutrition Programs:

National School Lunch Program School Breakfast Program Afterschool Snack Program Special Milk Program Summer Food Service Program USDA Food Distribution Program Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Montana Team Nutrition Program

School Nutrition Programs reimburse schools and distributes USDA Foods for meals served to

children, teaches workshops for school personnel, ensures that schools implement federal

regulations, and provides nutrition education for students.

Montana Team Nutrition Program

Montana State University

PO Box 173370

Bozeman, MT 59717-3360

406-994-5641

Montana Office of Public Instruction


PO Box 202501

Helena, MT 59620 –2501

406-444-2501

CONTACT INFORMATION

MT Team Nutrition

TEAM NUTRITION PROJECT DIRECTOR KATIE BARK, RD, SNS

TEAM NUTRITION PROJECT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR MOLLY STENBERG, RD

FARM TO SCHOOL COORDINATOR AUBREE ROTH, MS

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT MARY ANN HARRIS

WELLNESS COACH—BILLINGS VIRGINIA LEE MERMEL, PhD, CNS

WELLNESS COACH—KALISPELL CHRISTY EWING

WELLNESS COACH —GLENDIVE JEANNE SEIFERT, RN


DIRECTOR CHRISTINE EMERSON, MS, RD

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TERESA MOTLAS, MS, RD

PROGRAM SPECIALIST—MISSOULA EMILY DUNKLEE

PROGRAM SPECIALIST —BOZEMAN TARA RAY, RD

PROGRAM SPECIALIST — HELENA CAMILLE MCGOVEN, RD

PROGRAM SPECIALIST — HELENA JILL GRIFFIN, RD

PROGRAM SPECIALIST — BILLINGS BROOKE SCHILLER, RD

DATA ANALYST ALIE WOLF

FOOD DISTRIBUTION MANAGER TESSA BAILLY, RD

CHILD NUTRITION EDUCATION TRAINER CINDY GIESE

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT CLAY HICKMAN

STAFF

VALUES

access

community

health

integrity

safety

support

—access—

FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE MEAL BENEFITS

In Montana, 67,541 students qualify for Free and Reduced-Price Meals.

DIRECT CERTIFICATION FOR FREE MEALS

Direct Certification is the process that identifies students already enrolled in other assistance programs

(SNAP, TANF, FDPIR, Foster, Homeless, Migrant, Runaway).

95 percent of students receiving SNAP benefits are directly certified to receive free meals at school.

COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY PROVISION (CEP)

Schools and districts with a high rate of Direct Certification are eligible to operate Community Eligibility Provi-

sion (CEP), which provides free meals to all students. Schools that elect to operate the CEP are reimbursed

for meals served based on their rates of Direct Certification.

96 percent of schools eligible for the CEP adopted the provision.

CIVIL RIGHTS IN SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

School nutrition programs are open to all children. School districts notify the public that they offer meals at

school on an annual basis, and personnel complete civil rights training each year.

—community—

FARM TO SCHOOL 40 percent of Montana school districts participate in Farm to School activities.

EQUIPMENT GRANTS 11 capital equipment grants of $5,000/each were provided to local schools by the OPI.

MEAL REIMBURSEMENT $46,011,609 for meals served in Montana schools.

SUPPORTING RURAL COMMUNITIES

Federal Child Nutrition Program funds support at least one food service job in 268 Montana communities.

School food service directors purchase foods from the local grocery stores and local producers.

—health—

SCHOOL WELLNESS POLICIES

All school districts are required by law to have an active School Wellness Policy that is assessed for effective-

ness once every three years. The policy gives the local population an opportunity to shape the school health

atmosphere. School staff, administration, school boards, parents, food service staff, and students should all

be involved in the development of the policy.

MEAL PATTERNS

100 percent of Montana school districts meet the menu pattern set by the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of

2010. All Montana students have access to more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

SMART SNACKS IN SCHOOLS

Smart Snacks in Schools ensure that foods sold during the school day meet healthy guidelines.

—integrity—

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews ensure school districts operate programs according to the rules set by Congress.

School Nutrition Programs completed 89 Administrative Reviews in 2016. This equals 1,068 hours spent

working one-on-one with district staff.

All school districts are reviewed every three years to ensure program integrity.

SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM REVIEWS

41 Summer Food Service Program Reviews completed = 121 hours spent working with

program sponsors.

All sponsors are reviewed every three years to ensure program integrity.

DIRECT CERTIFICATION GRANT

The Direct Certification Application (DCA) system is a software interface that matches students enrolled in

school with children receiving assistance from state agencies.

95 percent of students receive benefits from a means tested program

(SNAP, TANF, FDPIR, Homeless, Runaway, Migrant)

are directly certified for free meals at school.

VERIFICATION OF FREE/REDUCED MEAL BENEFITS

Free and reduced-price applications require annual verification of 3 percent of applications submitted.

In 2016, 204 LEAs completed verification.

—safety—

FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTIONS

Districts that serve food are licensed and inspected. USDA requests that school foodservice establishments

receive two inspections each year. State licensing provides one inspection.

417 report two inspections • 286 report one inspection • 116 report no inspection

USDA FOODS

School nutrition programs use foods supplied from American agricultural producers.

BUY AMERICAN PROVISIONS

Districts must purchase, to the maximum extent practicable, domestic commodities or products.

Solicitations, contracts, and product specifications must include Buy American language.

LOCAL MEAT USING USDA/STATE INSPECTED FACILITY

Districts may serve meat from local farmers and ranchers as long as it has been processed at a state or

federally inspected facility.

HAZARD ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL CONTROL POINT (HACCP) PLANS

Districts are required to implement a food safety program for the preparation and service of school meals.

SERVSAFE CERTIFICATION

Food service directors are certified food service protection managers. Each director attends an eight-hour

food safety training and completes a nationally recognized food safety exam every five years.

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

86 hours of continuing education provided by MT Team Nutrition Program

28 hours of continuing education provided by OPI School Nutrition Programs

REGIONAL OPI AND TEAM NUTRITION STAFF

OPI School Nutrition Programs and Team Nutrition have staff located around the state to better serve

Montana’s rural areas.

FREE AND REDUCED DATA

School districts use free and reduced-price meal data to qualify for a number of addition funding sources.

These include: E Rates, Title 1, and Grants.

—support—

Who has the picture with Chris in it?

STUDENTS

+

SCHOOL MEALS

= Success in the

School Day

DISTRICTS/

SPONSORS SITES

School Breakfast Program 226 728

National School Lunch Program 257 822

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program 116 177

Afterschool Snack Program 103 259

Special Milk Program 16 21

USDA Foods 255 —

Summer Food Service Program 97 220

MT Team Nutrition ALL ALL

PROGRAMS

5.8 MILLION BREAKFASTS SERVED

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM The School Breakfast Program provides reimbursement for breakfasts served to

students during the school day.

Reimbursement Rates

SY 15-16

Severe Need Regular

Free 1.99 1.66

Reduced 1.69 1.36

Paid 0.29 0.29

32,255 STUDENTS EAT BREAKFAST AT SCHOOL EACH DAY

88% of schools that offer lunch also OFFER BREAKFAST

2012 2016 Total Meals Served

Reimbursement Rates

SY 15-16

Severe Need Regular

Free 3.15 3.13

Reduced 2.75 2.73

Paid 0.37 0.35

13.5 MILLION LUNCHES SERVED

NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

75,093 STUDENTS EACH LUNCH AT SCHOOL EACH DAY

The National School Lunch Program provides reimbursement for lunches served to students during the school day.


45% of MT students qualify for

FREE /REDUCED meals

$55.87 ALLOTMENT PER STUDENT

$2 MILLION TOTAL FUNDS TO SCHOOLS

FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE PROGRAM The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program provides funds to elementary schools for

fresh fruit and vegetable snacks during the school day.

35,158 STUDENTS HAVE ACCESS TO FFVP

2012 2016 Total Amount Allocated to Schools

86% of eligible schools in poverty areas PARTICIPATE IN FFVP

Reimbursement Rates

SY 15-16

Area-Eligible Non-Area Eligible

Free 0.84 0.84

Reduced — 0.42

Paid — 0.07

626,395 AFTERSCHOOL SNACKS SERVED

AFTERSCHOOL SNACK PROGRAM

3,480 STUDENTS EAT A SNACK AFTER SCHOOL EACH DAY

The Afterschool Snack Program provides snacks to students in education and enrichment activities after school.

2012 2016 Total Snacks Served

Reimbursement Rates

SY 15-16

All Milk Paid Milk Free Milk

Pricing w/o Free 0.20 N/A N/A

Pricing w/ Free N/A 0.20 Average cost per 1/2

pint of milk

Non-Pricing 0.20 N/A N/A

SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM The Special Milk Program provides reimbursement for milk served at schools that do not offer

the National School Lunch Program or Summer Food Service Program.

78,035 PINTS OF MILK SERVED

2012 2016 Total Pints of Milk Served

17 SCHOOLS/CAMPS USE THE SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM

100%

of foods offered through USDA Foods/DOD

AMERICAN GROWN

$4.3 MILLION

ASSISTANCE TO SCHOOLS

USDA FOODS and DOD FRESH The USDA provides schools with USDA Foods and Department of Defense (DOD) Fresh Fruits

and Vegetables for use in preparing school meals.

3,436,532 POUNDS OF FOOD DISTRIBUTED TO MONTANA SCHOOLS

2012 2016 Total Entitlement Dollars

Did You Know….

On an average day, USDA Foods

make up between 15 and 20 percent

of the products served as part of a

school lunch.

71%

Reimbursement Rates

Summer 2016

Rural/Self-Prep Urban/Vended

Breakfast $2.1325 $2.0925

Lunch/Supper $3.7450 $3.6850

Snack $0.8875 $0.8650

SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM

53 NEW SITES OPERATING IN 2016

The Summer Food Service Program proves free meals to all kids, age 18 and under, during the summer months. No application needed—all kids have to do is show up!


MT Summer Meal

Sites Located At: SCHOOLS

PARKS

PUBLIC POOLS

LIBRARIES

HOUSING COMPLEXES

COMMUNITY CENTERS

630,449 MEALS SERVED

of MT counties have at least one SFSP SITE

MONTANA TEAM NUTRITION The Montana Team Nutrition Program provides professional development

opportunities and technical assistance on student wellness.

Team Nutrition Provided:

One-on-one nutrition consultations to 17 childcare centers/homes reaching 1,973 children.

Four regional Montana Cook Fresh workshops designed to train personnel on culinary techniques when using

fresh, whole foods.

Twelve workshops on behavioral economics cues (also called Smarter Lunchrooms) which are low cost, no cost

techniques to implement in school cafeterias to help nudge students to make healthier choices.

Four regional Serving Up Success: Standardized Recipes workshops designed to teach participants the benefits of

and steps to developing standardized recipes.

Fourteen nutrition education or farm to school workshops to educators or community health partners, or MT

FoodCorps serving members.

Three food safety workshops on School Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point to food service staff.

Initiated and providing support to maintain a Montana Chefs to Schools Network. This network of culinarians are

willing to partner on food service training opportunities or nutrition education for youth.

Nine district, regional or statewide presentations on the USDA’s school wellness policy or Smart Snack rule to

school staff, parents, and community partners.

Promoted the USDA’s free nutrition education curriculums to educators available from Team Nutrition Program

through five workshops and over 50 technical assistances.

In collaboration with Montana Department of Agriculture, developed a

“Montana Foods, What’s in it for you” poster designed to promote eating

a variety of Montana foods to teens.

86 HOURS OF CONTINUTING

EDUCATION PROVIDED

142,204 STUDENTS IMPACTED BY TEAM NUTRITION EFFORTS

http://opi.mt.gov/Programs/SchoolPrograms/School_Nutrition/SmarterLunchrooms.html

http://www.opi.mt.gov/pdf/SchoolFood/HealthyMT/16ChefstoSchoolsNetworkDirectory.pdf

http://opi.mt.gov/Programs/SchoolPrograms/School_Nutrition/SWellness.html

http://opi.mt.gov/Programs/SchoolPrograms/School_Nutrition/Lunch.html?tpm=1_2

https://pueblo.gpo.gov/TN/TNPubs.php

40% of

districts participate in FARM TO

SCHOOL efforts

$1,616,180 INVESTED IN LOCAL MT FOOD

MONTANA TEAM NUTRITION

9,453 STUDENTS @ SCHOOLS PARTICIPATING IN FARM TO SCHOOL

Montana Farm to School, a MT Team Nutrition effort, focuses on local

procurement, garden-based nutrition education and community connections

through agricultural partners.

Team Nutrition lead the annual Montana Crunch Time celebration of Food Day on October 26, 2015. This event was celebrated in 73 schools reaching over 28,000 students and over 2,600 adults. This event teaches youth fun educa-tional facts through the en-joyment of a Montana or regionally grown apple.

30 SITES

11 DISTRICTS

In collaboration with multiple partners, Team Nutrition developed and launched (June 2016) the Montana Harvest of the Month Program (MTHOM), which is a free, year-long nutrition education and promotion program featuring one Montana food a month. MTHOM materials include a poster, classroom, cafeteria and parent handout, and newsletter information. Se-cured funding from partners to print 1,000 sets of materials.

MTHOM materials reached over 1,800 students. Participants tried a Montana food in a meal or snack and/or participated in an educational activity. Through these fun, tasty, and educa-tional activities, students were able to try new recipes like kale chips, carrot salad, lentil/beef chili, and beet hummus! Sixty taste tests, 167 educational activities and 106 meals were served featuring a Montana food in the five month pilot phase.

— 2016 Pilot At —

Team Nutrition facilitates the Montana Farm to School Leadership Team. The team strengthens support for Farm to School as a successful strategy for improving chil-dren’s health. Secured a USDA Farm to School grant of $18,000 to support the 2016 Montana Farm to School Summit held in September 2016.T

http://www.montana.edu/mtfarmtoschool/mt-crunch-time.html

http://www.montana.edu/mtfarmtoschool/mt-crunch-time.html

http://www.montana.edu/mtharvestofthemonth/index.html

http://www.montana.edu/mtharvestofthemonth/index.html

http://www.montana.edu/mtfarmtoschool/leadership-team/index.html

THANK YOU

To Montana School Food Service Professionals,

Thank you for your dedication to the children in your community. You set the stage

for life-long learning and healthy living. You make a difference each and every day.

—OPI School Nutrition Programs

THANKS TO OUR PARTNERS

Montana Farm to School Leadership

YOU make a difference!

MONTANA SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016

INCOME

National School Lunch Program Meals $27,376,438

Afterschool Snacks $417,304

USDA Foods Entitlement $4,329,206

National School Lunch Program (lunches, snacks and commodities) $32,122,948

School Breakfast Program $9,140,080

Special Milk Program $16,140

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program $2,045,126

Summer Food Service Program $2,023,454

Total Federal Funding $45,347,748

Total State Matching Funds (minimum required by USDA policy) $663,861

Total Federal and State Funding

$46,011,609

EXPENDITURES

School Expenditures (food, labor, other) $57,715,498

Federal and State Reimbursement $46,011,609

Student, Adult Payments, General Fund, Other Sources $11,703,889

Revenues and Expenses

In accordance with Federal Civil Rights Law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its agencies, offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, age, or repris-al or retaliation for prior civil rights activity in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.), should contact the agency (state or local) where they applied for benefits. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, (AD-3027) found online at:http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint filine_cust.html,and at any USDA office, or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.

To request a copy of the complaint form, call 566-632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

(1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410;

(2) fax: 202-690-7442; or

(3) email: [email protected].

This institution is an equal opportunity provider.

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint%20filine_cust.html




VISIT:

opi.mt.gov/schoolnutrition

Want to learn more about

School Nutrition Programs in Montana?

ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE (Item 10)

Paul Andersen

ITEM 10

ASSESSMENT UPDATE

Jessica Eilertson

60Montana Board of Public Education Executive Summary

Date: January 2017

Presentation Assessment Update

Presenter Jessica Eilertson

Position Title State Assessment Director Office of Public Instruction

Overview The Office of Public Instruction will present an update on the Assessment Conference to the Montana Board of Public Education.

Requested Decision(s) Information Item



http://opi.mt.gov/

LICENSURE COMMITTEE (Items 11-15)

Tammy Lacey

ITEM 11

EDUCATOR LICENSURE REPORT

Kristine Thatcher


Date: January 2017

Presentation Educator Licensure Report

Presenter Kristine Thatcher

Position Title Licensure Unit Manager OPI

Overview Per ARM 10.57.101(3), the Office of Public Instruction provides an annual educator licensure report to the Board of Public Instruction.




10.57.101 REVIEW OF POLICY (1) By authority of Article X of the Montana Constitution and 20-4-102, MCA, the Board of Public Education exercises general supervision over the public school system and such other public educational institutions as may be assigned by law. By authority of 20-4-102, MCA, the Board of Public Education adopts rules for the issuance of educator licenses which are administered by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2) The board shall consider recommendations for revision of the rules at any time it deemsnecessary. Every five years the board shall conduct a comprehensive review of its licensurerules to ensure that such rules are meeting the needs of the state.(3) The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall provide an annual report to the Board of PublicEducation on the number of Montana educator licenses issued, licensure denials, number ofemergency authorizations of employment, and other relevant, available data pertaining torecruitment and retention of educators in Montana. (History: Mont. Const. Art. X, sec. 9, 20-4-102,MCA; IMP, Mont. Const. Art. X, sec. 9, 20-4-102, MCA; Eff. 4/21/75; ARM Pub. 11/25/77; AMD, 1986MAR p. 1305, Eff. 8/1/86; AMD, 1995 MAR p. 628, Eff. 4/28/95; AMD, 2002 MAR p. 3309, Eff.11/28/02; AMD, 2014 MAR p. 2930, Eff. 7/1/15; AMD, 2016 MAR p. 2330, Eff. 1/1/17.)

Date: 1/4/2017

Requested By: Kris Thatcher

Compiled By: Miriam Naiman-Sessions

Contact Information: [email protected]

444-6712Reviewed By:

OPI Internal Link to Data

Request Form:

Report Notes (source information, filtering criteria, location of work, etc.):

Request Description:


http://opi.mt.gov/

Endorsement Description 1 2 3 4A 4B 4C 5 7 8 Cl 6 PS Cl 6 SC NAgriculture (Class 1 or 2) 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Agriculture Business 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Agriculture Mechanics 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Arabic K-12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Art K-12 2 27 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0Assiniboine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Auto Body 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Automotive Technology 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Biology 2 17 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0Blackfeet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0Building Trades 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0Business Education (Broadfield) 5-12 4 9 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0Chemistry 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cheyenne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Chippewa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Computer and Information Sciences 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0Computer Information Systems 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0Crow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Drafting 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Drama 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Dual Credit Business Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0Dual Credit Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Dual Credit Dental Assistant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Dual Credit Only-Criminal Justice 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Early Childhood PK-3 3 14 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0Earth Science 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Economics 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0Electronics 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Elementary 56 347 0 0 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 0English as a second language K-12 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0English as a second language K-8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0English, Language and Literature 11 67 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0Family and Consumer Sciences 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0French 5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0French K-12 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Geography 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0German 5-12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0German K-12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Graphic Arts 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Health 5-12 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0Health Enhancement 5-12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Health Enhancement K-12 3 35 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0Health Professions -Therapeutics 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0History 4 34 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0Industrial Arts 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Industrial Technology Education 1 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Irish K-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Journalism 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Library K-12 4 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1Livestock Production 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Mandarin Chinese K-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0Mathematics 2 34 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 0Metals 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Middle Grades 4th-8th 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0Music K-12 6 34 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0Physical Education P-12 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Physics 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Plant Science 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Political Science 0 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0Principal K-12 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0Principal K-8 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0PSC Early Childhood 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Psychology 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0Reading K-12 10 47 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0Salish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0School Counselor 1 K-12 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0School Counselor 6 K-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 35 0School Psychologist 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 6 0 0Science (Broadfield) 4 21 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0Social Studies (Broadfield) 5 43 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0Sociology 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

Licence Count (by Class)

Spanish 5-12 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0Spanish K-12 1 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0Special Education PK-12 17 56 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0Special Education PK-8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Speech Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0Superintendent K-12 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0Theater 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Traffic Education 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0Welding 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Endorsement Description 1 2 3 4A 4B 4C 5 7 8 Cl 6 PS Cl 6 SC NAgriculture (Class 1 or 2) 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Agriculture Business 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Agriculture Mechanics 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Art 5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Art K-12 26 63 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2Assiniboine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Automotive Technology 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Biology 67 62 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Blackfeet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0Building Trades 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Business Education (Broadfield) 5-12 38 47 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9Chemistry 24 26 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0Cheyenne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0Computer and Information Sciences 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Computer Information Systems 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Cree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Crow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0Drafting 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0Drama 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Early Childhood PK-3 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 10Earth Science 15 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Economics 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Electronics 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Elementary 622 978 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 3English as a second language K-12 6 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0English as a second language K-8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0English, Language and Literature 123 134 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 7Environmental Education 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Family and Consumer Sciences 19 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7French 5-12 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0French K-12 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Geography 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0German 5-12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0German K-12 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Graphic Arts 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Gros Ventre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Health 5-12 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Health Enhancement 5-12 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Health Enhancement K-12 108 149 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5Health Enhancement K-8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Health K-8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Health Professions - Biotechnology 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Health Professions -Therapeutics 0 0 0 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Heavy Equipment Operator 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0History 85 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Industrial Arts 10 16 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Industrial Mechanics 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Industrial Technology Education 9 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Italian 5-12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Italian K-12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Journalism 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Latin K-12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Library 5-12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Library K-12 56 66 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 22Library K-8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Livestock Production 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Machining 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Marketing Education 5-12 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Mathematics 85 88 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4Music 5-12 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Music K-12 40 64 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0Music K-8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Native American Studies 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Physical Science 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Physics 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Plant Science 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Political Science 17 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Principal 5-12 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Principal K-12 0 0 251 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 11Principal K-8 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PSC Early Childhood 15 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PSC Gifted and Talented 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PSC Technology in Education 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Licence Count (by Class)

Psychology 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reading K-12 120 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Russian K-12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Salish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0School Counselor 1 K-12 75 15 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 7School Counselor 1 K-8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0School Counselor 6 K-12 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 1 72 0School Psychologist 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 24 1 0Science (Broadfield) 54 62 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5Small Engines 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Social Studies (Broadfield) 66 90 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Sociology 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spanish 5-12 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spanish K-12 19 35 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2Spanish K-8 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spec Education Supervisor PK-12 0 0 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Special Education 5-12 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Special Education PK-12 174 194 8 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 53Special Education PK-8 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Speech Communications 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Superintendent K-12 0 0 96 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12Supervisor 5-12 CTE 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Supervisor K-12 Curriculum 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Supervisor K-12 Reading 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Supervisor K-8 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Traffic Education 23 19 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Videography 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Welding 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

District Name

Emergency License Employees

Brockton Elem 1Browning Elem 1Butte Central High School 1Cut Bank Elem 1Dawson H S 1Deer Creek Elem 1Deer Park Elem 1Denton H S 1Geraldine K-12 1Glasgow K-12 Schools 1Hysham K-12 Schools 1Lambert Elem 1Lambert H S 1Lodge Grass Elem 1Lustre Christian High Schl 1Rosebud K-12 1Terry K-12 Schools 1Winnett K-12 Schools 1

Licence Count (by Class)Endorsement Description 0Biology 1

Elementary 3

Family and Consumer Sciences 1

Health Enhancement K-12 1

History 1

Industrial Technology Education 1

Mathematics 1

Music 5-12 1

Music K-12 4

School Counselor 1 K-12 3



Science (Broadfield) 2

Social Studies (Broadfield) 1

Endorsements 1 2 3 4A 5 6Music 1 0 0 0 0 0Upgrade 1 0 0 0 0 0Reading, English, Social Studies 1 0 0 0 0 0English, Art 1 0 0 0 0 0Elementary 2 1 0 0 0 0English, Social Studies 1 0 0 0 0 0Special Ed 1 0 0 0 0 0Spanish 0 1 0 0 0 0History 0 1 0 0 0 0History, Broadfield Scienc, Physics, Math 0 1 0 0 0 0History, Middle Grades 0 1 0 0 0 0Biology 0 1 0 0 0 0Superintendent K-12 0 0 1 0 0 0Elementary, Special Ed 0 0 0 0 1 0Livestock Production 0 0 0 1 0 0Health Professionals - Therapeutics 0 0 0 1 0 0Health and Science 0 0 0 1 0 0School Psychologist 0 0 0 0 0 1

Application Count by Class

ITEM 12

PROPOSED NEW CURRICULUM PROGRAM

IN COMPUTER SCIENCE PHYLLIS J.

WASHINGTON (PJW) COLLEGE OF

EDUCATION AND HUMAN SCIENCES,

UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA


Dr. Lisa Blank, University of Montana


January 2017

Presentation Proposed New Curriculum Program in Computer Science—Phyllis J. Washington (PJW) College of Education and Human Sciences

Presenter Linda Vrooman Peterson

Position Title Administrator Accreditation and Educator Preparation OPI

Overview The Office of Public Instruction provides a report to the Board of Public Education on the alignment of the computer science minor program to the related Professional Educator Preparation Program Standards. The PJW College of Education provided materials to the OPI including Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 10.58.528 Computer Science and ARM 10.58.802 New Curricular Programs. Dr. Lisa Blank, Professor of Science Education, will be available for comments and questions.



Recommendation(s) Discussion

Computer Science Requirements (Grades 5-12) - PROPOSED CURRICULUM

University of Montana

For an endorsement in the minor teaching field of computer science, a student must complete the courses in the minor teaching field listed below or demonstrate

course equivalency. NOTE: Teaching minors require completion of a teaching major in another field.

Computer Science MINOR Requirements

Course Titles Cr. Term Grade Approved Substitute Institution Credits Grade

CSCI 105 Computer Fluency 3

CSCI 135 Fundamentals of Computer Science I 3

CSCI 135 Fundamentals of Computer Science II 3

CSCI 232 Data Structures and Algorithms 4

CSCI 323 Software Science 3

ITS 150 CCNA1: Exploration 3

EDU 497 Teaching and Assessing Computer Science (5-12) 3

Total Credits 22

Name:

Student ID:

Institutional Report

Montana Office of Public Instruction ▪ Denise Juneau, Superintendent ▪ July 1, 2015

Contact Person – Linda Peterson 444-5726 or [email protected]

STANDARDS

10.58.528 COMPUTER SCIENCE TO BE COMPLETED BY THE INSTITUTION

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

TO BE COMPLETED BY VISITING TEAM

MET NOT MET

(1) The program requires that successful candidates:

This minor represents a collaborative effort among faculty in the departments of Computer Science (CS), Teaching and Learning (T&L, formerly C&I), and Missoula College. Students would need a secondary licensure teaching program through T&L or hold a current teaching license; most of the required content courses for the minor would be taught by the CS dept; Missoula College will teach two content courses and co-teach the T&L methods course. The minor is designed to prepare students to teach grades 5-12 Computer Science. Teaching minors require completion of a teaching major in another field. Program Requirements: 1. Grades below C- in professional

education courses or content courses will not be accepted in the teaching major or teaching minor. Teacher candidates must have a cumulative 2.75 GPA in teaching major and teaching minor courses to qualify for student teaching.

2. Complete the following required




STANDARDS

10.58.528 COMPUTER SCIENCE TO BE COMPLETED BY THE INSTITUTION PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT


courses: CSCI 105: Computer Fluency. (3) CSCI 135 & 136: Fundamentals of

Computer Science I & II. (6) CSCI 232: Data Structures and

Algorithms. (4) CSCI 323: Software Science (3) ITS 150: CCNA 1: Exploration (3)

EDU 497: EDU 497: Teaching and Assessing CS: 5-12 (3)

(a) demonstrate knowledge of computer science content, models, important principles, and concepts through:

Courses addressing this standard include the following:

CSCI 105: Computer Fluency CSCI 135: Fundamentals of Computer Science I CSCI 232: Data Structures and Algorithms

Candidates are assessed based on assignments such as:

quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects Additional typical assessments specific to teaching major:

unit development

(i) knowledge of, and proficiency in, the use of primitive data types;


CSCI 105: Computer Fluency CSCI 135: Fundamentals of Computer Science I


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

https://registrar.byu.edu/catalog/2012-2013ucat/departments/ComputerScience/CSTchgMinor.php






STANDARDS



CSCI 232: Data Structures and Algorithms projects

(ii) understanding of data representation;


CSCI 105: Computer Fluency CSCI 135: Fundamentals of Computer Science I CSCI 232: Data Structures and Algorithms


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects

(iii) knowledge of, and proficiency in, the use of static and dynamic data structures;


CSCI 232: Data Structures and Algorithms


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects

(iv) knowledge of, and proficiency in, the use of common data abstraction mechanisms (e.g., abstract and generic classes such as stacks, trees, etc.); and




quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects




STANDARDS



(v) effective use, manipulation, and explanation of external data stores – various types (text, images, sound) and various locations (local, server, cloud);


CSCI 105: Computer Fluency


quizzes

exams

homework

projects

(b) demonstrate knowledge of algorithm design, analysis, and implementation in an object-oriented programming language using data structures and abstract data types covering:




quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects

(i) algorithm problem solving techniques and strategies and design methodologies;




quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects

(ii) algorithm verification; Courses addressing this standard include the following:



quizzes

exams




STANDARDS



homework

labs

projects

(iii) algorithm complexity and efficiency; and




quizzes

exams

homework

lab

projects

(iv) knowledge of at least one of the programming languages, C++, Java, C#, or Ada, and one other current programming language and current programming language trends;


CSCI 135: Fundamentals of Computer Science I (Java) CSCI 232: Data Structures and Algorithms (Python)


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects

(c) demonstrate effective design, development, and testing of programs by:


CSCI 135: Fundamentals of Computer Science I CSCI 232: Data Structures and Algorithms 323


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects




STANDARDS



(i) using a modern high-level programming language; constructing correctly functioning programs involving simple and structured data types; using compound Boolean expressions; and sequential, conditional, iterative, and recursive control structures;


CSCI 135: Fundamentals of Computer Science I CSCI 232: Data Structures and Algorithms 323


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects

(ii) designing and testing programming solutions to problems in different contexts (i.e., textual, symbolic, numeric, graphic) using advanced data structures;


CSCI 135: Fundamentals of Computer Science I CSCI 232: Data Structures and Algorithms CSCI 323: Software Science


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects

essay

(iii) demonstrating knowledge of and skills regarding the syntax and semantics of two high-level programming languages other than those covered in (b)(iv), their control structures, and their basic data representation;


CSCI 105: Computer Fluency (HTML, CSS) EDU 497: Teaching and Assessing CS (RobotC)


quizzes

exams

homework

projects Additional typical assessments specific to




STANDARDS



teaching major:

leson/unit development

teaching philosophy

demonstrated teaching proficiency in field experience.

(iv) demonstrating knowledge of and skill regarding program correctness issues and practices (i.e., testing, test data design, and proofs of correctness);


CSCI 135: Fundamentals of Computer Science I CSCI 323: Software Science


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

essay

(v) demonstrating knowledge of and skill regarding at least three different program development environments in widespread use;


CSCI 105: Computer Fluency (Notepad), CSCI 135: Fundamentals of Computer Science I (Eclipse) CSCI 232: Data Structures and Algorithms (IDLE) EDU 497: Teaching and Assessing CS (RobotC)


quizzes

exams

homework

labs



teaching philosophy

demonstrated teaching




STANDARDS



proficiency in field experience.

(vi) demonstrating knowledge of and the ability to construct multi-threaded client-server applications;


CSCI 136: Fundamentals of Computer Science II


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

(vii) demonstrating knowledge of and the ability to construct web sites that utilize complex data bases;


CSCI 105: Computer Fluency


quizzes

exams

homework


unit development

(viii) demonstrating knowledge of and the ability to construct artificial intelligence and robotic applications; and


EDU 497: Teaching and Assessing CS

Assessments specific to teaching major:


teaching philosophy





STANDARDS



(ix) demonstrating knowledge of the principles of usability and human-computer interaction and be able to apply these principles to the design and implementation of human-computer interfaces;


CSCI 105: Computer Fluency CSCI 136: Fundamentals of Computer Science II CSCI 323: Software Science


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

essay Additional typical assessments specific to teaching major:

unit development Candidates are assessed based on assignments such as:

quizzes

exams

homework

labs

(d) demonstrate knowledge of computer systems and networks and be able to:

(i) describe the operation of a computer system, CPU and instruction cycle, peripherals, network components, and applications, indicating their purposes and interactions among them;


CSCI 105: Computer Fluency ITS 150: CCNA 1: Exploration


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects




STANDARDS



(ii) demonstrate an understanding of operating systems;


CSCI 105: Computer Fluency CSCI 135: Fundamentals of Computer Science I CSCI 136: Fundamentals of Computer Science II


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

(iii) demonstrate an understanding of computer networks; and


CSCI 105: Computer Fluency ITS 150: CCNA 1: Exploration


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects

(iv) demonstrate an understanding of the issues involved in building and fielding mobile services;





teaching philosophy


(e) demonstrate an understanding of software engineering and be able to demonstrate an understanding of:


CSCI 323: Software Science


quizzes

exams

project




STANDARDS



essay

(i) the difference between computer science and software engineering;




quizzes

exams

project

essay

(ii) software development methodologies and the software development life cycle; and




quizzes

exams

project

essay

(iii) the purpose and contents of the software engineering body of knowledge;




quizzes

exams

project essay

(f) demonstrate an understanding of the key concepts of computer/information security and be able to:


ITS 150: CCNA 1: Exploration


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects




STANDARDS



(i) demonstrate an understanding of the concept of ʺattack surfaceʺ and the various methods used to minimize an attack surface;




quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects

(ii) demonstrate an understanding of the importance of maintaining logs of all system activity related to security; and




quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects

(iii) demonstrate an understanding of the purpose and general functionality of a firewall;


ITS 150: CCNA 1: Exploration CSCI 105: Computer Fluency


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

projects

(g) demonstrate an understanding of the role computer science and software engineering plays in the modern world and be able to demonstrate an understanding of:




quizzes

exams

project




STANDARDS



essay

(i) significant historical events relative to computers and information systems;


CSCI 105: Computer Fluency EDU 497: Teaching and Assessing CS


quizzes

exams

homework



teaching philosophy


(ii) the social, ethical, and legal issues and impacts of computing and information systems;


CSCI 105: Computer Fluency CSCI 136: Fundamentals of Computer Science II CSCI 323: Software Science


quizzes

exams

homework

labs

(iii) the contributions that computer and information science and software engineering make to science, the humanities, the arts, commerce, and entertainment;




quizzes

exams

project

essay




STANDARDS



(iv) and ability to teach social issues related to the use of computers and information systems in society and the principles for making informed decisions including, but not limited to, security, privacy, intellectual property, equitable access to technology resources, gender issues, cultural diversity, differences in learner needs, limits of computing, and rapid change; and





teaching philosophy


(v) the many different careers that are closely related to the development and use of computer and information systems;





teaching philosophy


(h) demonstrate effective content pedagogical strategies that make the discipline comprehensible to students and:





teaching philosophy





STANDARDS



(i) design projects that require students to effectively describe computing artifacts and communicate results using multiple forms of media;





teaching philosophy


(ii) identify problematic concepts and constructs in computer science and appropriate strategies to address them; and


EDU 497: Teaching and Assessing CS CSCI 323: Software Science


quizzes

exams

seminar participation



teaching philosophy


(iii) promote and model the safe, effective, and ethical use of computer hardware, software, peripherals, and networks and develop digital




quizzes

exams




STANDARDS



citizenship. homework

labs

projects

(History: 20-2-114, MCA; IMP, 20-2-121, MCA; NEW, 1991 MAR p. 300, Eff. 3/15/91; AMD, 1992 MAR p. 1475, Eff. 7/17/92; AMD, 1994 MAR p. 2722, Eff. 10/14/94; AMD, 2000 MAR p. 2406, Eff. 9/8/00; AMD, 2007 MAR p. 190, Eff. 2/9/07; AMD, 2014 MAR p. 2936, Eff. 7/1/15.)




STANDARDS

10.58.802 APPROVAL OF NEW CURRICULAR PROGRAMS

TO BE COMPLETED BY THE INSTITUTION


MET NOT MET

(1) The provider may request the approval of a new curricular program by describing the purpose, need, and objectives of the program and the impact on P-12 education.

The Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Montana proposes to add a secondary computer science endorsement based on a computer science minor for two essential purposes: One: To meet the workforce preparation needs for the state of Montana. Computer science (CS) is often confused with broader technology education in schools. Rather, CS is the study of computing, programming and computation used in computing occupations such as software developer or data mining specialist, to name a few. Computing occupations are the number one source for all new wages in the U.S. and make up two-thirds of all projected new jobs in STEM fields, making CS one of the most in-demand college degrees. In Montana there are currently 560 open computing jobs (1.6 times the average demand rate in Montana) with an average salary of $62,649.00. This is significantly higher than the average salary in the state of $40,620. These high-tech businesses are located throughout the state with concentrations in Missoula and Gallatin counties. Attracting talent and hiring skilled employees is consistently reported as the largest impediment to faster growth for these businesses. Employment and revenues in high tech businesses are expected to be seven times the average statewide growth.




STANDARDS




MET NOT MET

In contrast, Montana graduated 105 computer science graduates in 2014. In 2016, only 9 high school students in Montana took the AP Computer Science exam. Only 3 schools in MT offered the AP Computer Science course in 2015-2016. This data illustrates the primary reason why a computer science endorsement is essential in Montana: We are not meeting the statewide demand for these many well-paying jobs. One important reason for this is because Montana lacks teachers equipped to teach the content. Currently there are no active computer science endorsement programs in Montana. Several institutions in the state offer a Business and Information Technology endorsement, but this preparation focuses on building teacher expertise in finance and business management, not computer programming. Teachers licensed in BITE are not equipped to offer computer programming classes. For example, in Missoula, there are 19 Business and Technology teachers on staff, but only one high school offers computer programming classes because only one high school employs a teacher with expertise in CS. Many of Missoula’s 19 BITE teachers as well as BITE teachers across MT have expressed keen interest in developing their programming expertise through a CS endorsement so they, too, are equipped to offer similar CS opportunities. A computer science endorsement would prepare middle and high school teachers to offer computer science courses in grades 5 –




STANDARDS




MET NOT MET

12. To illustrate, if even two of the current BITE teachers in Missoula completed a computer science endorsement, students in all three high schools could participate in a CS pathway. As well, research indicates that computer science classes offered during earlier stages of a students’ education build student interest and awareness of computer science career options as well as computing skills. This then creates a pipeline of incoming freshman committed to a major or career pathway in CS at two and four-year degree programs across Montana; ready for employment in the many high-paying CS jobs available in Montana. Two: Increase the number of individuals qualified to offer dual-enrollment CS courses. When looking at two-year colleges, a majority of computer science instructors lack licensure to provide dual-enrollment options for high school students. Dual enrollment opportunities provide strong incentives for high school students to participate in CS majors and career pathways. A computer science endorsement would increase the number of Missoula College instructors qualified to teach dual-enrollment CS courses.

(2) The provider:

(a) ensures that the program of study is based on current research, proven practice, and emerging trends in this field of P-12 school curriculum;

The CS endorsement requires participants to complete a CS minor as delineated below: CSCI 105: Computer Fluency. (3)




STANDARDS




MET NOT MET

CSCI 135 & 136: Fundamentals of Computer Science I & II. (6) CSCI 232: Data Structures and Algorithms. (4) CSCI 323: Software Science (3) ITS 150: CCNA 1: Exploration (3) EDU 497: EDU 497: Teaching and Assessing Computer Science 5-12 The CS minor outlined above includes a program of study that is aligned with required CS proficiencies outlined in 10.58.528 as well as national computer programming standards and the UM Department of Computer Science.

(b) works cooperatively with accredited school districts, education organizations, agencies, and P-20 stakeholders to design the program;

The CS endorsement represents a collaborative effort among faculty in the UM departments of Computer Science (CS), Teaching and Learning (T&L, formerly C&I), and Missoula College. The required content courses for the CS endorsement will be taught by the CS department and Missoula College faculty. The CS methods course will be co-taught by T&L faculty and Missoula College CS faculty. The endorsement is designed to prepare teacher candidates to teach grades 5-12 Computer Science by completing a teaching major in another field and a teaching minor in CS. Teachers holding a current teaching license are eligible to add the CS teaching endorsement to their current license.




STANDARDS




MET NOT MET

(c) implements, assesses, and evaluates the program’s impact on the identified P-12 needs;

Quality of instruction will be measured by online course evaluations each semester as well as through student surveys completed upon graduation and employer surveys that will be conducted to track the success of program graduates. Additionally, the program is designed to align with state and national accreditation requirements which include the identification of key assessments that will track student progress during the program as well as providing a measure for their impact on students learning upon completion of the program. Data regarding student performance and progress will be reported in annual accreditation reviews as well as through the next on-site state and national accreditation visit in 2020.

(d) submits regular and systematic reports of the program’s impact on P-12 education to the state superintendent and the Board of Public Education; and

The program is designed to align with state and national accreditation requirements which include the identification of key assessments that will track student progress during the program as well as providing a measure for their impact on student’s learning upon completion of the program. Data regarding student performance will be reported in annual accreditation reviews as well as through the next on-site state and national accreditation visit in 2020.

(e) updates and maintains program information on its Web page.

The UM Teaching and Learning webpage is reviewed and maintained by the Licensure and Assessment Manager, the Communications and Outreach Manager, and the Outreach and Fiscal Specialist in the PJW College of Education and Human Sciences. It is updated to reflect program changes and program outcome data as required by Title II and CAEP.

(3) The provider:




STANDARDS




MET NOT MET

(a) articulates initial or advanced candidatesꞌ learning expectations pursuant to ARM Title 10, chapter 58, subchapters 3, 5, 6, and 7;

Individuals pursuing the CS endorsement will seek admission to the Department of Teaching and Learning according to established licensure selection criteria. Candidates will be assessed on content knowledge via Montana’s multiple measure verification of content knowledge using content GPA, and an assessment during required clinical experiences. The endorsement is designed to align with state and national accreditation requirements which include the identification of key assessments that will track student performance and progress during the program as well as providing a measure for their impact on students learning upon completion of the program. Data regarding student performance and progress will be reported in annual accreditation reviews as well as through the next on-site state and national accreditation visit in 2020. UM submitted separate documentation and syllabi illustrating how the program will meet content specific standards 10.58.531.

(b) aligns learning expectations and outcome assessments to the program objectives;

UM submitted separate documentation and syllabi illustrating how the program will meet and assess specific standards 10.58.531.

(c) describes the professional learning process, plan, and timeline to prepare personnel;

The program is being launched Fall 2017. The program was carefully designed to address standards and to promote student learning through required clinical experiences and essential CS content. Course rotations have been developed to allow students to complete the program in 1-2 years depending on student preference for full or part-time enrollment. Students are required to collaborate with their advisor to develop a program plan that meets their timelines.




STANDARDS




MET NOT MET

(d) establishes assessment and evaluation systems to collect, analyze, use, and report initial or advanced candidate’s progress in the program;

UM currently maintains an assessment system in an Access Database to collect, analyze and report candidate performance and progress in the program. Systems are in place for the review of the data and data will be provided participating faculty for additional review and analysis.

(e) ensures that the program is supported by identifiable human and physical resources available to the program and resources not under the control of the institution shall be outlined and confirmed by the Board of Public Education;

The CS content coursework includes courses that are already offered at UM and/or Missoula College on a regular and rotating basis. The one new course required is Teaching and Assessing CS 5-12. This teaching responsibility will be shared by Missoula College and Teaching and Learning faculty. The course has been approved by ASCRC and faculty senate as well as the respective deans.

(f) creates a timetable that includes:

(i) the program's proposed implementation date; The UM Department of Teaching and Learning and the Department of Computer Science requested and received approval to offer the computer science endorsement and minor through UM Faculty Senate in Autumn 2016 and is seeking final approval from the Montana Board of Regents in spring 2017.

(ii) the sequence of activities that will occur; The endorsement will launch Autumn 2017.

(iii) selection and schedules of regular and systematic intervals of candidate and program evaluations; and

Program assessment will begin immediately utilizing the assessment system and course-based assessments currently in place. Data regarding student performance and progress in the will be reported in annual accreditation reviews as well as through the next on-site state and national accreditation visit in 2020. UM will also provide data to OPI as requested and required.




STANDARDS




MET NOT MET

(iv) the approximate date for submitting the program plan, timeline, and reports for program approval to the appropriate institutional officials and to the Superintendent of Public Instruction; and

UM submitted the proposals to CSPAC and BPE and are awaiting final approval by the BPE. Data regarding student performance and progress will be reported in annual accreditation reviews as well as through the next on-site state and national accreditation visit in 2020. UM will also provide data to OPI as requested and required.

(g) ensures that program evaluations have definite provisions for performance criteria and follow-up at specified intervals and the evaluations:

UM currently maintains an assessment system in an Access Database to collect, analyze and report candidate performance and progress in the program. Systems are in place for the review of the data and data will be provided to participating faculty for additional review and analysis. Data regarding student participation and progress will be reported in annual accreditation reviews as well as through the next on-site state and national accreditation visit in 2020. UM will also provide data to OPI as requested and required.

(i) align to initial or advanced standards pursuant to ARM Title 10, chapter 58, subchapters 3, 5, 6, and 7; and

Individuals pursuing the endorsement will seek admission to the Department of Teaching and Learning according to established licensure selection criteria. The program outcomes and standards align with Chapter 58.

(ii) ensure continuous program improvement by using data to inform decisions that provide positive impact on candidatesꞌ professional growth and on program development.

UM currently maintains an assessment system in an Access Database to collect, analyze and report candidate performance and progress in the program. Systems are in place for the review of the data and data will be provided to participating faculty for additional review and analysis.

(4) The provider shall establish and administer the program and designate the appropriate division, school, college, or department within the institution to act on all matters relating to such

The CS endorsement option is a program in the Department of Teaching and Learning within the PJW College of Education and Human Sciences at the University of Montana.




STANDARDS




MET NOT MET

program, according to general institutional policies.

(History: 20-2-114, MCA; IMP, 20-2-121 MCA; NEW, 1979 MAR p. 492, Eff. 5/25/79; AMD, 1984 MAR p. 831, Eff. 5/18/84; AMD, 2007 MAR p. 190, Eff. 2/9/07; AMD, 2014 MAR p. 2936, Eff. 7/1/15.)

The Montana Office of Public Instruction provides vision, advocacy, support, and leadership for schools and communities to ensure that all students meet today’s challenges and tomorrow’s opportunities.

Office of Public Instruction P.O. Box 202501

Helena, MT 59620-2501 406.444.3095 888.231.9393

406.444.0169 (TTY) opi.mt.gov

MEMORANDUM To: Montana Board of Public Education From: Linda Vrooman Peterson, Ph.D., Administrator Accreditation and Educator Preparation CC: BJ Granbery, Assistant Superintendent Timothy Tharp, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent Date: January 4, 2017

Re: Alignment of Computer Science Program Minor Requirements to Professional Educator Preparation Program Standards

The Phyllis J. Washington (PJW) College of Education and Human Sciences is seeking approval to offer a new curricular program in secondary education in computer science, an endorsement based on a computer science minor. The Office of Public Instruction (OPI) conducted an initial off-site review of the computer science minor program of study to verify the alignment of the computer science program to the Professional Educator Professional Program Standards (PEPPS). To accommodate the off-site review the PJW College of Education and Human Sciences provided sections of the institutional report that described how the educator preparation program addresses the requirements of the PEPPS 10.58.528 Computer Science and 10.58.802 New Curricular Programs. Initial Off-Site Review Findings:

• Computer Science minor program of study requirements and corresponding course syllabi directly align to the PEPPS 10.58.528.

• New Curricular Program requirements directly align to the PEPPS 10.58.802. Attached are the requisite sections of the PJW College of Education and Human Sciences’ institutional reports.

http://opi.mt.gov/

ITEM 13

PROPOSED NEW CURRICULUM PROGRAM

IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

PRESCHOOL THROUGH GRADE 3 –

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN

DEVELOPMENT, MONTANA STATE

UNIVERSITY BOZEMAN (MSU)


Dr. Christine Lux, MSU


Date: January 2017

Presentation Proposed New Curriculum Program in Early

Childhood Education and Child Services Preschool through Grade 3 (ECE and CS P-3) in the Department of Health and Human Development, Montana State University Bozeman (MSU).

Presenter Linda Vrooman Peterson Position Title Administrator

Accreditation and Educator Preparation OPI Overview This presentation provides the Board of Public

Education MSU’s proposed teaching endorsement option in ECE and CS P-3 by the College of Education, Health and Human Development. Dr. Christine Lux, Project Leader, will present MSU’s ECE andCS P-3 program option to the BPE. This is an information item.

Requested Decision(s) None Related Issue(s) None Recommendation(s) Information

http://opi.mt.gov/

Office of the Dean Alison Harmon 250 Reid Hall PO Box 172940 Bozeman, MT 59717-2940 Tel (406) 994-4133 Fax (406) 994-1854

College of

EDUCATION, HEALTH &

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

MEMORANDUM

TO: Linda Vrooman Peterson, Administrator Accredita on and Educator Prepara on Division Montana Office of Public Instruc on FROM: Dr. Alison Harmon, Interim Dean College of Educa on, Health & Human Development Dr. Chris ne Lux, Program Leader Early Childhood Educa on & Child Services RE: Early Childhood Educa on & Child Services P – 3 program op on and teaching endorsement DATE: December 6, 2016 Montana State University is seeking Board of Public Educa on approval to offer a P – 3 teaching endorsement as an op on of the Early Childhood Educa on & Child Services (ECE&CS) Bachelor of Science degree. The Department of Health & Human Develop-ment proposed and submi ed the degree op on to the Board of Regents and was ap-proved on 9/29/16. The degree op on is currently awai ng approval by NWCCU. The P – 3 teaching endorsement op on of the ECE&CS degree program is aligned to MSU’s teacher prepara on programs, closely following the exis ng K – 8 teaching en-dorsement program. Dr. Chris ne Lux has been working closely with faculty from the Department of Educa on on the MSU campus as well as with colleagues across the MUS system over the past two years to build a high quality academic program that meets the state’s educator licensure standards. As a co-author of ARM 10.58.531, Dr. Lux is well prepared to present MSU’s P – 3 program op on to the Board of Public Educa on. A full course lis ng of MSU’s ECE&CS P – 3 endorsement is a ached. The major consists of 120 credits, designed to prepare candidates for teaching careers in preschool through grade three se ngs. The P – 3 degree op on though ully combines coursework from Elementary as well as Early Childhood Educa on and has added two new courses to the curriculum. The planned start date for the degree is Summer 2017. Currently licensed and endorsed K – 8 teachers, as well as Head Start and private pre-school teachers, are expected to pursue the P – 3 endorsement to strengthen their knowledge base and pedagogical skills, thus improving outcomes for young children. The P – 3 endorsement is also a requirement of public preschool programs and the Mon-tana Preschool Development Grant. Montana State University is proud of its long standing commitment to teacher educa on and the prepara on of early childhood professionals through its Elementary Educa on and Early Childhood Educa on & Child Services degrees. Students pursuing the P – 3 endorsement will be held to the established and rigorous standards of MSU’s Teacher Educa on Program, and will contribute assessment data to annual reports that demon-strate our excellence in teacher prepara on.

Early Childhood Education & Child Services P – 3 Option

Freshman Year Credits

EDU101US Teaching and Learning 3 WRIT101W College Writing I 3 IN Core 3 Choose one: NASX105D, NASX205D, or NASX232D

Native American Studies 3

Choose one: HSTA101IH or HSTA102IH American History 3 M132 Numbers & Operations for K – 8 Teachers 3 M133Q Geometry & Measurement for K – 8 Teachers 3 SOCI101IS Introduction to Sociology 3 EDU222IS Ed Psych & Child Development 3 EDEC160 Early Childhood Development 3 Sophomore Year Credits

NUTR221CS Basic Human Nutrition 3 EDU204IA Arts and Lifelong Learning 3 EDU211D Multicultural Education 3 STEM elective 3 EDU370 Integrating Technology in Education 2 FCS263 Relationships and Family Systems 3 EDEC288 Signing for Early Childhood Educators 3 EDEC271 Early Childhood Paraprofessional 2 EDEC253 Health and Movement in Early Childhood 3 Supporting courses / electives 6 Junior Year Credits

EDEC350 Play and Learning in Early Childhood 3 EDEC385 Integrated Curriculum in Early Childhood 3 EDEC430 Social Emotional Development 3 EDEC450 Literacy in Early Childhood 3 EDEC455 P‐3 English Language Arts and Social Studies 3 EDU330 Emergent Literacy 3 EDSP306 Exceptional Learners 3 EDSP307 Exceptional Learners Lab 1 FCS371 Research Methods in HHD 3 EDU382 Assessment, Curriculum, and Instruction 3 EDU395 Practicum I 3 Senior Year Credits

FCS455R Program Planning and Administration 3 EDEC453 P‐3 STEAM 3 EDSP458 Assessment & Intervention 4 EDU438 Literacy Assessment, Diagnosis, and Instruction 3 EDU395 Practicum II 3 EDU495 Student Teaching 12 Total Credits 120

ACTION

ITEM 14

APPROVAL OF FROM: VERIFICATION OF

ADMINSTRATIVE EXPERIENCE

Kristine Thatcher


Date: January 2017

Presentation Board of Public Education amended administrative rules in Title 10, chapter 57 related to educator licensure which will be effective January 1, 2017. NEW ARM 10.57.413 states: “(4) An applicant for a Class 3 administrative license who completed an educator preparation program which does not meet the definition in ARM 10.57.102(2), who is currently licensed in another state at the same level of licensure, may be considered for licensure with verification of five years of successful administrative experience as defined in ARM 10.57.102 as documented by a recommendation from a state accredited P-12 school employer on a form prescribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and approved by the Board of Public Education. The requirements of ARM 10.57.414(1)(c)(i-iii) must be met by an applicant seeking a superintendent endorsement.”

Presenter Kristine Thatcher

Position Title Licensure Unit Manager OPI Overview Draft Form is attached. Requested Decision(s) Related Issue(s) None. Recommendation(s) Approval of form.

http://opi.mt.gov/

D R A F T Montana Application for Class 3 Administrative License Endorsement Supplement 01/01/17

Verification of Administrative Experience

At a State Accredited P-12 School (ARM 10.57.413)

Applicant Information, Please Print: Last Name First Name MI or Maiden

Mailing Address City and State Zip Code

Last Four Digits of SSN Former Name(s) The following information is to be completed by the School District, please note:

• This document must be signed by the School Board Chair or equivalent. • The employment history must cover a consecutive, successful five-year work history. • When completed and signed by appropriate official, please mail this form to:

Montana Office of Public Instruction, PO Box 202501, Helena, MT 59620-2501 ATTN: Licensure School District Information, Please Print: School Board Chair’s Name School District School District Address City and State Zip Code Was this school state accredited during the time of applicant’s tenure? o Yes o No

Was the licensure applicant employed as a licensed and appropriately assigned superintendent in your school? o Yes Employed from: ____________________ to: ______________________ o No (month/year)

Full time? o Yes o No

Part time? If “Yes”, FTE Equivalent? o Yes (i.e. .25 for ¼ time) __________________ o No

I verify that the work experience and eligibility for licensure information provided on pages 1 and 2 of this document is correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature: ____________________________________________________________________________ Printed Name and Title: _________________________________________________________________ Date: ____________ Email Address: ___________________________ Phone: ___________________

Montana Application for Class 3 Administrative License Endorsement Supplement, Page 2

Evidence of Eligibility for Licensure and Endorsement The applicant must demonstrate successful experience as outlined by the following criteria:

Please describe the evidence of applicant’s skills and qualifications in meeting the required criteria:

Verification by Board Chair or Official Designee: Evidence has been verified and found to be acceptable: Yes (initial)

No (please explain)

Ability to support learning environments that encourage creativity, critical thinking, individual and collaborative learning, and that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self- motivation.

Understanding and supportive of a variety of instructional and assessment strategies to encourage learners to develop understanding of content areas and to build skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.

Understanding and supportive of individual differences and diverse cultures with an ability to integrate history, culture and heritage.

ITEM 15

BPE CASE #2016-08 REQUEST FOR LICENSE

SUSPENSION

Kristine Thatcher, OPI

ACCREDIATION COMMITTEE – (Items 16-18)

Erin Williams

ITEM 16

RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE

REVISIONS TO INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE

PROCESS

Dr. Linda Vrooman Peterson


Date: January 2017

Presentation Recommend Approval of the Revisions to

Intensive Assistance Process Presenter Linda Vrooman Peterson Position Title Division Administrator OPI Overview This presentation provides the Board of

Public Education (BPE) proposed revisions of the Intensive Assistance Process. These revisions are based on the discussion of the BPE at the November 2016 meeting. This is an action item.

Requested Decision(s) Action Related Issue(s) None Recommendation(s) Approve the Revisions to Intensive Assistance

Process.

http://opi.mt.gov/

Montana Office of Public Instruction • 1/4/2017 Page 1

INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE PROCESS The Office of Public Instruction (OPI) works with schools and districts to resolve deviation issues without further actions by the Board of Public Education (BPE). Schools that have serious and/or continuing deviations are in Deficiency status and are expected to develop and implement a corrective plan to remedy the deviations which resulted in the Deficiency status. Schools failing to implement the corrective plan are placed in Intensive Assistance. This process represents the final effort to resolve the school's significant accreditation issues. The school's lack of response to Intensive Assistance can result in a recommendation from the Superintendent of Public Instruction to the Board of Public Education (BPE) to move the school to Non-Accreditation status. Section 20-9-344, MCA, gives the BPE the authority to withhold distribution of state equalization aid when the district fails to submit required reports or maintain accredited status. Administrative Rules of Montana 10.67.102 and 10.67.103 establish the procedures and hearing schedules as adopted by the BPE. Schools in Advice and Deficiency status are expected to develop and implement a written corrective plan to remedy unresolved deviations. If a school remains in Advice accreditation status for two years and has not developed or implemented an approved written corrective plan, or continues to have serious and/or continuing deviations, the school may be placed in Deficiency accreditation status. For schools in Deficiency status failing to develop or implement a written corrective plan, the BPE will consider placing the school in Intensive Assistance on the recommendation of the state superintendent. INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE—STEP 1 The Superintendent of Public Instruction recommends and the BPE places school(s) in Intensive Assistance. The OPI staff conducts an on-site visit with the local Superintendent and Board Chair. The OPI assists with development of a corrective plan. provides technical assistance to the local board chair and superintendent OPI and assists development of a the written corrective plan. If the meeting results in a corrective plan, the Superintendent of Public Instruction recommends that the BPE approve or disapprove the plan. The local board chair and superintendent are required to submit a written corrective plan to the OPI outlining the district’s plan to resolve the deviations. The state superintendent will recommend the BPE take action on the written corrective plan as presented by the OPI.

• If the plan is approved by the BPE, the school remains in Intensive Assistance—STEP 1 until the corrective plan is fully implemented within the designated timeline and the BPE approves regular accreditation status for two consecutive years.

• If there is no written plan or the plan is not approved by the BPE, the Chair of the Board of Trustees and local superintendent are required to appear before the BPE. In addition, the local superintendent is required to inform district parents of the required appearance, the BPE moves the school(s) to STEP 2 of the Intensive Assistance Process. the BPE may consider action to move the school to STEP 2 of Intensive Assistance.


INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE—STEP 2 If meeting with the BPE results in a plan, the State Superintendent will make a recommendation to the BPE to approve or disapprove the plan, If no plan results from the meeting, or the plan is not approved, the school will be moved to STEP 3 of the Intensive Assistance Process. The BPE notifies the local board chair and superintendent of the date, location, and time for the presentation to the BPE. The local board chair and superintendent will submit the revised written plan to the OPI and present to the BPE the written corrective plan describing the strategies and timeline demonstrating how the school district will comply with the Standards of Accreditation. Following the presentation, the state superintendent will recommend approval or disapproval of the plan to the BPE.

• The local board chair and superintendent are required to inform district parents in writing of the required appearance. Verification of this notice will be provided to the OPI.

• If the plan is approved by the BPE, the school remains in Intensive Assistance—STEP 2 until the corrective plan is fully implemented and the BPE approves regular accreditation status for two consecutive years.

• If the school demonstrates improvement on the current deviation(s), the BPE may consider continued STEP 2 Intensive Assistance with annual written reporting of progress.

• If no written plan is presented or the plan is not approved, the BPE will consider action to move the school to STEP 3 of Intensive Assistance.

INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE—STEP 3 The Superintendent of Public Instruction makes the first motion to the BPE The BPE will consider the state superintendent’s recommendation for first consideration of the motion to place the school in a Nonaccredited status effective the following July 1. If the BPE approves the motion, the School Board is notified the local board chair and superintendent are notified of the right to appeal at a hearing before the BPE. INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE—STEP 4 Following the appeal hearing, the BPE takes action on a second consideration of the motion to place the school in a Nonaccredited status the following July 1. BPE takes final action to place the school in Non-Accredited status. Section 20-9-344, MCA, gives the BPE authority to withhold distribution of state equalization aid when the district fails to summit required reports or maintain accredited status. A school designated as Nonaccredited by BPE action may seek reinstatement by complying with the specific BPE Administrative Rules of Montana listed below. ARM 10.55.605 CATEGORIES OF ACCREDITATION ARM 10.55.605(1) Regular accreditation means the school has met the assurance standards and student performance standards as defined in ARM 10.55.606 and the Licensure Endorsement Requirements Related to Teaching Assignments.


ARM 10.55.605(10) A school seeking initial accreditation or reinstatement of accreditation shall meet the requirements of regular accreditation outlined in (1). This process shall include an on-site review from the Office of Public Instruction. In addition to designating the school Nonaccredited, Section 20-9-344 of Montana Code Annotated gives the BPE the authority to withhold distribution of state equalization aid when the district fails to submit required reports or maintain accredited status. Pursuant to ARM 10.67.103(5) Prior to any proposed order by the board of public education to withhold distribution of state equalization aid or county equalization money, the district is entitled to a contested case hearing before the board of public education.


INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE PROCESS The Office of Public Instruction (OPI) works with schools and districts to resolve deviation issues without further actions by the Board of Public Education (BPE). Schools in Advice and Deficiency status are expected to develop and implement a written corrective plan to remedy unresolved deviations. If a school remains in Advice accreditation status for two years and has not developed or implemented an approved written corrective plan, or continues to have serious and/or continuing deviations, the school may be placed in Deficiency accreditation status. For schools in Deficiency status failing to develop or implement a written corrective plan, the BPE will consider placing the school in Intensive Assistance on the recommendation of the state superintendent. INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE—STEP 1 The OPI staff provides technical assistance to the local board chair and superintendent and assists development of the written corrective plan. The local board chair and superintendent are required to submit a written corrective plan to the OPI outlining the district’s plan to resolve the deviations. The state superintendent will recommend the BPE take action on the written corrective plan as presented by the OPI.


• If there is no written plan or the plan is not approved by the BPE, the BPE may consider action to move the school to STEP 2 of Intensive Assistance.

INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE—STEP 2 The BPE notifies the local board chair and superintendent of the date, location, and time for the presentation to the BPE. The local board chair and superintendent will submit the revised written plan to the OPI and present to the BPE the written corrective plan describing the strategies and timeline demonstrating how the school district will comply with the Standards of Accreditation. Following the presentation, the state superintendent will recommend approval or disapproval of the plan to the BPE.

• The local board chair and superintendent are required to inform district parents in writing of the required appearance. Verification of this notice will be provided to the OPI.


• If the school demonstrates improvement on the current deviation(s), the BPE may consider continued STEP 2 Intensive Assistance with annual written reporting of progress.

• If no written plan is presented or the plan is not approved, the BPE will consider action to move the school to STEP 3 of Intensive Assistance.


INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE—STEP 3 The BPE will consider the state superintendent’s recommendation for first consideration of the motion to place the school in a Nonaccredited status effective the following July 1. If the BPE approves the motion, the local board chair and superintendent are notified of the right to appeal at a hearing before the BPE. INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE—STEP 4 Following the appeal hearing, the BPE takes action on a second consideration of the motion to place the school in a Nonaccredited status the following July 1. A school designated as Nonaccredited by BPE action may seek reinstatement by complying with the specific BPE Administrative Rules of Montana listed below. ARM 10.55.605 CATEGORIES OF ACCREDITATION ARM 10.55.605(1) Regular accreditation means the school has met the assurance standards and student performance standards as defined in ARM 10.55.606 and the Licensure Endorsement Requirements Related to Teaching Assignments. ARM 10.55.605(10) A school seeking initial accreditation or reinstatement of accreditation shall meet the requirements of regular accreditation outlined in (1). This process shall include an on-site review from the Office of Public Instruction. In addition to designating the school Nonaccredited, Section 20-9-344 of Montana Code Annotated gives the BPE the authority to withhold distribution of state equalization aid when the district fails to submit required reports or maintain accredited status. Pursuant to ARM 10.67.103(5) Prior to any proposed order by the board of public education to withhold distribution of state equalization aid or county equalization money, the district is entitled to a contested case hearing before the board of public education.

ITEM 17

RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE

INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE TIMELINE

Nathan Miller


January 2017

Presentation Recommend Approval of the Revised Intensive

Assistance Timeline Presenter Nathan Miller Position Title Accreditation Data Specialist OPI Overview This is an action item. The presentation

provides the BPE the revised intensive assistance timeline.

Requested Decision(s) Action Related Issue(s) None Recommendation(s) Approve the revised Intensive Assistance Timeline

http://opi.mt.gov/

DRAFT Intensive Assistance Process Timeline

Montana Office of Public Instruction - www.opi.mt.gov 12/8/16

- March 2017 BPE – Action on recommendation

- November 2017 BPE – OPI reports CSIP/TEAMS status

- March 2018 BPE – Action on recommendation

- April 2018 – Step 2 Schools submit written corrective

plans to OPI for review

- *May 2018 BPE - Schools present written corrective

plans to the BPE


- March 2019 BPE – Action on recommendation for

schools in Step 2 that have shown improvement.


- March 2019 BPE – Action on recommendation for

schools in Step 2 that have not shown improvement.

- May 2019 BPE – School appeals, BPE action for

following July 1.

- July 1, 2019 – Nonaccredited status

Nonaccredited Status

School is in a nonaccredited status the following July 1.

Step 4

If school appeal is not approved, BPE takes action to place school in nonaccreditated status following July 1.

Step 3

State Superintendent recommends school placed in nonaccredited status following July 1. BPE approve or denies.

Step 2 With Improvement

School remains in this step as long as improvement is demonstrated.

Step 2

School appears before BPE with written corrective plan. BPE approves or denies plan.

Step 1

State Superintendent recommends BPE place school in I.A.

*If School fails to attend or written corrective plan is not approved, BPE can take immediate action for Nonaccredited

Status as school “fails to meet the requirements of intensive assistance and is out of compliance with the Board of

Public Education standards of accreditation.” ARM 10.55.605(9); 20-9-344, MCA.

DISCUSSION

ITEM 18

VERIFICATION OF STEP 2 INTENSIVE

ASSISTANCE PARENTAL NOTIFICATION

LETTER TEMPLATE

Patty Muir


Date: January 2017

Presentation Verification of Step 2 Intensive Assistance

Parental Notification Sample Letter Template Presenter Patty Muir, M.Ed. Position Title Accreditation Program Director OPI Overview This presentation provides the Board of Public

Education a sample letter template for the parental notifications from schools in Step 2 of the Intensive Assistance process.

Requested Decision(s) None Related Issue(s) None Recommendation(s) Information/Discussion

http://opi.mt.gov/

Date

Name of School Address of School Subject: Notice of Intensive Assistance Placement Dear Parent or Guardian: The Office of Public Instruction (OPI) Accreditation and Educator Preparation Division works with schools to resolve deviation issues without further actions by the Board of Public Education (BPE). Schools that have serious and/or continuing deviations are in Deficiency status and are expected to develop and implement a written corrective plan to remedy the deviations which resulted in the Deficiency status. Schools failing to implement the corrective plan are placed in Intensive Assistance. This step requires that the district superintendent and the local board of trustees chair appear before the Board of Public Education with a written corrective plan and inform parents of the required BPE appearance. The scheduled board appearance was held on (date). Name and Name attended the meeting. ___Name__________ School has been placed in Step 2 of the Intensive Assistance Process due to the following deficiencies: We will continue to correct this situation and strive to bring this school into compliance with all accreditation standards. With the help of OPI, we are confident that the development of the corrective plan, to identify solutions, will result in an approved accreditation status. Please call our office if you have any questions or comments about this letter. Sincerely, ____________________________________ ________________________________ Board Chair Signature Title ____________________________________ ________________________________ Superintendent Signature Title ____________________________________ ________________________________ Telephone Number Email 12/16/2016

MSDB LIAISON – (Items 19 - 20)

Mary Jo Bremner

ITEM 19

MSDB REPORT

Donna Sorensen

Board of Public Education – MSDB Report: January 20, 2017

Agenda Item Notes

Superintendent Report And Legislative Information

Legislative Report: While things change on a daily and sometimes hourly basis during the legislative session, at the time of this report, we have no additional cuts for this fiscal year 2017 as defined in HB 3. For the FY 2018 and FY 2019, we have approximately $360,000 in reduced appropriations for each year. We will be working with the Governor’s budget office to keep current funding if we are able to find people to hire for positions that have been open all year. Listening Sessions: We had a second listening session where we shared updates on progress made from the first listening session. This session went very well. These sessions keep us on track and moving forward. Staff Legislative Updates: Donna Schmidt and I plan to have mini-sessions after each visit to Helena to share with staff where we are in the legislative and budgeting process. At our second listening session, we shared with staff our plan for continuing to ask for salary parity. After a few conversations and meetings with the Governor’s Budget Office and with Legislators and facing upcoming budget cuts, our plan has changed to advocating keeping our current funding levels. We shared this change of direction with staff.

Student Enrollment and Evaluations

Report:

We currently have no students in a 10-day observation period. We are gathering documents

for several referrals.

Human Resources

Open Positions and Hiring: 1. Teacher of the Deaf: Two positions are open and interviews are in process. 2. Teacher of the Blind: Interviewed applicants. Waiting for budget information before

proceeding. 3. Substitute Paraeducator: Applicants have been screened and interviews soon. 4. Substitute Teachers: Applicants have been screened and interviews will be set up. 5. Para-Educator: Ashley Pike, who has worked as a para-educator in the deaf

department for several years, has resigned her position to be at home with a new baby. We will miss her terribly. Her position will soon be posted.

6. Interpreter (part time): Kathleen Rockeman has been hired. 7. Food Services Worker – no qualified applicants to date 8. ASL Mentor: Interviews conducted on Friday, Jan 13. 9. Cottage Life Attendant will be open soon. Deb Brinka retired as Lead Houseparent of

Shoshone. We moved Dorothy Nutter from Rising Sun to Shoshone as Lead Houseparent. Amy Crachy was hired as Lead Houseparent for Rising Sun leaving her Cottage Life Attendant position vacant.

Education Program

Report: Curriculum: A 25-user site license of IXL online has been purchased to support math, language arts, science and social studies. We have also renewed a license to Unique Learning System for our special needs learners. Dr. Clifford, the curriculum coordinator, has been working with various teachers to review curriculum materials and resources. GTCC: Jennifer Briggs, Guidance Counselor, is participating on the GTCC Counseling & Guidance curriculum committee while Lace Konkler is participating on the reading committee. Student related: Numbers have remained steady. Activities completed:

Students have completed fall MAP testing.

VI students celebrated White Cane Day by traveling off campus via the Great Falls Transit to explore the new Super One store. Students also made small purchases while there.

Students enjoyed our Halloween activities which included Red Ribbon days and talent show.

12 high school students (with 5 staff members) attended the My Transition Conference in Helena.

Students voted on what they would like to be recognized for during our celebration

assemblies. 1st place was citizenship (working hard, helping others and being respectful), 2nd place was grades and 3rd was attendance. Our first celebration with the new recognitions will be at the beginning of second semester.

Students enjoyed an IEFA activity with the Great Falls High Indian Education class. Students were thrilled to drum!

DHH students celebrated Gallaudet & Clerc Day by participating in sign language and deaf culture stations.

Performing groups have begun holiday performances.

On the way to My Transition Conference Enjoying a meal at the My Transition Conference

Superheroes are among us!

Student presentation

Middle school life skills class making cupcakes.

Exploring careers: 5th St. Diner (left)

Reduce, Reuse & Recyle! (right)

Outreach Program

Report:

The first week on November, a Deaf/Hard of Hearing Consultant presented on MSDB Services and needs of deaf students to 100 Education Majors on the MSU campus. November11-12th, Teachers of Visually Impaired and VI Outreach Consultants held the Visually Impaired Enrichment Weekend (VIEW) at MSDB Campus. Thirty kids participated in activities Friday and twenty two on Saturday. Activities included Showdown (blind ping pong), Goalball (Paralympic sport for blind), Skype with Rio Paralympic Silver Medalists in Goalball, Beeper kickball, Various Classroom activities including Braille, Math, Cooking and Lifeskills. And the main event: Expanded Core Curriculum Carnival! Two DHH Outreach Consultants abstracts have been approved to present: Amplification Use at the National Early Hearing & Detection Intervention (EHDI) Conference in Atlanta next year. VI Consultants are working on an updated brochure of Orientation and Mobility Services. They will present this information at MCEC and offer it to CSPD regions. DHH Consultants will present on Sign language at MCEC. DHH Outreach Consultant put on a Workshop for parents of deaf babies and deaf parents of hearing babies called Mapping Our Resources in conjunction with the Child Development Center (CDC) Missoula. Nine parents, twelve professionals and thirteen children attended. Parents were appreciative of materials and getting a chance to meet one another. All

parents live in the Missoula area. Both DHH and VI Consultants are working in collaboration with the Deafblind Project on Student Learning Plans throughout the state. Looking at creating sensory specific learning projects for the Teacher Learning Hub (OPI). Up next month: Paralympic Experience for the Blind in Kalispell

Student Services Program Report:

The cottages are full of Christmas lights, snowmen and many other holiday decorations.

This is perhaps the best time of year for the students and staff in the cottage program as

there are so many different activities happening.

Our Thanksgiving Formal dinner was held on Sunday, November 20th. The dinner was well

attended. This was Richard Aguon (the new Food Service Manager, who is also Lead CLA a

couple days a week) first formal dinner – Maeona had basically set up the Easter Formal

Dinner before she retired. There were new staff and their families as well as many other

staff. Shawn Tulloch of the MSDB Foundation (and a Voc Rehab Counselor for the Deaf and

Hard of Hearing) attended and she had fun visiting with the students. The dinner was a

success.

Upon returning from Thanksgiving break it has been all about the holidays.

The Cottage Student Council has purchase items for the Lewis and Clark Elementary School

Food Pantry. The Cottage Student Council has several fundraisers during the year and felt

purchasing food items for their “pantry” would be a good way to give back to our local

community.

On December 2nd the students attended the annual Great Falls Christmas Stroll. While the

stroll was not as busy as previous years, the students enjoyed the lights, displays and upon

returning had hot chocolate and cookies.

December 13th will be the Cottage Christmas Open House. This will be held from 3:30 until

about 4:30 and is open to the public. This is an opportunity for the students to share their

home with others and also showcase their Christmas decorating spirit! Students will also

prepare some goodies for the folks touring the cottages.

Each cottage wing will have their own Christmas party and gift exchanges. The students

plan the party and each wing is a bit different. The MSDB Foundation helps provide funding

for the food for these parties.

December 17th the MSDB Cookie Decorating Party in the dining room at 1:00 PM. This is

open to all MSDB students, their families, staff and their families. This is our main MSDB

Christmas party.

December 18th is the Expressions of Silence Holiday Fundraiser performance at 2:00 PM in

the Mustang Center – this will get you in the holiday mood. Later that day is the Christmas

Formal Dinner at 5:00 PM in the Cottage Dining Room. Invitations have been sent out and

folks have been RSVP’ing.

Tuesday, December 20th the cottages will have their annual dinner out at the Golden Corral.

The MSDB Foundation is very gracious and provides the funding for this activity.

Wednesday, December 21st is the Christmas Program at 1:00 PM in our Mustang Center.

Debbie Brinka, a long term MSDB employee and current Lead CLA with the older girls will

be retiring and not returning after the Christmas break. She has done a wonderful job and

has been an excellent employee. She is retiring to spend more time with her husband

whose medical condition is requiring more time from Deb. We will miss her very much!

Students travel on the 22nd of December and will return January 2nd with school starting on

January 3rd.

Safety and Facilities Safety Report: We continue to work on employee and school safety. We are developing flowcharts for actions to follow after an event has happened. The safety committee continues to meet monthly.

Facilities Report: We are struggling again with our pool. Because we do not have a certified lifeguard, the pool has been “closed.” The paint continues to be inadequate and is peeling or flaking off of the liner. We are working with a couple of companies trying to address this problem. We are also still struggling with our heating system in the Mustang Center. There are ports that are not talking properly to each other. Josh Rutledge, Network Manager and Donna Schmidt, Business Manager are talking to the company involved. This company is needing to rewrite the programming behind the system and this is in progress.

Budget and Finance See attached report.

MSDB Foundation Report MSDB Foundation

We have two members who are resigning – Bob Norbie and Shannon Hoiland. Both Bob and Shannon have done a wonderful job of pushing projects and ideas forward. I want to thank them for their time and energy serving on the Foundation board. We know they will continue to support MSDB in the community! Our next meeting is January 16, 2017.

School Calendar of Events January 13 – Travel home

January 16 – No School, Travel return, Foundation Board Meeting

January 20 – Ski Day (weather permitting)

January 24 – Dental Screenings

January 26 – Ice Fishing Field Trip

February 4 – EIPA Interpreter Videoconference Professional Development

February 10 – Ski Day (weather permitting)

February 17 – Travel home

February 20 – Travel return

March 10 – Travel home

March 13 – Travel return

March 14 – Spring Pictures

March 24-25 – Deaf Enrichment Weekend

April 1 – EIPA Interpreting Videoconference Professional Development

April 9 – Formal Spring Dinner at 5pm

April 27 – Arbor Day and Spring Program Performance at 1pm

May 4-5 – VI Games

May 12 – Travel home

May 15 – Travel return

May 15 – Foundation Board Meeting

May 26 – Graduation at 2pm

June 2 – Last day of school

1/11/2017

MONTANA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND

APPROPRIATIONS - VS - EXPENDITURES

FISCAL YEAR 2017

YEAR TO DATE

FISCAL YEAR 2017 12/28/2016

2017 APPROPRIATIONS:

GENERAL STATE SPECIAL FEDERAL SPECIAL PROPRIETARY OTHER TOTAL

FUND REVENUE REVENUE

1 ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM (01) 512,756.04 2,940.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 515,696.04

2 GENERAL SERVICES PROGRAM (02) 532,308.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 532,308.00

3 STUDENT SERVICES (03) 1,769,029.00 0.00 23,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,792,029.00

4 EDUCATIONAL (04) 4,446,685.00 290,469.00 157,435.00 0.00 0.00 4,894,589.00

ALLOCATED TOTALS: 7,260,778.04 293,409.00 180,435.00 0.00 0.00 7,734,622.04

YTD EXPENDITURES:

1 ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM (01) 262,850.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 262,850.35


3 STUDENT SERVICES (03) 714,135.95 0.00 7,223.66 0.00 0.00 721,359.61

4 EDUCATIONAL (04) 1,801,663.96 37,272.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,838,936.61

TOTAL EXPENDITURE TO DATE: 3,090,529.96 37,272.65 7,223.66 0.00 0.00 3,135,026.27 40.53%

UNSPENT ALLOCATED BUDGET: 4,170,248.08 256,136.35 173,211.34 0.00 0.00 4,599,595.77 59.47%

APPROPRIATIONS - VS - EXPENDITURES BY ORG

GENERAL STATE SPECIAL FEDERAL SPECIAL PROPRIETARY OTHER TOTAL

FUND REVENUE REVENUE

1 ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM (01) 512,756.04 2,940.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 515,696.04

EXPENDITURES 262,850.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 262,850.35 50.97%

UNSPENT ALLOCATED BUDGET: 249,905.69 2,940.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 252,845.69 49.03%


EXPENDITURES 311,879.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 311,879.70 58.59%

UNSPENT ALLOCATED BUDGET: 220,428.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 220,428.30 41.41%

3 STUDENT SERVICES (03) 1,769,029.00 0.00 23,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,792,029.00

EXPENDITURES 714,135.95 0.00 7,223.66 0.00 0.00 721,359.61 40.25%

UNSPENT ALLOCATED BUDGET: 1,054,893.05 0.00 15,776.34 0.00 0.00 1,070,669.39 59.75%

4 EDUCATIONAL (04) 4,446,685.00 290,469.00 157,435.00 0.00 0.00 4,894,589.00

EXPENDITURES 1,801,663.96 37,272.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,838,936.61 37.57%


ALLOCATED TOTALS: 7,260,778.04 293,409.00 180,435.00 0.00 0.00 7,734,622.04

TOTAL EXPENDITURE TO DATE: 3,090,529.96 37,272.65 7,223.66 0.00 0.00 3,135,026.27 40.53%


C:\Users\C00155\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\J8BQ63I5\2017 EXPENDITURE TO APPROPRIATIONS.xlsx

ACTION

ITEM 20

MSDB SUPERINTENDENT CONTRACT

EXTENSION

Sharon Carroll

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

March 12-13, 2017

MACIE Update

Assessment Update

Federal Update

Accreditation Report

Transportation Report Initial Presentation of MSDB School

Calendar Tentative Licensure Hearings

board of public education - montanabpe.mt.gov/portals/119/pdf/bpeagendas/2017/bpeagenda...january...

Documents