OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
October 5, 2005 - 9:30 A.M.
State Capitol Building
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
|BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
||Don McCorkell, Gerald Dickerson, Ron Dryden, Susan Field, Patrick Gilmore, Pat Mayes and Rep. Odilia Dank
|BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
||Rep. Angela Monson
|OTHER REGULAR ATTENDEES:
||Office of Accountability Staff: Robert Buswell, Matt Hesser, and Jerry Hsieh
|Call to Order and Roll Call:
Mr. McCorkell called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and declared a quorum present.
|Introduction of Pat Mayes (New Member) and recognition of Ken Bridges:
Mr. McCorkell welcomed Mr. Hoyt "Pat" Mayes to the board. Mr. Mayes was appointed by House Speaker Todd Hiett to replace Kenneth Bridges from Lawton. Mr. Mayes lives in the Norman/New Castle area and is President of the First American Bank in Norman. He has been involved in the educational arena in Oklahoma for a number of years and is a past member of the Norman Public School Board. Mr. Mayes praised the work of the board and said that he was honored to part of such and top-notch group of Oklahoma citizens.
Mr. McCorkell then made a motion to approve a Proclamation of Gratitude to Mr. Kenneth Bridges for his more than five years of service to the Education Oversight Board. Mr. Dickerson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
|Approval of Minutes:
Mr. Dryden made and Mrs. Field seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the June 10, 2005 meeting as summated. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. McCorkell asked to move the presentation by Dr. James Purcell of the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education to after the portions of the agenda that would require Board approval, because several board members would need to leave promptly at 11:00 a.m.
|Status Report on the Oklahoma Educational Indicators Program:
Mr. Buswell placed a large stack of newspaper clippings on the table which represented the coverage that the Profiles documents had received over the summer. Buswell felt confident that the reports had received coverage by every newspaper in the state and that some had drawn the coverage out over many weeks. Buswell also relayed that the Office's website was averaging over 20,000 downloads of the profiles documents each month.
Buswell went on to tell the board that all of the data request letters had gone out to the various entities that provide data for the Indicators Program and, although it was early on in the data collection process, things seemed to be proceeding smoothly. He also stated that the Principal Questionnaire document was nearly completed for this year and that it would be sent out in the very near future. Mr. McCorkell suggested that the Office also use the instrument to gather principals' e-mail addresses, in that there is no other means by witch that information can be derived.
Mr. Dryden asked if the Profiles documents were still being distributed to public libraries in the state. Buswell responded that due to state budget shortfalls in recent years, the Oklahoma Department of Libraries was no longer shipping the documents to the local libraries across the state. The board then encouraged the Office to distribute the Profiles reports to as many public libraries as the budget would allow. Mr. Gilmore then encouraged the Office to work with the Oklahoma State School Board Association and formally present the Profiles documents, and the best means for their use, to local school board members statewide.
|Status Report on the Oklahoma School Performance Review Program (OSPR):
Mr. Buswell distributed a job description for the unfilled Coordinator of School Improvement Position and a copy of Daniel Craig's resume. At the time of the meeting, Mr. Craig held the position of Field Coordinator in the Student Preparation section of the Oklahoma State Regents' Office and had formerly held the position of principal and teacher in various Oklahoma schools. After a series of candidate interviews, Buswell felt that Mr. Craig was the most qualified for the position. Mrs. Field made a motion to hire Mr. Craig as Coordinator of School Improvement for the Oklahoma School Performance Review program, Mr. Dryden seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Mr. McCorkell described some of the changes to OSPR that had developed over the summer. The revised strategy was a targeted site-level review with a focus on improving classroom instruction. Representative Dank was concerned that the program was overstepping its mission and felt that the program could be duplicating efforts of other agencies such as the State Department of Education and the Commission for Teacher Preparation. Mr. McCorkell was confident that the statutory language was broad enough to allow for this type of review and was certain that no other state entity was offering intervention strategies that were as comprehensive as what was being proposing.
Mr. Dickerson asked if there was a written plan which the board could review and comment. McCorkell explained that the scope and services for each review would be jointly negotiated between the district being reviewed and OSPR, and until a district volunteered for a review, there is no plan to be reviewed. Representative Dank asked if the Board would be allowed to approve the jointly negotiated plan before it was implemented. Mr. McCorkell assured Dank that a review plan would presented to the EOB and receive board approval before it was implemented.
|End-of-Year Expenditure Report for FY 2005:
Mr. Buswell distributed a spreadsheet for the Board to review that outlined expenditures for the year and remaining funds.
|Approval of Revised Budget and Year-to-Date Expenditure Report for FY 2006:
Mr. Buswell distributed a series of spreadsheets to the board that outlined year-to-date expenditures for the year and remaining funds. Buswell proposed, and requested that the board approve, a revised budget for FY 2006. Included in the revised budget was an increase in staff salaries that the board had desired in the prior fiscal year but could not implement due to budget constraints. Part of the Board's discussion revolved around employee pay increases that had not been granted for several years due to statewide budget shortfalls. Mrs. Field made a motion to approve Buswell's proposed budget for FY 2006, and Mr. Dryden seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. McCorkell suggested that the board consider ways that a systematic process for employee pay increases could be built into office policy. Mr. Gilmore then made a motion to create a sub-committee to formulate an office policy on staff pay increases. Mr. Dryden seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. .Mr. McCorkell asked for volunteers to serve on the sub-committee and Mr. Dickerson and Mrs. Field volunteered.
|Approval of Budget Request for FY 2007:
Mr. Buswell explained that the Office of State finance was requesting the budgets for both FY 2007 and FY 2008. Buswell proposed the budget for FY 2007 be the same as FY 2006 with a modest increase for FY 2008. Mr. Dickerson made a motion to approve a budget for the Office of Accountability of $750,000 for FY 2007 and $800,000 for FY 2008. Mrs. Field seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
|Election of New Officers:
Mr. Dryden nominated Mr. McCorkell to continue as Chair, Mrs. Field seconded the nomination and the motion carried. Mrs. Field then nominated Mr. Dryden for the position of Vice-Chair, Mr. Gilmore seconded the nomination and the motion carried unanimously.
|Presentation by Dr. James Purcell, Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education:
Dr. Purcell presented information to the Board that correlated student satisfaction data from the ACT test with college performance information. The information showed that students from schools where the student body was more satisfied with their high school experience performed better when they moved into Oklahoma's public colleges and universities. The board was grateful to Dr. Purcell for the presentation of the material and hoped that the information could be included in future versions of the Profiles documents. The Board felt it was imperative that this type of information be distributed to both schools and the public at large to help improve the educational experience for students and thus better prepare them for life after high school.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:07 a.m.
|The minutes of the October 5, 20045 meeting of the Education Oversight Board were approved with corrections on December 14, 2005.