Education Interim Committee

meeting to coordinate compromises and gain approval of an agreed upon budget document.

2)     Funding. The ATE system did not receive any applied technology education funding increases for the 1997-98 fiscal year. Although the Joint Liaison Committee prioritized system needs for ATE. The needs apparently were not understood by the legislature or lost in the legislative process. Higher education funding is based on a FTE formula (credit bearing enrollments) and large numbers of unfunded ATE students pass through the system of higher education. Furthermore, without specific funding for ATE equipment, community colleges usually are unable to teach state-of-the-art essentials.

3)     Roles. Institutional roles should be blended and defined. Some money is available through Custom Fit contracts, or contracts with public school districts as well as gifts and grants, but no state money was appropriated last year to schools within the system of higher education to meet the needs for ATE training.

4)     Mind Set. There continues to be a "mind-set" among Utahans that applied technology education that is a "second-class" education. That mind-set needs to be changed, and the system needs increase applied technology education acceptability. Both public and higher education need to counsel students to strive to meet their own needs and refuse to be frustrated by family traditions and pressures.

5)     Credit Issue. There continues to be concern over awarding credit. There is a major difference in the roles of Applied Technology Centers and community colleges. Many ATE students want and feel they deserve academic credit, especially when they believe a specific ATE class is a primer for a degree bearing program they hope to complete in the future. Many within the education community believe public education is part of a continuum and career training is a life-long experience.

6)     Tuition. Higher education traditionally in Utah is funded partially by student tuition. However, applied technology education does not require a tuition and only a fee is charged to cover material costs. If ATE training is categorized as post-secondary education, many in higher education feel that tuition should be charged.

7)     Reforms. Welfare reform will have a substantial impact on all training programs. Many welfare recipients will seek to enroll in a short-term program to be job ready before their subsistence payments expire. However, a number of individuals within the higher education community question whether most of the short-term programs offered through ATE programs can offer the income required to sustain a family.

8)     Market Force. Some members of the education community have philosophically posed the question of whether or not the market place should determine which ATE educational programs should be funded.

9)     Equipment. Up to date, state-of-the art equipment is essential to applied technology training. ATE students training on out-of-date equipment are not ready to meet the needs of most modern employers. An ongoing equipment needs to be established.

10)     Funding Formula. The ATE funding formula is so complicated and difficult that educators and administrators find it difficult to clearly describe to policy makers what is actually being funded. The formula needs to be simplified.

11)     Accountability. Part of the ATE accountability process is the practice of verifying employment taken by an ATE student as totally related to his training. This practice is expensive and not very useful. Because of the time involved, business has not anxious to cooperate. Much of this data could be collected through the job service review process by adding several questions to the job service questionnaire.

b.    Teacher Preservice and Inservice - Rep. Lloyd Frandsen was the discussion group leader for the discussion of preservice and inservice education.

    The group issued a challenge to the state's colleges of education to prepare perspective teachers to be current with what is required to teach students in a rapidly changing society.

    Preservice issues discussed included the following:
    1)    better screening and recruitment of teacher candidates to improve the overall quality of the state's teaching force;
    2)    a fifth year apprenticeship program;
    3)    changes in the certification process, either by statute or rule;
    4)    better collaboration between public education and the colleges of education in preparing teachers to be ready to teach;
            5)    greater emphasis on practice as opposed to theory, especially in lower elementary grades with a focus on reading problems and classroom technology;
    6)    placing college of education instructors into clinical experiences in public education classrooms;
    7)    clinical experiences for teacher candidates in addition to student teaching; and
    8)    funding colleges of education to improve their status, possibly through a line item appropriation.

    Inservice discussion focused on:
    1)    involving teachers directly in designing their own inservice programs;
    2)    the quality and relevance of teacher inservice programs;
    3)    collaboration with higher education to include mentoring and collegiality programs;
    4)    incentives for inservice education, including a review of the teacher career ladder program;
    
    5)    resolution of underfunded existing programs, through reallocation of existing resources or through additional dollars; and
    6)    funding time for inservice and teacher mentor programs

4.    12:00 p.m. - Luncheon - State Board of Education, State Board of Regents, Education Interim Committee and the Governor - Sen. Steele introduced Governor Michael O. Leavitt, the luncheon speaker, who addressed a number of issues on both public and higher education.

5.    1:30 p.m. - Joint Meeting - State Board of Education & Education Interim Committee - The meeting was called to order by Sen. Steele and the board and committee divided into two discussion groups.

a)    Middle School Education - Sen. Steele was the discussion leader for this group. The group first reviewed middle school teacher preparation programs and discussed whether or not middle school teachers should be required to obtain specific endorsement for that grade level.

    It was noted that teachers often don't begin their careers with the goal of teaching middle school. Behavior and discipline problems are barriers to teachers who may seek positions in middle schools. They often accept positions in middle schools as a step toward teaching in high school. The discussion group recommended that teachers hired to teach in middle school should be given special training to develop the skills needed for that age group. It was further noted that requiring an endorsement to teach at the middle school level could hamper districts so teachers couldn't be easily moved. Maximum flexibility was encouraged.

    Partnerships should be encouraged between districts and universities to provide improved teacher training for middle school personnel. It was pointed out that there is a need for more administrators, particularly assistant principals and counselors, in the middle schools.

    More help should be given to teachers in establishing discipline standards and middle schools need to do a better job in getting their communities involved in their schools. Middle school students need to be taught to take ownership of their education. It was proposed that parents must assume responsibility for clearly defined deviant behavior at middle schools.

    It was pointed out that teaming is an excellent approach to quality middle school teaching. Team teachers get to know their students better, and develop a sense of continuity.

    The group determined that the Legislature and public education should consider taking action in the following areas:
    1)    provide specialized training for middle school teachers in the areas of both preservice and inservice;
    2)    reduce class size in middle schools;

    3)    provide additional funding for administration, counselors, and student assistance centers;     
    4)    promote greater family involvement in middle school grades;
    5)    consider the teaming approach, as well as other models;
    6)    direct impacted schools funding to middle school concerns;
    7)    strategic planning committees are important in the process of solving middle school problems; and
    8)    look at starting middle school later in the day (importance of bio rhythms).

b.    Preschool Education - The discussion group was directed by Rep. Frandsen.

    Preschool education has been given a prominent position on the agenda of several school districts in Utah as well as other states. The importance of preschool education focuses on recent research on the development of the brain in young children. A concept paper on brain development and preschool education was delivered by to the State Board of Education by the State Office of Education, noted that significant experiences are essential for the proper development and formation of the brain. Large numbers of families in Utah are at risk of having their infants lose forever some of the essential brain development experiences that determine reasoning skills and allow them to be full contributing members of society. Many of these families do not qualify for Title One Funds.

    Brain research has provided significant data that clearly demonstrates the impact of proper brain stimulation on social and educational growth and development. The following items were identified in the small group discussion as ways to begin to address this issue.

1)     Title 1 Funds Reallocation
     a.     Ttle I funds are controlled by local districts - Encourage local superintendents to roll a percentage of these funds into early grades and to preschool education.
     b.     federal rules allows up to 50% of Title 1 funds to be used in early childhood programs, including preschool programs (Nine districts using Title 1 funds for preschool applications)
     c.     use some of these funds to educate parents about brain research and programs available to help brain development
    
2)     Develop Programs to Identify Children Who Need Preschool Services
     a.    place preschool information and brain development data in pediatrician offices
     b.     encourage religious groups to identify children at risk kids
     c.     promote programs where entire community organizations could identify children needing preschool services
     d.     seek help from business and industry to use their resources to advertise information about brain development and early childhood literacy development.    
    
3)     Overhaul Child Care Giver Policies
     a.     establish a certification system for child care centers and for their care givers.
     b.     certify levels at care giver centers to identify the kind of service they provide.
     c.     encourage business and industry to provide childcare services for their employees.
     d.     provide incentives to employers to allow parents to spend time with their children in the care giver facility.
     e.     require the educational community collaborate with human service agencies to tie into a working model that will meet the need for preschool education.

4)      Experimental Models
     a.     provide incentive money though the State Office of Education to districts who provide quality early childhood programs for at-risk children.
     b.     provide for a framework of Community-Based Programs such as utilizing child care money from a multiplicity of sources.
     c.     look at the possibility of expanding Head Start programs to allow them to serve additional at-risk children
     d.    reallocate FACT funds to deal more with preschool age children.

6.    Adjournment - The meetings adjourned at 3:25 p.m.