ࡱ> 8:567#` bjbj5G5G 2lW-W-ggg8h\^h<̷hjj"jjjk>kk $4h9GkkGG9jjN6WWWGjjWGWWnGjj h[Ag oH̷'ӌ,@xl6 7uW{D8lll99Xlll̷GGGGDS&[ &[ Wednesday, July 6, 2005 California Department of Education 1430 N Street, Room 1101 Sacramento, California Members Present Ruth E. Green, President Glee Johnson, Vice President Alan Bersin Yvonne Chan Ricky Gill Kenneth Noonan Joe Nuez Bonnie Reiss Johnathan Williams Don Fisher Members Absent Ruth Bloom Secretary and Executive Officer Jack OConnell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Principal Staff Cathy Barkett, Executive Director, State Board of Education Karen Steentofte, Chief Counsel, State Board of Education Bob LaLiberte, Special Consultant, State Board of Education Rebecca Parker, Education Program Consultant, State Board of Education Vickie Evans, Executive Assistant, State Board of Education Kathy Dobson, Legal Assistant, State Board of Education Gavin Payne, Chief Deputy Superintendent, California Department of Education Marsha Bedwell, General Counsel, California Department of Education Susan Ronnback, Chief Policy Advisor to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Amy Cameron, Education Programs Assistant, California Department of Education Call to Order President Green called the meeting to order at 9:07 a.m. Salute to the Flag Board Member Nuez led the Board, staff, and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes (May 11-12, 2005; May 31, 2005) ACTION: Ms. Chan moved that the State Board approve the minutes of the May 11 and 12, 2005 meeting and the May 31, 2005 meeting. Ms. Johnson seconded. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of the members present. Announcements/Communications President Green expressed the Boards appreciation to Ricky Gill, Student Board Member, who is leaving the Board and will be attending Princeton in the fall. She presented Mr. Gill with a plaque. Each member, in turn, used the opportunity to comment on Mr. Gills valuable contributions to Board discussions and decision-making. Members predicted that Mr. Gill would continue to excel in whatever career path he chose to pursue. Mr. Gill thanked the Governor for the opportunity to serve, thanked his colleagues and commented on the importance of the Boards work. President Green stated that the Board forwarded three candidates to the Governors Office for selection of the 2005-2006 student Board member and hopes to have a new student member at the September Board meeting. President Green reminded Board members to carefully examine the last minute memoranda for the necessity of recusals. Superintendent OConnell reported on the budget agreement and expressed his appreciation that the agreement meant that there would be no protracted budget negotiations. He expressed his commitment to a stable budget in which schools would be fully funded, and pointed out that Gerry Shelton would provide a more detailed picture of the budget later in the meeting. Items are reported in the order in which they were heard by the Board. ITEM 1 STATE BOARD PROJECTS AND PRIORITIES. Including, but not limited to, future meeting plans; agenda items; State Board office budget; staffing, appointments, and direction to staff; declaratory and commendatory resolutions; update on litigation; bylaw review and revision; review of the status of State Board-approved charter schools as necessary; Board Liaison Reports; and other matters of interest.ACTION  President Green reported that a number of State Board staff will be moving to different offices. They are: Deborah Franklin, who has taken a consultant position with the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Office; Debbie Rury, who has taken a consultant position with the NCLB Implementation and Coordination Office, School and District Accountability Division in the Department; Karen Steentofte, Legal Counsel, who has taken a job with the Sacramento County Office of Education; Cathy Barkett, Executive Director, who will be retiring from State Service in December. Ms. Green invited Board members and members of the audience to attend a celebration in honor of Ricky Gill and Board staff immediately following the Wednesday Board meeting. President Green introduced new Board staff: Brian Geramia a student at Loyola Marymount College is serving as a summer student intern with us while pursuing his BA in English and a teaching credential. Gary Weston comes to the Board from the Office of the Secretary for Education and was, several years ago, a student member of the State Board. President Green welcomed back Robin Jackson, Executive Secretary who returned from medical leave and thanked staff members Rebecca Parker, Kathy Dobson and Bob LaLiberte for working together during the transition. She also announced that a search committee consisting of herself, Vice President Glee Johnson, Alan Bersin and Joe Nuez is recruiting new Board staff. Board Member Liaison Reports President Green announced that Yvonne Chan is the new Boards liaison to the Special Education Commission. Ms. Chan, a former special education teacher, expressed her interest in the work of this Commission. Ms. Green invited other Board members to express their interests to her in terms of additional liaison activities. Ms. Green invited Leslie Schwarz, Chair of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC), to update the Board about the work of the CTC. Ms. Schwarz reported that eight of the eleven members of the CTC have been newly appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger; several are experienced K-12 educators. Priorities of the CTC include the reauthorization of RICA, the replacement for the CLAD test and a new bilingual certification for teachers. A work-study group is looking at possible reforms to the accreditation process. Ms. Johnson expressed her appreciation for the coordination between the work of the Board and Department and the work of the CTC. President Green reminded the audience that Principles 6 and 7 of the Governors Education Principles, located after the second tab in the Board Agenda, address the common goals of the SBE and the CTC. Ms. Chan asked if the test that replaces the CLAD would address the compliance issues surfacing as a result of the legislation that implements the Williams lawsuit. Ms. Schwarz promised to report back to the Board on this issue. ITEM 2 PUBLIC COMMENT. Public Comment is invited on any matter not included on the printed agenda. Depending on the number of individuals wishing to address the State Board, the presiding officer may establish specific time limits on presentations.Information  The following individuals addressed the Board: Joseph Herzog, Regional Chair, California Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Quentin A. Christian, Executive Director, California Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Heather Anderson, Member, California Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THIS ITEM ITEM 3 Seminar on Special Education and the Reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 2004.InformationPresenters: Alice Parker, Director, Special Education Division Guest Speaker: William David Tilly, PhD., Assessment Services Coordinator, Heartland Area Ed. Agency II, Iowa Introduction President Green introduced the special education seminar by highlighting the current opportunity with the reauthorization of IDEA to put the focus on academic achievement, better services to special education pupils, and better diagnostic assessment. President Green asked Alice Parker to address how we can take the good work that is being done and broaden its use. Alice Parker, Director of the Special Education Division informed the Board that one of the speakers, Dr. Pasternak, was unfortunately grounded at the airport due to weather. Dr Parker then presented an informative seminar describing the direction of Californias special education efforts. She reported that there are 691,000 students with disabilities in California, about 52.8% of who are categorized as specific learning disabled. She reported on the history of special education laws, including PL 94-142, in 1975, and subsequent reauthorizations of this piece of legislation, including IDEA in 1997, which brought about major shifts in focus. In December 2004, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. In her presentation, Dr Parker noted an important shift away from classroom placements, different standards, and separate services to a new focus on individually designed services to enable special education students to participate in and make progress in the general education curriculum, first in the context of the regular education classroom. This new focus on improving educational results and functional outcomes includes a requirement that we report outcome data for every district, with emphases on reading, math and science. Graduation rates and the percentage of students with disabilities graduating with a diploma have improved each year since 1998, and Dr. Parker stressed how critical it is to maintain the focus on providing services to special education pupils so that they graduate with a diploma. Board Member Gill asked about the effect of the CAHSEE on special education pupils. Dr. Parker shared historical data from New York, where, despite an initial drop, 58% of special education students now pass the challenging Regents exams, and that in states that maintain the expectations and the support, special education students continue to improve their passing rates. Dr. Parker introduced Dr. David Tilly, who is currently working to implement Response To Intervention (RTI) in Iowa, and author of a new book on the topic, to provide his insights regarding effective special education. Dr. Tilly echoed President Greens words about our current opportunity to improve results for special education students, based on all that we have learned through research and practice over the past years. Dr. Tilly covered three topics: 1) historical practice in how we have identified and served students with specific learning disabilities; 2) the proposed new approach to identifying and serving students with specific learning disabilities; and 3) results data from Iowa about the effects and benefits for students with disabilities when the model is implemented. Dr Tilly explained that in recent years, we have improved practices in the system as a result of scientific research. We have developed multi-tiered, prevention-oriented models. Progress monitoring ,formative evaluation, and standard treatment protocols are key parts of the model. Board Member Fisher asked if its true that, if we identify students early and provide help, they wont need special education later. Dr. Tilly said that he would show data that indicate this is the case. Board Member Chan asked what happens to the exclusionary factor in identification, where other handicapping conditions had to be ruled out before learning disabilities could be diagnosed. Dr. Tilly replied that this is still the case, and that the possibility that the student simply has not received good reading instruction had to be ruled out. Dr. Tilly suggested that Response to Intervention (RTI) is the new model proposed to further improve the academic program of special education students. This model: Provides all students high-quality instruction Collects data over time Uses the data to make decisions about eligibility for special education The keys to RTI are to: Reengineer resource development. Instead of incremental, categorical programs which arose one by one as responses to the needs of specific groups, leading to fragmentation, complexity, expense and conflicts, NCLB requires that we focus and deploy resources around one result: student achievement. Students who have not become proficient based on core instructional programs and services should receive extra, targeted instruction. A small percentage of students will need additional, intensive intervention. Use data to drive decisions. This is a problem-solving process where we define problems, develop and implement plans, and evaluate whether or not the program is working as it is being provided (within 6 to 8 weeks). Use scientifically researched and validated practices in core curricula, supplemental instruction and intensive instruction. The key is matching the intensity of need with the type and intensity of resources. Dr. Tilly reported a decrease of between 25% and 41% in each grade in new special education placements in schools where RTI has been used in Iowa. Board Member Bersin asked how we support our teachers to provide them the capacity to make students the engines of their own learning. Dr. Parker pointed to the work the Board has already done in professional development, with the Board-adopted instructional materials and training for teachers provided through AB 466 and Reading First. In addition, teams of people including the speech language specialists and Title 1 teachers participate in providing these services. Dr. Tilly ended by stressing the importance of leadership. Dr. Parker added that we can reinvent how we work together collaboratively to reduce the gaps particularly the ethnic disparity gaps. She encouraged a revolution in the way we think about the responsibility for special education students as the responsibility of general education, and the access to the general curriculum as the purpose for special education. Board Member Johnson initiated a discussion about taking this kind of reform to scale, and how the Iowa system is funded as a set of regional centers that are sub-entities of the State. Board Member Fisher remarked on the difficulty of remediation in a State with a large percentage of students who are achieving below proficient. President Green thanked the presenters and asked Dr. Parker to come back to the Board at a later time with ideas about how the Board can take information from this seminar and translate it into policy to make a systematic change in how we educate children. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THIS ITEM Recess: President Green announced a brief recess from 11:30 to 11:45 am. She reconvened the meeting at 11:46 am. ITEM 4 Environmental Effect of the Proposed Unification of the Yosemite Joint Union High School District and the Coarsegold Union School District in Madera CountyACTIONPUBLIC HEARING Presenter: Teri Chen, Education Fiscal Services Consultant, CDE Teri Chen described the environmental study, and announced that the conclusion of the study was that the unification would not have a negative effect on the environment. She recommended the Board adopt the negative declaration. President Green opened the Public Hearing at 11:47 a.m. Speakers: Priscilla Pike, Yosemite High School District, spoke in favor of the negative declaration and the unification proposal. No one spoke in opposition. President Green closed the Public Hearing at 11:50 a.m. ACTION: Ms. Reiss moved to approve the staff recommendation that the State Board of Education (SBE) adopt a Negative Declaration, which concludes that the proposed unification would not have any significant effects on the environment, and further direct the Boards Executive Director to sign, on behalf of the Board, the statement adopting the Negative Declaration. Mr. Gill seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 9-0. Mr. Nuez was not present at time of the vote. ITEM 5 Proposed Unification of the Yosemite Joint Union High School District and the Coarsegold Union School District in Madera CountyACTIONPUBLIC HEARINGPresenter: Teri Chen, Education Fiscal Services Consultant Ms. Chen summarized the unification proposal. The Yosemite Joint Union High School District and the Coarsegold Union High School District already share joint administration, and feel that this unification would streamline operations. The other two elementary districts that feed into the Yosemite Joint Union High School District, Bass Lake Joint Union School District and the Raymond-Knowles Union Elementary School District, do not oppose the unification but do not want to be included in it. The Madera County Committee on School District Organization recommends the proposal. The CDE found all nine requirements for unification have been met and they recommend the unification, with one change: that the proposal be amended to state that the five trustees be elected at large, rather than by region, consistent with the revised recommendation of the County Committee. President Green opened the Public Hearing at 11:52 a.m. Speaker(s) in support: Sue OConner, President, Board of Trustees, Coarsegold Union School District Burt McSwain, Board Member, Yosemite High School District Geri Kendall Cox, Madera County Commission on School District Organization Priscilla Pike, Yosemite High School District Speaker(s) in opposition: Dan Troy, Department of Finance President Green closed the Public Hearing at 11:58 a.m. Board members briefly discussed the issue of the number of trustees and the election area, and staff reported on how balloting would be conducted. Superintendent OConnell clarified that there would be nothing to prevent the voters from changing the method of selecting trustees from at large to regional at a later date. Vice President Johnson expressed her preference that unifications be based on programmatic improvements rather than fiscal issues alone. The differences in revenue limits of the districts were discussed. Priscilla Pike reported that there would be streamlining of efforts in that currently, much of the paperwork and some of the actions (e.g. audits and record-keeping) are duplicated. ACTION: Mr. Noonan moved to approve the staff recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution as described in the last minute memorandum approving the petition to unify the Yosemite Joint Union High School District and the Coarsegold Union School District, and excluding the Bass Lake Joint Union School District and the Raymond-Knowles Union Elementary School District from the unification. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-1. Ms. Johnson opposed the motion. Mr. Nuez was not present at the time of the vote. Lunch Break: At 12:05 President Green reminded the audience that there was a screening committee meeting of the Board, which was open to the public, upstairs in the Board conference room on the fifth floor. She asked Board members and the audience to return at 1:15. Ms. Green re-convened the Board meeting at 1:15. Items 12 - 18 were taken out of order. ITEM 12 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Including, but not limited to Program UpdateACTION Presenter: Deb Sigman, Director, Standards and Assessment Division Ms. Sigman gave an update on the STAR program. Most districts have completed 2005 STAR testing. Public release of results is scheduled for August 15, the date required in statute, although districts are provided with their results several days ahead of that. Post testing workshops are planned; the first is August 22 in Sacramento. The purpose of the workshops is to clarify how to use results. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THIS ITEM. ITEM 13 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Request for Submission (RFS) for the California Standards Test (CST), California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA), New Alternate Test, Standards-Based Tests in Spanish (STS), and Norm-Referenced Test (NRT)ACTION Presenter: Deb Sigman, Director, Standards and Assessment Division Ms. Sigman reminded the Board that they had discussed key concepts at the meeting in May, and that those items (listed in the last minute memorandum) had been included in the request for submissions. President Green asked the board members their preference, since the item was received late, and proposed two options: 1) discuss the item and put it on the next days agenda for a vote; 2) schedule a separate meeting to take action on the RFS. Members indicated they were not ready to vote on the item but wished to discuss the item and study it over night. Ms. Johnson characterized the RFS as staying the course and maintaining the assessment system we have without dramatic changes Deb Sigman went over the proposed timeline and encouraged the Board to look closely at the Scope of Work and the evaluation components of the RFS. Board Member Bersin asked his colleagues to think about how we might improve both the timing of results back to districts and the clarity of the reports. It is difficult for parents and the public to make sense of the use of both API and AYP and the multiple releases of information at various times during the year. Ms. Sigman reported that the testing window is a huge issue, but that other issues factor into when test scores and API and AYP information is released. Ms. Johnson commented that as a practical matter, districts could get their scores back rather quickly, but they would not have the statewide context in which to interpret those scores until later. She suggested we could do a better job of what NOT to do with the test results, especially helping people understand that the information was not designed to make decisions about individual students. It was designed to be a system check, rather than a diagnostic instrument. Board Member Bersin asked if we could mandate a shortened testing window and pointed out that the advantage Texas has is that everyone in the state knows when the testing week is people are talking about it because they know it counts. Board Member Gill asked if mandating a testing window was disadvantageous to year-round schools. Superintendent OConnell suggested the Board revisit his suggestion from prior years: that the STAR be used by UC and CSU for placement and admission, which would help students take the test more seriously. Vice-President Johnson asked about the cluster reporting on page 29 and clarified that there would be a separate cost proposal and a cost-benefit analysis. Ms. Sigman assured the Board they would be able to make that analysis. Board President Green emphasized that the content area expertise of the advisory panels created by the contractor needs to be emphasized. In response to questions from Board Members Chan and Reiss, Ms. Sigman clarified that the current STAR contract ends in December of 06, while the new contract would start in January of 06, as shown on page 14 of the RFS. During that year there would be full cooperation between the two contractors o transition all materials, and the goal is that for the field this should be a seamless transition. Ms. Sigman offered to bring a matrix to the Board showing the responsibilities of the two contractors. Ms. Reiss asked staff to address how problems last time are addressed this time. Ms. Sigman pointed said past problems centered on switching from a norm-referenced test to a criterion referenced test, which is not occurring this time, and that there was no overlap period last time. Ms. Sigman thanked the manager of the STAR, Jan Chaldek, and her staff for all of their work. Board President Green announced that by consensus this issue would come back to the Board for action on Thursday. Speakers: Sherry Skelly Griffith, Association of California School Administrators Marta Zaragoza-Diaz, Californians Together and California Association of Bilingual Education THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2005 (see Minutes for 7-7-05) ITEM 14 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Amendment to the 2006 STAR Scope of Work for the Development of a New Alternate Test based on Modified Achievement Standards ACTIONPresenter: Deb Sigman, Director, Standards and Assessment Division Ms. Sigman summarized the changes in this Scope of Work, which address the development of the New Alternate Test (NAA). The NAA responds to the new interim flexibility offered by the ED for special education. The Board met in an extra session May 31 to approve the request to the ED on June 1 for the flexibility. On June 15, more detailed information was provided. We were notified by phone June 21 that we do meet the criteria and can go forward with the development of the NAA. The first step for this Scope of Work is development of blueprints for the NAA. The contractor will start with the standards and CST items, and adapt in terms of depth, breadth and complexity. Board Member Chan asked how we determine who takes the CAPA and who takes the NAA, and whether there is a definitive difference in criteria, or an overlap. Ms. Sigman reported that currently, 0.8% of our students take the CAPA, and 1.7 % of our students take the STAR with modifications, or out-of-level. This latter group would take the NAA, and Ms. Sigman agreed that the criteria describing who should take each of the tests must be very clear. Board Member Johnson suggested that the input from the focus groups might be misplaced on the timeline and we should think about when parent and advocate input would be most useful. President Green asked for Board liaisons to be involved earlier in the process. Ms. Sigman agreed that the timeline could be revised in those ways. President Green asked about the different number of items on the item development schedule for science. Ms. Sigman responded that the beginning point for this test is the CST (not the CAPA), so items from the CST item bank might be used for the NAA. We currently have more items in the item bank for math and language arts than for science. THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2005 (see Minutes for 7-7-05) ITEM 15 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Approval of English-Language Arts and Mathematics Blueprints for Standards-Based Test in Spanish (STS) ACTIONPresenter: Deb Sigman, Director of the Standards and Assessment Division Ms. Sigman reminded the Board that they approved the Scope of Work for the Standards-Based test in Spanish (STS) at the May meeting. The contractor held a panel of content experts in mathematics and English/language arts. Most members were bilingual and biliterate in Spanish. Current CST advisory panel members also sat on the STS panel. The parameters were clear: the mathematics content standards and the English/language arts content standards would be assessed. The contractor provided one proposal for mathematics: that 100% of the standards assessed on the Math CST in English be assessed in Spanish. The contractor provided three possibilities for assessing the English language arts standards, with different percentages of English-language arts standards to be assessed. Board Member Nuez asked how the conversation went in terms of assessing the English standards in Spanish. Ms. Sigman gave some examples of their discussion, which started with the understanding that students are being taught the standards, and many of those standards can be assessed in Spanish without altering the standards. Within each reporting category, the panel looked to see if the standard could be assessed in Spanish, and if not, items were added to the other standards within that strand so that the weight for the strand was equivalent to the weight of that strand on the CST in English. Ms Chan asked if we take into account the cultural values in terms of the prompts or the responses of students. Mr. Markow from ETS reported that the items would be written from scratch in Spanish, not translated from English. The SPAR panel would have a translation in English and would review items for sensitivity to religion, culture, etc. Ms. Sigman encouraged the testing liaisons to attend the item discussion meetings and said that she would provide a list of testing meeting dates to share with Board members who might wish to attend. ACTION: Ms. Johnson moved for approval of the blueprints proposed by CDE. Ms. Reiss seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0. Don Fisher and Alan Bersin were not present at the time of the vote. ITEM 16 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Designation of a Primary Language Achievement Test ACTION Presenter: Deb Sigman, Director, Standards and Assessment Division Ms. Sigman reminded the Board that the RFS to replace the SABE2 with a new norm referenced designated primary language test was issued April 6. Two responses were submitted by the due date of May 16: Logramos from Riverside Publishing and Aprenda from Harcourt. Three panels reviewed the submissions for a number of qualities, including the degree to which they match Californias standards, technical quality, management, and staffing. After the reviews, both contractors were asked to submit additional information about technical quality, norming samples, and management and staffing. Based on the original submissions and the additional information Superintendent Jack OConnell recommended Aprenda as the test, and Harcourt as the contractor, with certain conditions as listed in the motion. ACTION: Mr. Nuez moved to approve the staff recommendation that the State Board of Education (SBE) adopt the Superintendents recommendation to designate Aprenda, 3rd Edition as the designated primary language test (DPLT), conditional upon the submitting company satisfactorily meeting the following conditions: Present pretest training materials to all testing directors not just workshop participants; Ensure that the system for tracking materials shipments is sufficiently robust and does not rely solely on e-mail; Describe a more flexible process whereby LEAs can estimate the number of scoreable and nonscoreable materials; Fully describe the Spectrum System and ensure that all LEAs will have access to the system (e.g. using compatible software) for printing labels; Provide student data files through the Spectrum System and provide CD-ROMS of data (test results) upon request; Clarify security, data exchange, and confidentiality of data; Address the relationship with CSIS; Provide a turnkey website and host a website that displays the DPLT results; Provide a process for replacement of items and ensure that the effect of replacement items on scores is fully addressed. Address these issues without a cost increase. If these conditions are not satisfied by the September 2005 State Board meeting, the State Board reserves the right to rescind this designation. Ms. Reiss seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0. Don Fisher and Alan Bersin were not present at the time of the vote. ITEM 17 California English Language Development Test (CELDT): Including, but not limited to, update on CELDT Program, 2005-06 Annual Assessment Implementation and new contract status ACTION  Presenter: Deb Sigman, Director, Standards and Assessment Division Ms. Sigman provided an update on the CELDT. The annual assessment window began July 1 . Districts are in the process of assessing all English learners. The Department of General Services announced that its review of the bid protest did not uphold the protest brought by Harcourt and so the contract was awarded to CTB-McGraw Hill. The Department of Finance approved $1.4M for assessment of reading comprehension and writing for English learners in grades K and 1, subject to legislative language that requires the assessment to be appropriate for the grade levels. President Green asked what other states do; Deb Sigman reported that some states do portfolio assessment, which would not be appropriate for a state the size of California. The current CELDT contractor is looking at whether any of the items on the CELDT could measure these constructs, which would mean that there would be no impact on testing time for students. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THIS ITEM ITEM 18 California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE): Including, but not limited to, CAHSEE Program Update on Test Administrations, Independent Evaluation, and Study GuidesACTIONPresenter: Deb Sigman, Director, Standards and Assessment Division Although a report on the STAR and CAHSEE 2004-2005 test results will not be issued until August 15, Ms. Sigman provided a summary of preliminary data. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THIS ITEM PROPOSED CONSENT ITEMS: 6, 7, 10, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 38, 39 President Green announced the items for proposed consent and asked if any Board member desired to take any items off of consent. No Board member asked for any item to be removed from consent. Mr. Bersin recused himself from participating in the discussion and voting on these items. ITEM 6 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 Approve Local Educational Agency Plans (Title I, Section 1112).ACTION ITEM 7 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Approve Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Providers for 2005-07ACTION ITEM 10 Reading First Special Education Referral Reduction Program: Approval of Supplemental Instructional Materials ACTION ITEM 19 The Principal Training Program (AB 75): Approval of Training Providers ACTION ITEM 20 The Principal Training Program (AB 75): Approval of Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and Consortia applications for funding ACTION ITEM 21 The Principal Training Program (AB 75): Approval of Revisions to the Provider Guidelines and Criteria Section of Module 2 ACTIONITEM24 Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program (AB 466): Approve Local Education Agencies (LEAs) Reimbursement Requests and Applications ACTION ITEM 25 Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program (AB 466) (Chapter 737, Statutes of 2001): Approval of Training Providers and Training CurriculaACTION ITEM 27 Gifted and Talented Education (GATE): Approval of Revised Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented StudentsACTION ITEM 29 Revisions to the California School Accounting ManualACTIONITEM 30 Child Nutrition Advisory Council: Proposed Child Nutrition Advisory Council Bylaw Revisions. ACTIONITEM 38 Assignment of Numbers for Charter School Petitions ACTIONITEM 39 Charter Schools: Determination of Funding Requests for 2004-05 (and beyond) for Nonclassroom-based Charter SchoolsACTION President Green noted that on Item 25 there was a correction to show Sopris West as the publisher. ACTION: Ms. Johnson moved the staff recommendations, with any conditions or corrections, for Item 6 through Item 7, Item 10, Item 19 through Item 21, Item 24, Item 27, Item 29 through Item 30, and Item 38 through Item 39, and for Item 25 as noted in the Last Minute Memorandum. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0. Mr. Bersin recused himself from participating in the discussion and vote on these items. Mr. Nuez and Ms. Chan were not present at the time of the vote. ITEM 8 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 Update including, but not limited to, the Title II monitoring visit by the United States Department of Education (ED) and a follow-up on Californias application to ED for NCLB flexibility in the States accountability plan regarding students with disabilities.ACTION  Presenters: Diane Levin, Manager, NCLB Implementation and Coordination Office William Vasey, Director, Professional Development and Curriculum Support Division Ms. Levin noted that the ED has said that they will provide additional opportunity for states wanting to implement a growth model, and for additional flexibility for serving English learners. More information will be forthcoming. Ms. Levin reported on a Title II monitoring visit and introduced Bill Vasey to talk about the visit. Bill Vasey reported on a very successful monitoring visit. The CDE received commendations for the Teacher Resource Guide, which they called a model for the country, and the openness and honesty with which California was approaching the challenges of making sure that every teacher is highly qualified. The federal team was appreciative of the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program, AB 466 and AB 75. Mr. Vasey noted that the written report from the federal government will be forthcoming. He thanked two members of his staff, Penni Hansen and Phil LaFontaine, for their work throughout the year and with the monitoring team. Speakers: Ann Desmond, California State Parents and Teachers Association Board President Green thanked Mr. Vasey for his hard work and congratulated him on his upcoming retirement. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THIS ITEM ITEM 9 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Approve Policy about Program Improvement Accountability for County Offices of Education that receive Title I, Part A Funds Pursuant to NCLB, Section 1116 (c)(3)ACTION Presenter: Diane Levin, Manager, NCLB Implementation and Coordination Office Ms. Levin advised the Board that county offices are allowed to accept Title I money for their direct service programs, such as juvenile court schools. However, if these Title I funded direct service programs fail to make AYP, the county office would no longer be allowed to be a Supplemental Service provider. Six county offices currently are providing supplemental services. A communication from the USDE indicated that county offices that take Title I money could bifurcate their functions between direct service to students and technical assistance to school districts in order to allow county offices identified as program improvement to be able to continue to provide services under another arm of the county office. CDE recommended that counties be given the choice of bifurcating their functions or being treated as any LEA that receives Title I funding. Speakers: Sherry Skelly Griffith, Association of California School Administrators ACTION: Ms. Johnson moved to approve the staff recommendation that the State Board of Education (SBE) allow county offices of education (COEs) that accept Title I funds to determine if their Program Improvement identification is to be based on 1) bifurcation of county office of education functions as described in Option 1, or 2) single county office of education operations as described in Option 2 of the item. Ms. Reiss seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 10-0. ITEM 11 Reading First Program: Request of Authorization to Extend Funding of Reading First Local Educational Agencies (LEAs)ACTION Presenter: William Vasey, Director, Professional Development and Curriculum Support Division Mr. Vasey asked the Board to state its support for adding a fourth, fifth and sixth year of funding for Reading First districts that are making sufficient progress. The proposed State Budget for 2005-2006 does have a fourth year of funding. A bill would be introduced for years five and six. The definition of sufficient progress would be brought back to the Board at a later date. ACTION: Ms. Reiss moved to approve the staff recommendation that the State Board of Education (SBE) request legislative authorization to extend all Reading First subgrants for a total of six years for all schools making sufficient progress. Ms. Chan seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 10-0. ITEM 22 The Principal Training Program (AB 75): Approval of Final Report to the Legislature ACTIONPresenter: William Vasey, Director, Professional Development and Curriculum Support Division Mr. Vasey noted that items 22 and 23 are related; they are the reports to the Legislature on AB 75 and AB 466. He provided a description of the content of the AB 75 program, which is designed to help principals: 1) understand how teachers should be using instructional materials (Module 1); 2) provide leadership (Module 2); and 3) use technology (Module 3). He noted that the Board approves the training providers, and that participants are asked to provide evaluative information through an online survey funded by the Bill Gates Foundation. ACTION: Ms. Reiss moved to approve the staff recommendation that the State Board of Education (SBE) approve the Principal Training Program (PTP) Final Report for transmittal to the Legislature with technical changes to be approved by the Executive Director. Mr. Noonan seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 10-0. ITEM 23 Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program (AB 466): Approval of Survey Report to the Legislature ACTION  THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2005 (see Minutes for 7-7-05) ITEM 26 Implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 1113, Chapter 208, Statutes of 2004: Approve Release of Funds for Supplementary Materials for English Learners ACTIONPresenter: Tom Adams, Director, Curriculum and Instructional Frameworks Division Sue Stickel, Deputy, Curriculum and Instructional Leadership Branch Tom Adams provided a new, July 5, Last Minute Memorandum, with a lengthier list of districts in Attachment 1, and asked Board Members to discard the old memorandum. He advised the Board that it was not adopting materials. Instead, it was approving districts purchase requests for $30 million in one-time funds provided in the 2004-2005 State Budget to purchase supplemental materials to be used in addition to the adopted materials. The Budget Act language specified requirements for review of the materials. Districts were given until April 1, 2005 to submit an intent to purchase form. The language required a review as to the degree of alignment with both the English Language Development (ELD) standards and the Reading/Language Arts Standards. To handle the workload, the CDE contracted with four county offices of education to bring together review teams of ELD and ELA experts to review the materials and ensure they were substantially aligned with the standards. All materials also had to pass legal and social compliance. Reviewers looked at 143 programs from 35 publishers. President Green pointed out the importance of ensuring that every student receives standards-aligned materials and access to the core curriculum. She re-emphasized that these materials are to be used in addition to the core curriculum. Sue Stickel pointed out that the Williams settlement will help ensure that every student has core instructional materials. Mr. Adams also pointed out that now the supplemental publishers are much more aware of state standards and the importance of aligning to them. Mr. Adams reported that not all the materials had been reviewed and that the Board would receive an additional request for approval in September. Funds would not be allocated by the CDE until October. Tom Adams thanked his staff for their hard work. ACTION: Ms. Reiss moved to approve the staff recommendation that the State Board of Education (SBE) approve the release of funds to certain districts (those listed in the July 5 Last Minute Memorandum) for the purpose of purchasing supplementary materials for English learner (EL) students. Ms. Chan seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0. Mr. Bersin and Mr. Noonan recused themselves from the discussion and voting on this item. ITEM 28 Proposed Revisions to the Fiscal Criteria and Standards Used By School Districts and County Offices of Education to Determine Solvency When Reviewing Budgets and Interim Financial Reports ACTION Presenter: Scott Hannan, Director, Management Assistance and Categorical Program Caryn Moore, Financial Accountability and Information Services Mr. Hannan explained that the Fiscal Criteria and Standards are used by districts and county offices in setting up budgets and determining fiscal solvency, both by county offices in overseeing district budgets, and by the CDE in overseeing county office budgets. AB 2756, statutes of 2004 required the Board to revise the criteria. The CDE convened an advisory committee that met 8 times to develop revised criteria and standards. ACTION: Mr. Noonan moved to (1) adopt the revised fiscal criteria and standards; (2) direct staff to re-draft the adopted fiscal criteria and standards in the proper format for publication in Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations; and (3) once the reformatted fiscal criteria and standards are approved by the Executive Director, direct staff to publish them in Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations. Ms. Reiss seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0. Mr. Fisher was not present at the time of the vote. ITEM 31 Healthy Start Regulations: Adopt Proposed Title 5 Regulations ACTION Presenter: Jan Mayer, Director, Learning Support and Partnerships Division Jan Mayer told the Board that the proposed regulations had been shared with over 3500 constituents and no comments had been received during the 45-day comment period. ACTION: Ms. Johnson moved to (1) approve the proposed amendments to the regulations, including any non-substantive, technical changes; and (2) direct staff to complete the rulemaking package and submit it to the Office of Administrative Law. Mr. Gill seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0. Mr. Fisher was not present at the time of the vote. ITEM 32 Highly Qualified Special Education Teacher Regulations: Adopt Title 5 Regulations to Make Revision Due to the Recent Passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) in December 2004.ACTION Presenter: Alice Parker, Director, Special Education Division Ms. Parker reported that there were four non-substantive comments received during the comment period. She urged the Board to move the regulations forward. Speakers: Sherry Skelly Griffith, Association of California School Administrators Ms. Griffith asked that the record show that school administrators need to be given as much guidance as possible and so the instructions for the form should specify how to use the form with special education teachers. ACTION: Ms. Johnson moved to (1) approve the proposed amendments to the regulations, including any non-substantive, technical changes; and (2) direct staff to complete the rulemaking package and submit it to the Office of Administrative Law. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 10-0. ITEM 33 Elimination of the multitrack year-round education Concept 6 calendar by Lodi Unified School District and Los Angeles Unified School District pursuant to California Education Code sections 37680-37695, Chapter 901, Statutes of 2004 (AB 1550).ACTIONPresenter: Kathleen Moore, Director, School Facilities Planning Division Fred Yeager, Consultant, School Facilities Planning Division Kathleen Moore reported on the implementation of SB 1550, which, as a result of the Williams settlement, required the elimination of Concept 6 schools by 2012. The Concept 6 calendar was designed to maximize the number of students who could be served on each campus but has been criticized because of the reduction in instructional time. The Board is required to approve or disapprove district plans for progress in eliminating the use of Concept 6 calendars. Two districts have Concept 6 schools: Lodi Unified School District and Los Angeles Unified School District. Board Member Reiss commended the LAUSD for the work they have put into building new schools. Board Member Nuez noted that years of work have led up to the opening of these new schools. Speakers: Peggy Barber, Los Angeles Unified School District Guy Mehula, Los Angeles Unified School District ACTION: Mr. Noonan moved to approve the staff recommendation that the State Board of Education (SBE) approve the Comprehensive Action Plans (CAP) for Lodi Unified School District (LUSD) and Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to eliminate the use of the Concept 6 calendar. Ms. Reiss seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 10-0. Announcements Board President Green outlined the order for the Thursday meeting: closed session at 8:00 for about an hour; the testing items 13 and 14, item 23 (AB 466), item 43; and then in order from 34 on. The public hearing on item 40 would be about 11:00. Everyone was invited to celebrate Board Member Gill and staff departures in the small conference room. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:18 p.m.     Final Minutes State Board of Education July 6-7, 2005 PAGE  Wednesday, July 6, 2005 Page  PAGE 1 of 50 m} , 8 X H W , (fmnz s!t!!!!"ǹǹ~uhK>:5;^JhK>:5;CJ\^JaJ hK>:>*^J hK>:;^JhK>:CJ^JaJhK>:CJ\^JaJhK>:5;\^JhK>:CJOJQJ^JaJhK>:5CJ^JaJ hK>:5^J hs5^J hK>:\^JhK>:^JmH sH hK>:5\^J hK>:^J.<Ulm}   , 7 8 X  $ !$a$ V  ^ G H W - . $ 50p@ P !$`' !$.  '(`a67efm $$Ifa$b$ & F 20p@ P !$`'EƀC왆mn$If $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$4 Yh8p @ xHP X !(#$%`'$If$Ifst?F & FEƀC왆vkd$$Ifl4) 0g$04 laf4QRq*(F & FEƀC왆F & FEƀC왆F & FEƀC왆R/0`a12omF & FEƀC왆F & FEƀC왆 2EFy z t!!$If" 50p@ P !$`'$If$If $$Ifa$ !!!!!""""##$#%#~uo$If $$Ifa$h^hvkd$$Ifl450g$04 laf4 "##$#%######S$`$335&5777888F9?:?;?B?????Q@R@X@Y@Z@[@j@k@@ABBDDDDDEĶ񨞨Ķzب hK>:^JhhK>:5;^J hK>:5\hK>:hK>:>*\^JhK>:6\]^J hK>:\^J hK>:;^JhK>:5;CJ\^JaJhK>:CJ^JaJhK>:5;\^JhK>:CJOJQJ^JaJhK>:5CJ^JaJ hK>:^JhK>:5\^J0%########R$S$`$%%qoooooomoovkdD$$Ifl480oE%o04 laf4 $E$If^Ea$ K$If]K %&&**W-X-3.4.o0p033]44F & F EƀC왆444455qoooF & F EƀC왆F & F EƀC왆57788q*(F & F EƀC왆F & F EƀC왆F & F EƀC왆8E9F9; ;<<>>??:?;?????R@Y@$If$If $$Ifa$ & FY@Z@[@j@y$If $$Ifa$vkd$$Ifl40$`Y/04 laf4j@k@l@z@@@AAAAApBqBBB !vkd$$Ifl40$ Y/04 laf4BDDDDEE#E$If$If $$Ifa$h^hF & FEƀC왆EE#E$E%E4E5EmMvMMMMNOOOPPQfQgQnQpQqQgSoSwTxTTTTDccc6d7d8d@dddddddddIlllll7m8m@mAmBmCmDmEm"u*u5uɬ hK>:5^JhK>:5;\^JhK>:5CJ^JaJ hK>:5\hK>: hK>:\^JhK>:5\^JhK>:5;^JhK>:5;CJ\^JaJ hK>:;^JhK>:CJ^JaJ hK>:^J=#E$E%E4Ey$If $$Ifa$vkd$$Ifl40g$`04 laf44E5EBErEsEtEHHII.I{IIJ.J/J !vkdY$$Ifl40g$ 04 laf4/JIJjJkJJJlMmMOOPPPPQQgQ  !$If$If $$Ifa$$1$I$ & F1$EƀC왆 !gQnQoQpQqQQQCSDSfSgSoSpSsqqqqqn$vkd*$$Ifl4)0g$04 laf4$If$If $$Ifa$ pSxTTTTlf`$If$IfJ$$EƀbIfa$G$EƀbIfTTTTUU{W|WEECEEECEƀbvkd$$Ifl40g$04 laf4|WXX]]]]R_S_fbgb9c:cDcccc7d8d@d $$Ifa$CEƀb@dddddddwvkdn$$Ifl40g$`04 laf4 $$Ifa$x$Ifdd?e@eggiijjHlIlvkd?$$Ifl40g$ 04 laf4 Illlll8m9m:mAm$If $$Ifa$$ (a$CEƀbAmBmCmDm $$Ifa$vkd$$Ifl40g$`04 laf4DmEmRmmmpprrVtWtXt!u"uvkd$$Ifl40g$ 04 laf4 5u6u7uwuuuvvkvlvuvvvwvvyyzz~K]^defghiì}ؘ}oofhK>:5;^JhK>:5;CJ\^JaJhK>: hK>:^Jh hK>:H*^JhK>:5\^JhK>:5CJ\^JaJ hK>:;^JhK>:;CJ\^JaJhK>:5;\^JhK>:CJ^JaJhK>:5CJ^JaJ hK>:\^JhK>:\]^JhK>:B*^Jph hK>:^J hK>:5^J("uuuvvlvmvnvuvvv$If $$Ifa$F & FEƀC왆 vvwvvvwxxxyy$a$vkd $$Ifl40c%04 laf4y{|{{q*F & F EƀC왆)F & F EƀC왆)F & FEƀC왆 {_||`}q*F & F EƀC왆)F & F EƀC왆)F & F EƀC왆)`}}}~q*F & F EƀC왆)F & F EƀC왆)F & F EƀC왆)~~~~qkecZTTZ$If $$Ifa$7$8$H$8^8F & F EƀC왆 )F & F EƀC왆 ) }~1snnnllll$a$vkdT $$Ifl40g$04 laf4$If$If $$Ifa$ 12^efghqvkd $$Ifl40g$`04 laf4$If $$Ifa$ ! hiFGhi>CEƀ$a$vkd $$Ifl40g$ 04 laf4inՇ܇݇DELMNUV~Ĉň͈̈Έֈ׈DLMNV./79:BÊĊŊཱི̊͊೨ೀೀy hK>:\^JhK>:CJ^JaJ hK>:;^JhK>:6]^JhK>:5;CJ\^JaJhK>:CJ\^JaJhK>:5;\^JhK>:B*^JphhK>:CJOJQJ^JaJhK>:5CJ^JaJ hK>:^JhK>:5\^JhK>:hK>:5CJ\^JaJ/ijklnԇՇ܇݇ELM  !$If$If $$Ifa$ ! MNUVň͈̈yn  !$If$If $$Ifa$vkd $$Ifl40%04 laf4͈Έֈ׈DELMyss$If$If $$Ifa$vkd: $$Ifl40%04 laf4MNVWyynhy$If  !$If$If $$Ifa$vkd $$Ifl40%04 laf4 /0789yyyy$If $$Ifa$vkd~$$Ifl4)0%04 laf49:BĊt $x$Ifa$ $$Ifa$vkd $$Ifl40%04 laf4ĊŊ̊͊bcjklynyy  !$If$If $$Ifa$vkd$$Ifl40%04 laf4͊abjlmu!"[\ÌČUV]^_gh '(Զۥێۥ|۲|| hK>:;^JhK>:6CJ^JaJhK>:5;^JhK>:56CJ]^JaJhK>:5CJ\^JaJhK>: hK>:5hK>:5;CJ\^JaJhK>:5CJ^JaJ hK>:\^J hK>:^JhK>:CJ^JaJhK>:;\^JhK>:^JmHnHu0lmuvyn  !$If$If $$Ifa$vkdd$$Ifl40%04 laf4!"}w}}wq$If$If $$Ifa$vkd$$Ifl4}0%04 laf4t  !$If $$Ifa$vkd$$Ifl40 %04 laf4VW^||$If $$Ifa$tkdO$$Ifl40 %04 laf4^_gh|q  !$If$If $$Ifa$tkd$$Ifl4y0 %04 laf4 '|q  !$If$If $$Ifa$tkd$$Ifl4u0 %04 laf4'()*?F & FEƀC왆 vkd$$Ifl40 %04 laf4(ǑȑϑБёґ,34 U› ١zh]TMT hK>:\^JhK>:5\^JhK>:;^JmH sH #hK>:5;CJ\^JaJmH sH hK>:CJ^JaJmH sH hK>:^JmH sH hK>:CJ\^JaJmH sH hK>:CJOJQJ^JaJ hK>:;^JhK>:5;CJ\^JaJhK>:CJ\^JaJhK>:5;\^JhK>:5CJ^JaJhK>: hK>:5 hK>:5^J h3;^J hK>:^JȑϑБёґӑ"tqvkdZ$$Ifl40oE%o04 laf4$If $$Ifa$ ! tu“ÓLMX'()*+,3 $$Ifa$ !$ !D$Eƀ{$34 VW›jhhhhhvkd $$Ifl40oE%o04 laf4 $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$If$If › sz{|$If $$Ifa$F & FEƀC왆  rsyz{|}]cOPХѥڥIJRSTUVABJKLMNڭڭ~uhK>:5\^JhK>:;CJ\^JaJhK>:;\^JhK>:5CJ\]^JaJ hK>:\^JhK>:hK>:5CJ\^JaJhK>:CJ\^JaJ hK>:;^JhK>:5;CJ\^JaJhK>:CJ^JaJhK>:5;\^J hK>:^JhK>:5CJ^JaJ.|}۞ܞ[\]vkd$$Ifl4Q0g$04 laf4] $$Ifa$$If  !$IfI$ & FEƀC왆 a$]^Х<I$ & FEƀC왆 a$vkdN$$Ifl4U0g$04 laf4Хѥ٥ڥJKRSTUVlvkd$$Ifl40c%04 laf4$If $$Ifa$  !$If BCDKLwvkd$$Ifl470g$`04 laf4$If $$Ifa$ LMNO\}}ww !vkd$$Ifl4[0g$ 04 laf4 $$Ifa$NO (12deBCñ H !_`hij`ahTϸиѸҸӸ۸ڼ񳥘 hK>:5hK>:5CJ\^JaJ hK>:;^JhK>:;CJ\^JaJhK>:CJ^JaJhK>:hK>:;\^JhK>:5CJ^JaJhK>:\]^JhK>:B*^Jph hK>:\^J hK>:5^JhK>:5\^J hK>:^JhK>:5;^J2'( ! hF & FEƀC왆 !G !Eƀ& ñ Hhcac$a$vkd^$$Ifl40g$04 laf4$If  !$If$If $$Ifa$ HI!"`ahi  !$If$If $$Ifa$F & FEƀC왆 ij`aи:F & FEƀC왆$a$vkd$$Ifl40c%04 laf4иѸӸ۸ܸfa$a$vkd$$Ifl40g$04 laf4$If  !$If$If $$Ifa$ ۸ܸ?ɻһɼ ƽ X67]__ݩ֞{r݈݈݈hK>:5\^JhK>:5B*\^JphhK>:5CJ\^JaJhK>:5CJaJhK>:5CJ\aJhK>:5;CJ\^JaJhK>:6]^J hK>:5^JhK>:hK>:5CJ^JaJ hK>:\^JhK>:CJ^JaJhK>:;\^JhK>:B*^Jph hK>:^J)Ȼɻ   !$If$If $$Ifa$F & FEƀC왆 ! X$a$vkdD$$Ifl40g$04 laf4 _`nogh  !I$ & FEƀC왆a$ JKQRSstz{|} hK>:^J hJ]0JhJ0JmHnHu hK>:0JjhK>:0JUhK>:huuhTuNjhTuNU!:IJSTU !  !$x]xh]h&`#$$a$ 0&P1h/ =!"#$0% $$If!vh55 #v#v :V l4) 0,554f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l450,554f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l480,5o54f4$$If!vh5{5 #v{#v :V l40+,5Y5// /  / 4f4$$If!vh5{5 #v{#v :V l40+,5Y5// / /  4f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40+,55/ /  / 4f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40+,55/ / /  4f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l4)0,554f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40,554f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40+,55/ /  / 4f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40+,55/ / /  4f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40+,55/ /  / 4f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40+,55/ / /  4f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40,554f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40,554f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40+,55/ /  / 4f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40+,55/ / /  4f4$$If!vh55#v#v:V l40,554f4$$If!vh55#v#v:V l40,554f4$$If!vh55#v#v:V l40,554f4$$If!vh55#v#v:V l4)0,554f4$$If!vh55#v#v:V l40,554f4$$If!vh55#v#v:V l40,554f4$$If!vh55#v#v:V l40,554f4$$If!vh55#v#v:V l4}0,554f4$$If!vh55#v#v:V l40,554f4$$If!vh55#v#v:V l40,55/ /  / 4f4$$If!vh55#v#v:V l4y0,55/ /  / 4f4$$If!vh55#v#v:V l4u0,55/ /  / 4f4$$If!vh55#v#v:V l40,554f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40,5o5/ 4f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40,5o54f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l4Q0,554f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l4U0,55/ /  / 4f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40,554f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l470+,55/ /  / 4f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l4[0+,55/ / /  4f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40,554f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40,554f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40,554f4$$If!vh55 #v#v :V l40,554f4L@L Normal#CJOJQJ_HaJhmH sH tH :@: Heading 1$@&5\>@> Heading 2$@& 6\]P@P Heading 3$$1$@&a$5;CJaJhT@T Heading 4$$ (1$@&a$5CJaJhDA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List 4@4 Header  !4 @4 Footer  !2"2 Caption5^J.)@!.  Page NumberZY2Z  Document Map-D M CJOJQJ^JaJ:0@B:  List Bullet  & FH@RH  Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ<&a< Footnote ReferenceZP@rZ Body Text 2 !d1$]6]^JaJ>B@> Body Text ]^Jh*W@* Strong5\DQ@D Body Text 3B*OJQJphl<Ulm},78XV^GHW-.  '(`a6 7   e f m n      s t QR/0`a12EFyzt$%RS`""W%X%3&4&o(p(++],,,,,--//00E1F13 3446677:7;77777R8Y8Z8[8j8k8l8z88899999p:q:::<<<<==#=$=%=4=5=B=r=s=t=@@AA.A{AAB.B/BIBjBkBBBlEmEGGHHHHIIgInIoIpIqIIICKDKfKgKoKpKxLLLLLLLMM{O|OPPUUUURWSWfZgZ9[:[D[[[[7\8\@\\\\\\\\?]@]__aabbHdIddddd8e9e:eAeBeCeDeEeReeehhjjVlWlXl!m"mmmnnlnmnnnunvnwnnnwpxpqqs|ss_tt`uuuvvvvwwwwxxxxxxxxxxx}y~y1z2z|||||||^}e}f}g}h}i}}}F~G~h~i~j~k~l~n~~ELMNUVŀ̀̀΀ր׀DELMNVW/0789:BĂł̂͂bcjklmuv!"VW^_gh '()*ȉωЉщ҉Ӊ"tu‹ËLMX'()*+,34 VW“ sz{|}ۖܖ[\]]^НѝٝڝJKRSTUVBCDKLMNO\'( ! é HI!"`ahij`aаѰӰ۰ܰȳɳ  Xϸиȹ_`noghѼҼ޼߼ !:IJSTU0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000 000 0000 0 0 0 000000 0 000000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 000000000S0S0S0S0S0S0S0S0S0S0S0S0S0S0S 0S 0S 0S0S0S0S 0S 0S 0S0000000000000000000000070707070707 07 07 07 07 0707070707070707070707070707 070707070707 07 07 07 07 07070707070707070707070707070707070707070707 070707070707070707 070707 07070707070707070707 070707 070707070707070707070707070707070707070707070707070707 0707 07 07 07 0707070707070707070707078070d0d0d 0d0d0d 0d 0d 0d 0d0d0d0d0d0d0d0d0d0d0d0d0d 0d0d0d0d0d 0d0d0d0d 0d8070wn0wn0wn0wn0wn 0wn 0wn 0wn 0wn 0wn 0wn 0wn 0wn 0wn 0wn 0 wn0wn0wn0wn0wn0wn0wn 0wn0wn0wn0wn0wn 0wn 8078078070x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 8070i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i} 0i}0i} 0i} 0i}0i}0i} 0i}0i} 0i} 0i}0i}0i} 0i}0i}0i} 0i} 0i}0i}0i}0i} 0i}0i}0i}0i} 0i} 0i}0i}0i} 0i}0i}0i}0i} 0i} 0i}0i} 0i}0i} 0i} 0i}0i}0i} 0i}0i}0i}0i} 0i} 0i}0i}0i} 0i} 0i} 0i}0i}0i}0i} 0i}0i}0i} 0i} 0i}0i}0i} 0i} 0i} 0i}0i}0i} 0i}0i} 0i} 0i}0i}0i} 0i}0i} 0i} 0i}0i}0i} 0i} 0i} 0i}0i}0i}0i}0i} 0 i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i} 0i}0i}0i} 0i} 0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i} 0i}0i}0i}0i} 0i} 0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}0i} 0 i}0i}0i}0i}0i} 0i}0i}0i} 0i} 0i}0i}0i}0i}0i}8 0 70]0]0]0]0] 0] 0] 0]0]0]0]8 0 700000 0000 0 00000000000 000 0 0 0 0 000000000000 0 0000 0000 0 80708070 0 0  0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0  0  8070j0j0j 0j0j0j0j0j0j 0j0j0j 0j 80700000000 00000 0 0 8078070X0X0X0X0X8070008 07000`0`0`0`0`0`0`0`0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 00W  Y8Z8j8k8#=$=4=5=pIqILL\\\\AeBeDeEevnwnxxe}f}h}i}MǸ΀MN9:Ăłlm^_'()*щ҉ |}TUKLNOij  !Uy00Wy00Vy00Ty00Tي00ي00]ي00ي00]ي00ي00^ي00ي00@^ي00ي00 x^ي00ي0 0 ي00ي0 0 ي00ي00Hي00ي00ي00ي00hي00ي00ي00ي00ؑي00ي00L+ي00ي00+ي00ي00+ي00ي000ي00ي0 0!L0ي00ي0"0#0ي00ي0$0%ؐي00ي0&0'ي00ي0(0)Hي00ي0*0+ي00ي0,0-ي00ي0.0/X2ي00ي00012ي00ي02032ي00ي04053ي00ي060783ي00ي0809ي00ي0:0;葯ي00y0B0y0B0ي00ي0<0ي0<0ي0<0= ي00ي0>0?Xي00ي0@0Aي00ي0B0CȒي00ي0D0Eي00ي0F0GPي00ي0H0Iي00ي0J0Kي00ي0L0Mي00ي0N0O0ي00ي0P0Qhي00ۊ00h00000000@000t60000  CN~~~"E5ui͊(N۸cnw . mR2!%#%458Y@j@B#E4E/JgQpST|W@ddIlAmDm"uvvy{`}~1hiM͈M9Ċl^'t3›|]ХLHiи dfghijklmopqrstuvxyz{|}~eCJlsu!!8@0(  B S  ? _Hlt112234166 _Hlt112234167@@%R0#&R0\'R0#(R0$)R0|j6*R0从+R0,R0-R0.R0̒/R0 0R0$ 1R0~2R0~3R0@4R0D@5R0A6R0TA7R0T68R069R06:R0n;R0 oR0 B?R0 B@R0BAR0TBBR0CR0̼DR0 ER0LFR0GR0HR0$IR0dJR0KR0 LR0, MR0l NR0 OR0 PR0, QR0 BRR0D BSR0 BTR0 BUR0 BVR0D BWR0 BXR07#YR0,8#ZR0l8#[R08#\R08#]R0,9#^R0l9#_R09#`R0FAaR0FAbR04GAcR0tGAdR0GAeR0GAfR04HAgR0tHAhR0PiR0PjR0,QkR0lQlR0QmR0QnR0,RoR0lRpR0RqR0RrR0,SsR0lStR0SuR0SvR0,TwR0lTxR03yR03zR0 4{R0L4|R04}R04~R0 5R0L5R05R05R0 6R0L6R06R06R0 7R0L7R07R07R0 8R0L8R08R08R0 9R0L9R09R09R0 :R0L:R0:R0:R0 ;R0L;R0;R0;R0 <R0L<R0<R0<R0 =R0L=R0=R0=R0 >R0L>R0>R0>R0 ?R0L?R0?R0?R0 @R0L@R0@R0@R0 AR0LAR0AR0AR0 BR0LBR0BR0BR0 CR0LCR0CR0CR0 DR0LDR0DR0DR0 ER0LER0ER0ER0 FR0LFR0FR0FR0 GR0LGR0GR0GR0 HR0LHR0HUUa+;nnvKKR\HHMM99[$[$%% ( (>1>1+5+59999<<<<<<<< = ===========>>>>>>>>>>>>>??@@@ZAZAeAkAAAAAAAAABBBBF$F*F0F5FMFXF^FFFFFFFFFFFJJKKK,T,Tk[k[v[[[1p1pww{{|||݂݂ĄĄτeepDDK˲˲ֲԹ      !"#$%&(')*+,-./0123456789<:;=>?@ABCDEFGHKIJLMNOPRQSTVUWXYZ[\^]_`abcdefghijklmpnoqrstuvwxyz{|}~_kk*9EEu}Q[ccRRQQCCc$c$%%((B1B1/5/599::<<<<<<< =============>>>>>>>>>>>? ???@@@dAjAzAzAAAAAAAAABB-B-B#F)F/F4FDFWF]FmFFFFFFFFFFFKKKKK1T1Tu[|[|[[[;p;pww{{|||΄ՄՄouuJRRղ̸̸ܲܲǹ߹    !"#$%&(')*+,-./0123456789;<:=>?@ABCDEFGHJKILMNOPRQSTVUWXYZ[\^]_`abcdefghijklmopnqrstuvwxyz{|}~8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType ̴'el 6=R[ x%}%8&=&' 's(x(**++++00S1Y1$3)3d<i<AAfGkGIIIILLLLOOP$PRQXQSSVVWWXXYYkZqZZZK[Q[ ]]D]J]``CaIabb^cdcVe\eeeffhhiiqkwk\lblmmnnnnoooopp{qqqqrrtt8tAtFtRtttwwxxxxL{R{y}}~~} ouOT*/ȋ͋joɓϓmqbg ɩϩ MS&0:?̹ҹ %%+)@)M,P,NNuUwU9y:TuN8OmuUWXv]WkuuHjy%{/ps*~<8?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$&'()*+,./012349Root Entry FiA;Data 1TableWordDocument2lSummaryInformation(%DocumentSummaryInformation8-CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q