ŠĻą”±į>ž’ JLž’’’GHI’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ģ„Į#` šæ9bjbj5G5G .‚W-W-Źžn’’’’’’¤```````t’’’8T’Œą’\t@ŠhH”H”^”^”^”9•9•9•æĻĮĻĮĻĮĻĮĻĮĻĮĻ$ØŃhŌåĻ`U§9•9•U§U§åĻ``^”^”ŪśĻ#­#­#­U§ `^”`^”æĻ#­U§æĻ#­#­6Ēą``·É^”<” ` ™AČ’u©”óĒĆĖüŠ0@ŠČØÖ ŖĀÖ8·ÉÖ`·É 9•4m›n#­ŪŸŒg£ī9•9•9•åĻåĻĖ¬X9•9•9•@ŠU§U§U§U§tttJxO¤BtttxOttt``````’’’’  California Department of Education 1430 N Street, Room 1101 Sacramento, California Members Present Ruth E. Green, President Glee Johnson, Vice President Alan Bersin Ruth Bloom Yvonne Chan Paul Gardner III Kenneth Noonan Joe Nuńez Johnathan Williams Don Fisher Members Absent Bonnie Reiss Principal Staff Karen Steentofte, Consultant, Sacramento County Office of Education Kathy Dobson, Legal Assistant, State Board of Education Robin Jackson, Executive Secretary, State Board of Education Bob LaLiberte, Special Consultant, State Board of Education Rebecca Parker, Education Program Consultant, State Board of Education Gary Weston, Education Policy Consultant, State Board of Education Cathy Barkett, Special Consultant, State Board of Education Gavin Payne, Chief Deputy Superintendent, California Department of Education Sue Stickel, Deputy for Curriculum and Instruction, 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 Michelle Zumot, Education Policy Assistant, California Department of Education Call to Order President Green called the meeting to order at 9:07 a.m. All members were present with the exception of Joe Nuńez and Bonnie Reiss. Joe Nuńez joined the Board at 9:12 a.m. Salute to the Flag Board Member Noonan led the Board, staff, and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes MOTION: Ms. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the July 6 and 7, 2005, and August 12 meetings with minor corrections. Ms. Chan seconded motion. The motion passed by a vote of 8-0. Board Member Nuńez was absent for the vote. As Mr. Gardner had not yet taken the Oath of Office, he did not vote. Announcements/Communications President Green welcomed the new student board member, Paul Gardner, III. He is a senior at Culver City High School, has participated in Mock Trial, represented students on a number of youth councils, and is vice-president of his school. Mr. Gardner expressed his appreciation at the honor of being appointed to the Board and his hope that he would learn a lot from the experience. He was administered the oath at 9:09 a.m. by Chief Deputy Superintendent Gavin Payne. President Green announced that Don Fisher would not be in attendance on Thursday, and said that the agenda was in flux. She expressed her hope that the meeting could be completed in one day. She encouraged speakers to limit their comments to two minutes, and asked them to sign up to speak on the clipboard at the back of the room. She announced that Vickie Evans, Executive Assistant to the State Board of Education, would be leaving to work for Secretary for Education Bersin and expressed her appreciation for Ms. Evans’s work. She asked the California Department of Education (CDE) staff to include subgroup data at the school level whenever possible to inform the Board’s decision-making. Changes to the Agenda President Green announced that W-9 had been pulled from the agenda at the request of the district. President Green asked Board members to review a copy of the proposed consent calendar that they had been provided and indicated that copies were on the back table. She asked Board members to consider whether they would like to pull any consent items off the calendar for discussion. ITEM 1STATE 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.INFORMATION ACTIONPresident Green advised the Board members that Vice President Johnson had agreed to sit on the Board’s screening committee, and pointed out that there were still a number of Board liaison vacancies for which Board members could volunteer. She informed the Board of the contract with the Sacramento County of Education to provide capable people who had previously worked hard on the Board staff to advise the Board and to train new people coming in. The contract would include assistance from Karen Steentofte, who would help to run the present meeting. She expressed her appreciation to Dave Gordon, Superintendent of the Sacramento County Office of Education, for his support of the contract. Board Liaison Reports Board Member Bloom announced that she had attended the California Summer School for the Arts, an exemplary and unique partnership between the State and private industry, which provides an incredible opportunity for 500 students and their teachers. No action was taken. ITEM 2PUBLIC 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 Public Speaker Curtis Washington, California Teacher’s Association’s (CTA) liaison to the Board Mr. Washington introduced new liaisons: Paul Markowitz, Middle School Teacher, Las Virgenes Unified School District Margie Granada, Elementary School Teacher from Montebello Unified School District Erik Hines, Elementary School Teacher from Pittsburg Unified School District Martha Wallace, Special Liaison for ESEA, Middle School Teacher from Alum Rock Unified School District. President Green recognized Curtis Washington as a former State Board member from 2003 and thanked him for introducing the new liaisons form CTA. No action was taken. ITEM 32005 Follow-Up Adoption of Kindergarten through Grade Eight Instructional Materials in Foreign Language: Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission Recommendations.INFORMATION ACTION PUBLIC HEARINGDr. Tom Adams, Director of the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division, CDE Dr. Norma Baker, Chair of the Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission (Curriculum Commission) Sue Stickel, Deputy Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, CDE Dr. Adams explained that the purpose of the follow-up adoptions is to add materials to the existing adoption lists, this time in three content areas: foreign language, mathematics and reading/language arts. These were the first follow-up adoptions since the passage of AB 1058, which allows publishers’ fees to finance the cost of adoptions. The State Board adopted the schedule of events for the adoptions in November 2004. The Invitation to Submit was initiated February 8, 2005. Two panels of reviewers were formed for each subject area: the Content Review Panel, whose members are experts in their subject area, and the Instructional Materials Advisory Panels, which are composed primarily of classroom teachers. Panel members were trained on the process and on the adoption criteria. The criteria are the same as were used in the primary adoption in 2003 for foreign language, 2002 in reading/language arts, and 2001 for mathematics. Following the training, panel members individually reviewed the materials. The reviewers met in Sacramento to discuss the materials with the other panel members. In July, the Commission held two public hearings, voted, and was now bringing forward recommendations to the State Board. Dr. Baker introduced Jose Velasquez, Chair of the Foreign Language Subject Matter Committee, and described more about the process. Public Hearing: Opened 9:28 a.m. There were no public speakers. Public Hearing: Closed 9:29 a.m. Board Member Bloom asked that in the future the existing list be included so that Board members could see how the new materials fit in with the existing titles. Board Member Chan asked about foreign language standards and stressed the importance of building an understanding of culture, as well as verbal and written fluency, in order to communicate. Dr. Adams clarified that there are no foreign language standards at the present time, so the Foreign Language Framework was built around a five-stage language learning continuum provided to the CDE by the College Board. Dr. Adams reported that the new Foreign Language Framework would include foreign language standards, and that the current Framework does stress that one’s ability to speak a language is dependent upon understanding the culture. Board Member Bersin suggested that the legislative mandate for the standards in foreign languages gives the Board an opportunity to consider this whole area in the near future. He stressed the importance of people being able to communicate in two or more languages in order to access the modern world. Board Members Williams and Noonan indicated that they had been approached by individuals who were concerned that members of the public had inadequate opportunity to get involved in the adoption process and that there were meetings between Commissioners that were not open to the public. Dr. Baker replied that all meetings are open to the public, and that there is an opportunity for public comment at every meeting. Dr. Adams added that all submitted instructional materials are on display at the 22 Learning Resources Display Centers around the state at county and district offices, and at colleges and universities. A press release from the Superintendent is released that invites people to review the materials and make recommendations. Their comments are forwarded to the Board. He explained that the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, and that any time there is a meeting involving two or more commissioners it is publicly noticed. Ms. Steentofte confirmed that the Curriculum Commission must adhere to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, can only meet in private on litigation and employment issues, of which they have none, and that they are also prohibited from having serial meetings. Ms. Steentofte asked that if people had any specific concerns, they should contact the Board staff who would look into it with the CDE. Motion: Ms. Johnson moved that the State Board: Adopt the foreign language instructional materials as recommended by the Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission, with edits and corrections to be approved by the Chair of the Commission, the Chair of the Foreign Language Committee, and the Director of the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division; Reject the foreign language instructional materials in accordance with the recommendations of the Curriculum Commission; Approve as its written explanation of the reasons for rejecting the submission that the State Board found that it did not adequately meet the criteria for adoption, taking into account the totality of the information received, including, but not limited to, the reasons presented by the Curriculum Commission; and, Approve the Curriculum Commission's report as the final State Board Report of the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption in Foreign Language, subject to final editing and approval by the President of the State Board. Ms. Bloom seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 10-0. ITEM 42005 Follow-Up Adoption of Kindergarten through Grade Eight Instructional Materials in Mathematics: Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission Recommendations.INFORMATION ACTION PUBLIC HEARINGDr. Adams and Dr. Baker reported that the recommended follow-up mathematics instructional materials would provide additional choices in the areas of algebra, pre-algebra and elementary mathematics. The panels reviewed six submitted programs and recommended five programs. The Curriculum Commission concurred with the IMAP/CRP recommendations. The mathematics instructional materials list will expire June 30, 2007. Dr. Baker introduced Dr. Charles Munger, Chair of the Mathematics Subject Matter Committee, who was in attendance to answer questions. Public Hearing: Opened 9:48 a.m. There were no public speakers. Public Hearing: Closed 9:49 a.m. The Board Members engaged in a discussion of whether or not districts would purchase these materials or wait until 2007. Dr. Adams explained that the textbook industry is always surveyed prior to the follow-up adoption to determine interest and that the follow-up adoption is required by law. Sue Stickel advised the Board that districts would sometimes purchase a text for use in afterschool programs that was different from the materials purchased for use during the regular day, and that districts with poor mathematics achievement scores would look for new materials now rather than after the next adoption. Board Member Chan asked if districts could use money appropriated as a part of the Williams settlement for purchase of new algebra and pre-algebra books and asked about professional development for Deciles 1 and 2 schools. Dr. Adams responded that Williams money ($137 million statewide) could be used to purchase materials off the current lists, including the follow-up adoption materials added to the list by Board action, and that professional development would be provided under AB 466, in addition to whatever the publisher might provide as a routine service. Ms. Stickel emphasized the importance of ongoing, planned professional development such as AB 466 and AB 75 as opposed to one-shot in-services training. Motion: Mr. Noonan moved that the Board: Adopt the mathematics instructional materials as recommended by the Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission, with edits and corrections to be approved by the Chair of the Commission and the Chair of the Mathematics Committee, and the Director of the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division; Reject the mathematics instructional materials in accordance with the recommendations of the Curriculum Commission; Approve as its written explanation of the reasons for rejecting the submission that the State Board found that it did not adequately meet the criteria for adoption, taking into account the totality of the information received, including, but not limited to, the reasons presented by the Curriculum Commission; Approve the Curriculum Commission’s report as the final State Board Report of the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption in Mathematics, subject to the final editing and approval of the President of the State Board of Education. Ms. Bloom seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 10-0. ITEM 52005 Follow-Up Adoption of Kindergarten through Grade Eight Instructional Materials in Reading Language Arts/English Language Development: Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission Recommendations.INFORMATION ACTION PUBLIC HEARINGDr. Baker brought the Commission’s recommendation to add four programs to the Reading/Language Arts and English Language Development adoption list, which would expire in June 30, 2008. She described the kinds of materials reviewed for adoption in the 2005 Follow-up Adoption in Reading/Language Arts English Language Development, which included materials for English Learners and for those students reading two or more years below grade level. She noted that four panels reviewed eight programs, using the Board-adopted criteria from the 2002 adoption. She introduced Julie Maravilla, Chair of the Reading/Language Arts English Language Development Subject Matter Committee of the Curriculum Commission. Public Hearing: Opened 10:05 a.m. There were no public speakers Public Hearing: Closed 10:06 a.m. Motion: Mr. Nuńez moved that the Board: Adopt the Reading/Language Arts instructional materials as recommended by the Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission, with edits and corrections to be approved by the by the Chair of the Commission and the Chair of the Reading/Language Arts Committee, and the Director of the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division; Reject the Reading/Language Arts instructional materials in accordance with the recommendations of the Curriculum Commission; Approve as its written explanation of the reasons for rejecting those submissions that the State Board found that they did not adequately meet the criteria for adoption, taking into account the totality of the information received, including, but not limited to, the reasons presented by the Curriculum Commission; Approve the Curriculum Commission's report as the final State Board report of the 2005 Follow-Up Adoption in Reading/Language Arts/English Language Development, subject to the final editing and approval of the State Board President. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 9-0. Board Member Bersin was absent at the time of the vote. ITEM 6No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001- Including, but Not Limited To, an Update on Approval from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) of Amendments to California’s Accountability Workbook, Including the State’s Application for NCLB Flexibility Regarding Students with Disabilities; the Status of Required Submissions to the California Department of Education (CDE) from Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) Identified for Program Improvement (PI) and an Update on ED’s September 2004 Title I Monitoring Visit.INFORMATION ACTIONDiane Levin, Manager of the NCLB Implementation and Coordination Office updated the Board regarding the approval of the NCLB workbook amendments. She directed the Board to a letter from the ED (included in the Board item) that approved California’s participation in the flexibility option with regard to accounting for special education pupils in the calculation of Adequate Yearly progress (AYP). She also reported on a Title 1 follow-up visit by the ED on August 23 and 24, during which the ED focused on three issues: 1) comparability; 2) supplemental education services; and 3) parent involvement. The CDE submitted information in anticipation of and during the visit but has not received any feedback to date from ED. The CDE did receive verbal commendations for the Categorical Monitoring Program (CMP, the revised Coordinated Compliance Review (CCR)). Debbie Rury, consultant with the same unit, reported on the status of the Local Educational Agency Plans Addenda submitted to date by 129 of the 142 school districts identified as program improvement (PI) districts in April, 2005. The CDE developed a template for the addenda with specific questions based on components in the law and the information the CDE needed, including the degree to which the district has implemented the nine essential components. The CDE also provided an English learner self assessment tool for those with difficulties in EL achievement, and two different tools for those districts identified in regard to students with disabilities. The CDE is working with the 13 districts which have not yet submitted their addenda. The Local Educational Agency (LEA) Plan and addenda will be used as a part of the CMP review. Board members discussed mechanisms for ensuring the plans were sufficiently rigorous, that they prioritized student achievement, that they were updated regularly, and that they were implemented by districts. No action was taken. ITEM 7No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Results from the 2005 Accountability Progress Reports.INFORMATION ACTIONBill Padia, Director of the Policy and Evaluation Division, reported on the annual accountability progress report, which gives the school-wide Academic Performance Indicator (API) and the AYP results. He highlighted the good news, that 81% of schools made their school-wide targets (an increase from 64%). He reported that nine percent fewer schools (56%) made their AYP and attributed this to the steep increase (almost a doubling) in the targets for the percent proficient in both reading and mathematics. The program improvement results will be reported on September 20. Board Member Bersin remarked on the lack of harmony between the API and AYP and reported that the Governor and US Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings agreed to appoint a work group, consisting of Jack O’Connell, Alan Bersin, Ruth Green, Ray Simon and his deputy, and Tom Luce from the ED, to look into how the growth and status models might be brought together. Testing expert Ed Hartel from Stanford and other psychometricians, will advise the work group, which is supported by funding from the Hewlett Foundation. The group will work to create a middle ground that would lead to the identification of a smaller and more manageable number of schools for PI status. Mr. Bersin reported on a second work group created by Superintendent Jack O’Connell, Secretary of Education Alan Bersin and President Green to develop suggestions for a unified framework for intervention consistent with NCLB, which would reduce the confusion created by having several different intervention systems. Board Members discussed the tension between growth and status models, the history behind the Board’s earlier decision to support a growth model, the decision to maintain its high standard for proficiency, and the importance of ensuring that the model California uses is consistent with both State and federal law. President Green expressed a desire to return to the discussion of making the overall API target higher than 800, raising the expectations for subgroups, and expressed her opposition to deconstructing the API. Chief Deputy Payne clarified that the CDE is not proposing to deconstruct the API. He stated that the federal government now understands that there is more than one way to accomplish accountability and has assembled a workgroup from which we expect a report in the next month or so. Board Member Noonan emphasized that the central goal of an accountability system is to determine whether or not students grow and that pressure caused by the API and AYP has caused some schools to pay attention to students to whom they have never paid attention. He wants to ensure that changes to the accountability system not result in these students being left out again. No action was taken. Housekeeping Ms. Steentofte requested that everyone who wished to speak on an item to sign up at the back of the room so that the Board agenda could be rearranged with items that people had traveled to Sacramento in order to address being heard that day and not being put over until Thursday. Ms. Steentofte also confirmed that Item 33 would be heard that day. President Green promised Board members that they would be finished by noon on Thursday. Proposed Consent Items (Items 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, and 31) President Green asked whether the Board members wanted any items removed from the consent item. Items 8 and 25 were removed from the proposed consent calendar. The final Consent Items were Items 9, 13, 14, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30 and 31. Mr. Bersin, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Noonan and Mr. Fisher recused themselves from the consent items. ITEM 9No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Approve Local Educational Agency Plans (Title 1 Section 1112)ACTIONITEM 13Consolidated Applications 2004-05: Approval ACTIONITEM 14Consolidated Applications 2005-06: Approval. ACTIONITEM 19Report on Alternative Schools Accountability Model Pre-Post Test Review Process. ACTIONITEM 22Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program, Assembly Bill 466 (Chapter 737, Statues of 2001): Approval of Training Providers and Training Curricula.ACTION ITEM 23Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program, Assembly Bill 466 (Chapter 737, Statues of 2001): Approve Reimbursement Requests from Local Educational Agencies.ACTION ITEM 24The Principal Training Program, Assembly Bill 75 (Chapter 697, Statutes of 2001): Approval of Applications for Funding from Local Educational Agencies and Consortia.ACTIONITEM 26Instructional Materials Fund – Approve Tentative Encumbrances and Allocations for Fiscal Year 2005-06.ACTIONITEM 30Assignment of Numbers for Charter School PetitionsACTIONITEM 31Charter Schools: Determination of Funding Requests for 2004-05 and 2005-06 for Nonclassroom-based Charter Schools.ACTION MOTION: Ms. Johnson moved to approve the staff recommendations to: ITEM 9: Approve six local educational agencies NCLB plans. ITEM 13: Approve the 2004-2005 Consolidated Applications submitted by the 25 charter schools listed in Attachment 1. ITEM 14: Approve the 2005-2006 Consolidated Applications submitted by 1,157 LEAs listed in Attachment 1 ITEM 19: Approve two instruments for use in ASAM: the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) Reading and the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) Math ITEM 22: Approve the following AB 466 professional development providers and training curricula: Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento and Tehema Counties for Sadler-Oxford, Progress in Mathematics, K-3; Etiwanda School District for Houghton Mifflin Language Arts Program, grade six. ITEM 23: Approve reimbursement requests for AB 466 funding for 17 LEAs for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 as listed in Attachment 1 of the Board item and one LEA for 2005-2006 as listed in Attachment 2 of the Board item. ITEM 24: Approve the request for AB 75 funding for 12 LEAs as listed in Attachment ITEM 26: Approve the IMF tentative encumbrances and allocations for fiscal year 2005-2006 as listed in Attachment 2 of the Board item. ITEM 30: Assign charter school numbers 750 and 751 to two charter schools identified in the board item, City Arts Academy and Achieve Charter School respectively. ITEM 31: Approve various 2004-5 and 2005-6 funding determination requests from charter schools as listed in Attachment 1 of the Board item. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0. Mr. Bersin, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Noonan and Mr. Fisher recused themselves. ITEM 8No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Approve Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Providers for 2005-07.INFORMATION ACTIONCamille Maben, Director, School and District Accountability Division, asked for concerns on Item 8. Board Member Bloom’s question was about provision of ELD services, and Ms. Maben clarified that Supplemental Service providers were not required to provide ELD services. MOTION: Ms. Bloom moved to approve 25 additional providers for Supplemental Educational Services as listed in the Last Minute Memorandum. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 10-0. ITEM 25Gifted and Talented Education: Approval of Applications for Funding from Local Educational Agencies.INFORMATION ACTIONDon Kairott, Director, Professional Development and Curriculum Support Division, asked for Board comments and concerns regarding Item 25. Board Member Bloom asked why there was such a discrepancy in the amount of money per GATE student. Mr. Kairott clarified that the funding is based on the total ADA in the district, not the number of students served in the program. Ms. Barkett added that districts determine the criteria for identification of gifted students, resulting in a wide variety of percentages of GATE-identified students across districts. President Green asked for an assurance that GATE services are provided within the school day, as required by State law. Board Member Chan asked why some large districts were not on the list. Mr. Kairott clarified that some districts were already approved by the Board, as applications may be approved for one, two, three or five years. Mr. Kairott promised to bring an informational memo to the Board in October about the history, flexibility, funding and identification practices in the GATE Program. MOTION: Mr. Williams moved to approve applications for Gifted and Talented Education from 297 school districts for fiscal year 2005-2006, as listed in Attachments 2, 3 and 4 of the Board item. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 9-0. Mr. Noonan recused himself from the vote. President Green announced to the audience that Item 33, the ROP item, would be heard after Item 10. ITEM 10Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program: Work Plan for a 36-month Review of State-Monitored Schools that May Be Subject to Additional Sanctions.INFORMATION ACTION Wendy Harris, Director of the School Improvement Division shared good news from the data release of schools in the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (IIUSP). Of the 1,290 schools, 725 of them have exited. Another 417 were on watch and might exit once additional data is available. A total of 145 schools have been deemed state monitored. In the first cohort of 24 State monitored schools, 17 exited because they made growth two years in a row. In the second cohort of 31 state monitored schools (03-04), one is closed and 23 have exited. Among those 23 schools, growth has been quite substantial. The average growth of these schools was 65 API points. Two made combined two-year growth of over 100 API points; 12 grew between 50 and 99 points; and 16 additional schools made their school-wide growth targets in both years. Seven schools will continue for a third year but four of those made positive growth in their second year and may exit next year. The second cohort was the first to go through the improved SAIT process. Of the 350 High Priority (HP) schools, 132 schools will exit now because they have made their growth targets two out of three years and positive growth all three years. Additional schools may exit as schools and districts verify and correct testing system data. The CDE requested that the Board approve a new approach for the six schools that will face additional Board action in March 2006. These schools were in the first SAIT process that did not include the nine essential SAIT components. CDE proposes to look extensively at the data on these schools, find out how many of the nine elements they have implemented, and how the money has been spent. The CDE wants a team to talk to all parties involved. Senior CDE staff would lead these teams that would include district and county representatives, and Board designees, and would provide recommendations to the Board at its March meeting. Board Member Johnson indicated that the Board wants latitude to add other people to the proposed review teams, and to use these six schools to better understand the school improvement process. She added that some of these six schools may also be program improvement schools under NCLB, which would need to be looked at as well. Chief Deputy Payne expressed how seriously Superintendent O’Connell takes this responsibility, and of his interest in being inclusive of the Board’s members on the teams. Board Member Fisher asked how many schools in this State are a 1/1, the lowest rank on a statewide basis and in the similar school ranking. The response was that there are about 100 1/1 schools. He asked what the Board can do about those schools, that may need more help than some of these six that are being discussed, and have perhaps not volunteered. Board Member Chan asked that the group include people with expertise in four areas: human resources, supplemental instruction, parent communication about charter schools, and expertise in closing schools. She wanted to ensure that since most of the six schools are elementary, the majority of team members be experts in elementary teaching and learning. Board Member Bersin commented that we are in a transition with intervention and how to identify failing schools. This is an opportunity for us to learn more before the Board has to make a decision in March. He expressed the urgency of reaching out to parents, teachers and other staff members and listening to what is occurring at those schools. He supported the idea of adding others to the team, and proposed building into the process intensive outreach and consultation to guard against making unworkable decisions. He encouraged the inclusion of the county superintendent on the team, and suggested that the county superintendent be accountable, in part, for the recommendation that comes to the Board. Chief Deputy Payne addressed Mr. Fisher’s question about the 1/1 schools and said we want to focus on the lowest two deciles. Deputy Payne reminded the Board that there is $60 million in the budget this year for a new group of HP schools. MOTION: Ms. Johnson moved to approve the work plan as recommended by staff for conducting a review of State-monitored schools that may be subject to additional sanctions under State and federal law and include outside experts knowledgeable in the possible sanctions to be appointed by the President of the State Board of Education as members of the review team. She amended the motion to include an intensive and extensive outreach component to the school parents and community. Ms. Chan seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 10-0. President Green announced that the Board would consider Item 33 next, would then move to Item 32, and then to the order in the agenda beginning with Item 11. ITEM 33Second Regional Occupational Program within the San Joaquin County Office of Education: Action on Request for Establishment.INFORMATION ACTION Patrick Ainsworth, Director, Secondary, Postsecondary, and Adult Education Division, and Deputy Superintendent Nick Foutes, San Joaquin County Office of Education, presented a proposal to develop a second ROP at a charter school serving a small population of female incarcerated teens. This program would receive about $50,000, which would come out of a total ROP annual budget of $420 million using the necessary small ROP formula. Education Code EC 52301a allows a county to establish and maintain at least one ROP/C in the county, with approval of the SBE, to provide technical and vocational programs. This language does not prohibit the establishment of a second ROP. Mr. Ainsworth stated that the CDE believes the proposal has merit and recommended approval, with conditions identified by staff, that include: 1) the program being run as a two-year pilot program with rigorous achievement standards; and 2) as a condition of full approval, the County returning to the SBE in two years to show they had met goals regarding achievement, CAHSEE passage rates, drop-out rates, etc. Mr. Foutes elaborated that: 1) they want to serve 100% of high school kids; 2) they chose a charter as a vehicle because of the flexibility a charter provides; and 3) this will be housed in a section of the largest city in the county where 100% of the elementary students qualify for free and reduced lunch, and 100% of the elementary, middle and high schools have been identified for PI. This pilot (and the charter school) would be capped at 350 average daily attendance (ADA). He stated that they welcome an evaluation after two years based on the achievement of these students and indicated this is a standard not required of other ROPs. Mr. Foutes also advised the Board that EC 52302.5 requires that ROPs assign the highest priority to students age 16-18. In addition, EC 52335.4 requires that each ROP serve high school age students (grades 9-12) unless all the needs of the grades 9-12 population have been met. He reported that many ROPs are not adhering to these priorities and serve adults while high school students’ needs are unmet. Mr. Nuńez and Ms. Green asked why this school would be a charter. Mr. Foutes replied that the charter provides flexibility in terms of location, curriculum and how the day is structured. They have one charter already that they think does a good job and would like to do another with a vocational focus. Vice President Johnson asked about the history and legal background of ROP. Mr. Ainsworth reported that ROP began in 1968 and experienced a huge growth period in the 1970s, fueled by local taxes. After Proposition 13 in 1982, funding became a State responsibility and an ADA cap was placed on each ROP. Since then, some ROPs have grown and others have not. Board members discussed the additional information they wanted about ROP and the proposal before them. Mr. Fisher and Ms. Green asked for specific achievement targets, so the Board could judge success. President Green wanted more information about the specific academic plan for these at risk students. Mr. Foutes responded that, while ROPs are not typically asked to set academic targets, they would be happy to work with the Board to set those goals. Ms. Chan and Mr. Noonan asked why the county couldn’t combine the two ROPs. Mr. Ainsworth replied that the funding for the small ROP follows a different formula than the regular ROP and that combining the programs would reduce the ADA cap for the original program, which was already at its cap. Mr. Bersin expressed his support of the idea behind the program, but was uncertain about how the program should be put into effect. He asked whether approving this second ROP in a county would be setting a precedent and changing the whole system. Karen Steentofte replied that this was not a precedent legally, and that each case could be handled on a case-by-case basis, but that if additional requests were anticipated, the Board could direct the staff to investigate regulations, which allow for further public input. Board Member Bersin asked on what basis the Board would evaluate additional requests. Board Member Williams suggested that additional requests should be evaluated on the basis of the merits of the program Board Member Bloom asked about the funding formula and Pat Ainsworth replied that ROP was the only program where both the regular ADA and the ROP ADA are collected for the student simultaneously. The following individuals addressed the Board: Paul Waters, Director of the ROP/C in Butte County and president of the California Association of Regional Occupational Centers and Programs Randy Page, Tri-County ROP/C Peggy Barber, LAUSD, Mark Lions, San Bernardino County and 16 school districts. Nancy Massich, Administrator for Fresno ROP, speaking on behalf of Peter Mehas, Superintendent of Fresno County Office of Education John Felice, Director of Mission Trails ROP in Salinas Peter Birdsall, Birdsall and Associates, Representing the California Association of Regional Occupational Centers and Programs Colin Miller, California Charter Schools Association Gary Borden, Charter Voice Sherry Griffith, Association of California School Administrators Teresa Enlam, Metropolitan Education ROC in Santa Clara County and Long Beach Unified School District Board members agreed that the discussion had identified many issues that needed to be addressed including the ADA cap, the necessary small school funding formula, the ROP accountability process and whether they were adequate, charter school participation, and serving youth first and adults later. President Green suggested the Board think about sending this back and asking the staff to develop regulations. She asked the Board whether they would like to put this off until November, and perhaps go through the regulatory process. Ms. Steentofte suggested there are two advantages to the regulatory process: 1) it provides a uniform approach to this kind of request; and 2) it provides a public input process with more specificity as to what the criteria might be and under what conditions it would be allowable to have another ROP in a county. She suggested that the regulatory process can take some time but that it results in a lot of useful information. The Board discussed the value of utilizing the regulations development process to identify key policy issues and to gain formal public comment. Mr. Bersin stated that the Board and the CDE have the ability to recommend legislation to address the larger policy issues raised by this discussion. Gavin Payne suggested that the regulations should address only the narrow issue of how to go about deciding whether or not to add another ROP. Mr. Williams reminded the Board that they had a county office representative before them who had made a request and that, for the Board to institute a lengthy process rather than making a decision, could be very frustrating. He suggested the Board give Mr. Foutes an opportunity to state what San Joaquin County Office of Education would like to see happen next given the Board’s discussion. President Green asked Mr. Foutes what they would like to do in light of the Board’s discussion. Foutes suggested that there seemed to be a willingness to deal with legislation and regulations and that they would be happy to be put their county’s request on hold and come back to the Board. Ms. Green proposed revisiting the issue of small necessary ROPs in November. She would like to put regulations in place before revisiting San Joaquin’s request. Ms. Chan said that, if there were a consensus to postpone until November, the CDE should come back with proposed regulations, including qualitative criteria, not just quantitative, on when and how to approve a second, small ROP. She also requested a review of the 35 years of ROP, what were the expected outcomes, what is the API, how do big and small programs compare, the cap, how they identify students, what kind of programs they run, and the bigger picture questions. Mr. Fisher asked for an analysis of the range of costs per student because there seems to be a big variation between one program and another. He commented that adding regular ADA and ROP ADA provided substantially more money than non-ROP programs are getting and asked whether all that money was needed. Mr. Nuńez responded by stating that ROPs purchase expensive equipment, consumables, technology to run programs such as auto shop, culinary, nursing and that they are very expensive to run. CDE staff replied that they would bring proposed regulations on this topic to the Board in November and provide an information item to the Board in October to provide the background information on ROP’s requested by the Board members. . President Green announced this item would be coming back in November for discussion. Changes to the Agenda President Green announced that the Board would be meeting again on Thursday. Ms. Steentofte announced the order of items for the remainder of the day: 32, 21, 16, 18, W-7 and W-12. ITEM 32Request by High Tech High Learning to Become a Statewide Benefit Charter School Under the Oversight of the State Board of Education.INFORMATION ACTION PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Green informed the Board that they would hear the item today but put the decision over until November when High Tech High (HTH) would come back to the Board. Marta Reyes, Director, Charter Schools Division, introduced Deborah Connelly who would present the item. Ms. Connelly reported that the High Tech High Petition is the first Statewide Benefit charter petition. She indicated that the Advisory Committee for Charter Schools heard the petition in May, and recommended approval to the Board with conditions listed on page 2 of the agenda item. She noted that Statewide Benefit charter schools must demonstrate a statewide instructional benefit that could not occur with one charter school at a time, and that HTH had described a benefit in their proposal. In addition, she reported that HTH had demonstrated success with their high performing charter schools in San Diego and that the Charter Schools Office was recommending approval with conditions. Board Member Johnson asked Ms. Connelly to summarize what the statewide benefit would be. Ms. Connelly suggested that there was a benefit to students through innovative learning opportunities, a rigorous college prep program with real world learning experiences in a small setting, and an alumni program that supports the students’ postsecondary education. HTH has been approved by CTC for teacher preparation. They have a good handle on various funding initiatives available and have catalyzed redevelopment in some of the areas and are able to work with redevelopment agencies to re-vitalize areas and combine that with a charter school. Ms. Reyes added that the statewide benefit is that they have some incredible programs and are showing improved achievement with a variety of students. They are willing to take what they have learned and go into hard to serve areas. The statewide benefit would be to provide some choices in these difficult areas. Ms. Reyes reminded the Board that regulations had been approved for Statewide Benefit charter schools and that we would need a new memorandum of understanding for oversight which could be developed between now and the 2006 opening date. Mr. Nuńez asked why this group couldn’t just go through the regular approval process as a regular charter. Ms. Reyes responded that as a Statewide Benefit charter they could propel excellent programs more quickly across the State, targeting those areas most in need of assistance. The CDE wanted someone with a gold standard for the Board to consider as the first Statewide Benefit charter. Ms. Green asked about subgroup growth for low SES students. Ms. Connelly replied that HTH serves roughly 10% low SES, not enough for a subgroup score on the API. She indicated that Hispanic students did constitute a significant group and they met their targets. President Green questioned the efficacy of the plan with regard to helping underperforming students develop foundational skills in reading, writing and numeracy. She commented that programs such as summer bridging, project-based learning and before and after school tutorials do not speak to this. She suggested that the model needed to show how the basic educational plan would meet those needs rather than their being addressed in after school programs. She also asked whether the MOU should be developed prior to initial approval, whether it was better to approve a plan and then work out the details, or better to ask for certain measurable outcomes in the initial proposal. Ms. Reyes responded that the CDE is willing to work with the Board in either approach. President Green asked about new market tax credits on page 12 where it says that it is crucial that the community development enterprise be able to show the ability to open many sites across California. She indicated that even if the Board granted the statewide charter, the opening of additional schools would be predicated on the existing schools maintaining an API rank of 7 or higher and similar schools rank of 6 or higher, and so it was not guaranteed that many sites would be opened across California. Ms. Chan said that she was very excited to see a new model and that having a good model can accelerate the scaling up of more effective schools. She asked if we could assume that the Title 1 count of 22% - 36% is the low SES group on the handout showing enrollment figures. If so, then HTH is serving 22-36% low SES count. The consensus was that this was correct. President Green asked if these schools are ones that HTH operates now. The answer was yes, but the reason they do not have test scores is that either they do not have sufficient number of students in the subgroup or they just opened this year. Ms. Reyes noted that HTH is raising the number of low SES from 22 to 36% Dr. Larry Rosenstock, CEO of HTH introduced Rod Parker, director of Special Education for High Tech High and a number of other HTH staff. Dr. Rosenstock explained that the range of reported percentage of SES is due to the difference between what students report and what parents report. Also, these are all small schools of 400 students each, and on the STAR test you need a minimum of 100 students in a sub group to generate a subgroup score. He suggested that what is really significant is that HTH has 100% of students going to college and succeeding. Dr. Rosenstock gave a history of HTH, which was started by a group of 40 educators in San Diego interested in offering a tuition free, autonomous school designed to attract a diverse population of students. Last year they had 2400 applications for 400 slots and ended up opening more schools. Presently they have one elementary charter that feeds 2 middle school charters and 3 high school charters, with a total of 2,000 students for $12M. Dr. Rosenstock outlined the reasons for seeking to become a Statewide Benefit Charter utilizing a Charter Management Organization (CMO): 1) Financial. It is cheaper to have a central organization for small schools. 2) Saturation. They don’t want to reject 2000 students per year. 3) Impact. The district broke down larger high schools into smaller ones to look more like HTH and educators from the district went through HTH trainings. 4) New Market Tax Credits. These allow organizations to apply for low interest rate loans for schools in areas of poverty. 5) Teacher Development. HTH can hire more qualified teachers because it has become an engine for training more teachers in mathematics and science. This is a statewide benefit. 6) Jobs for graduates. HTH provides jobs to student alumni. As they go into college; they work as tutors in HTH schools. All of these things could be done as individual charter schools but are streamlined as a Statewide Benefit charter. Mr. Noonan said that he was impressed with the quality of the program and the well-earned reputation. He asked how many schools would be opened and in what areas. He also asked how the State Board would monitor what HTH has committed to do. Dr. Rosenstock answered that approximately two schools would open each year for the next five years. Ms. Chan commented on the strong team and expressed her confidence in HTH. She asked, as they scale up to 5,000 kids over 5 years, how much contribution financially would be necessary in terms of overhead to support these small schools, and whether there would be adequate resources for these small schools for things such as technology and lower class size. She asked if the 1% going to CDE would give CDE adequate support to monitor the schools. Finally, she asked HTH to talk about their SELPA. Dr. Rosenstock’s response was that the CMO serves as a support to the schools. They charge a 5-8% indirect cost rate, but reduce this cost if necessary. Regarding special education, they now have a slightly higher percentage of special education students than the local district, because it has become known that HTH will serve special education pupils. They partnered with the Desert Mountain SELPA in San Bernardino County whose innovative staff is experienced with outreach, travel and distance learning. The SELPA provides oversight, support and training, and monitor to make sure HTH is serving its students. HTH provides the services. HTH serves 8 of the 13 handicapping conditions and 2 of the 3 low incidence conditions. They have picked up students from the public schools at a savings to those districts. They have special day class kids, but they individualize all services in the least restrictive environment. President Green thanked the group for the presentation and suggested that they come back in November and address the timeline, new market tax credits, measurable goals, oversight, and subgroup information. No action was taken. ITEM 21Revised Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) Regulations: Proposed Title 5 Regulations – Approve Proposed Amendments and Circulate for the Third 15-Day Public Comment Period.INFORMATION ACTIONCamille Maben, Director, School and District Accountability Division, described the Uniform Complaint Procedure (UCP) as a formal process that allows anyone to file a complaint about a variety of topics. Each LEA must adopt policies and procedures for complaint resolution, designate a staff position to receive complaints, protect complainants against retaliation, and provide someone to help fill out the complaint if necessary. The CDE monitors this program through the Categorical Program Monitoring System (CPM), which replaced the CCR. The UCP regulations were first adopted in 1991 and need revision as several laws have passed since then. The regulations have undergone several public comment periods and revisions as a result of public comment. The UCP strives to resolve problems at the local level but allows issues that have not been resolved to be appealed to the State level. The CDE conducts an investigation including an on-site visit if necessary. The proposed UCP regulations help ensure that complaints are fully described, and include language that states that if the LEA does not provide the required information, it could result in a finding for the complainant. In addition, despite the infrequent use of mediation, the public input process revealed that retaining the mediation option is important. CDE is responsible to provide staff to mediate the process at no cost to the complainant or the LEA. The new UCP also addresses the Williams settlement. The CDE is preparing a user-friendly parent pamphlet. In the latest public comment period, seven comments were received but none were related to the new part of the regulations. Since the July Board meeting, two new bills have been enacted, requiring additional changes in the proposed regulations. The CDE asked the Board to send the revised proposed regulations out for a new 15-day comment period and, if no negative comments are received on the latest revisions, to direct staff to send these proposed regulations to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). Individuals who addressed the Board: Gabrial Medel, parent Urbana Reyes, parent Ms. Chan asked if the mediator is appointed or if the parent can choose someone, when and how CDE establishes criteria for when an on-site investigation is needed, and what else could be done for parent outreach in addition to the pamphlets. Ms. Maben replied that historically the mediator is a CDE person. If the locals want to use a local mediator, they could. There are no formal criteria for when an on-site investigation is necessary, but the CDE does an on-site investigation whenever in their judgment that is the best means of obtaining the information necessary to resolve the complaint. The CDE is looking at doing regional trainings for district staff on the new instrument and process, and are presenting at various conferences. Mr. Noonan thanked Ms. Maben for her excellent report and thanked the parents for speaking. He inquired how documentation was done prior to these regulations and whether the burden of proof is on the parents. Ms. Maben described documentation as the essential details about the complaint: what happened and when. Ms. Maben clarified that while the burden of proof is not on the parents, the parents need to provide clear information so that the complaint can be investigated and resolved. MOTION: Ms. Johnson moved to approve the revisions with technical changes and direct staff to circulate the proposed regulations for another 15-day public comment period. If no objections to these latest revisions are received, direct staff to complete the rulemaking package and submit it to the Office of Administrative Law; if substantive objections are received staff will place the proposed regulations on the Board’s November agenda. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion was passed by a vote of 8-0. Board Members Bersin and Fisher were absent. ITEM 16California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE): Including, but Not Limited To, CAHSEE Program Update on 2004-05 Test Administrations and the Release of Summary Test Results.INFORMATION ACTIONDeb Sigman, Director, Standards and Assessment Division, reported that for the class of 2006, which includes students who have taken the test more than once, 88% of the class has passed each part. She stated that the CDE did not have the percentage of students who had passed both parts, but that information will be in the HumRRO report, which will be available September 30 and will be brought to the Board in November. She indicated that staff remains concerned about students with disabilities, English Learners and Hispanic students, but reported that pass rates for students with disabilities doubled. They are now at 54% for ELA and 51% for math. Mr. Noonan asked if the CDE separates the group that is on diploma track but has not passed the test from the group of students not on a graduation path. Ms. Sigman replied that HumRRO will collect these data during the 2005-06 year. Three individuals addressed the Board: Jo Behm, Past President, Learning Disabilities Association Sylvia De Ruvo, California Association of Special Education Teachers Liz Gehan, Public Advocates In response to a speaker’s comment, Ms. Johnson said that there is no question that we have a serious drop out problem, but that it is disingenuous to suggest that we should include in the CAHSEE pass rate calculation students who do not even sit for the exam or students who drop out. She also reported that the settlement in the Chapman case will probably not work because the author of the bill did not adhere to the settlement provisions. Mr. Noonan suggested much more attention and resources are now going to students who have not passed the exam. Deb Sigman replied that the HumRRO report bears that out. Mr. Nuńez reminded the Board that there is an appropriation of $20 million in this year’s budget for districts to help prepare these students. No action was taken. ITEM 18Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Approval of the 2005-06 Contract for the Aprenda, 3rd Edition (Aprenda 3) with Harcourt Assessment, Inc.INFORMATION ACTIONMs. Sigman reminded the Board that the Board approved Aprenda 3 with several conditions. The Last Minute Blue Item reports the results of the negotiations regarding the conditions. In August, the CDE, Board Staff, Department of Finance and Harcourt sat down to negotiate these items and to discuss more fully the scope of work. The requirements established by the Board as conditions for awarding the contract have been met and there was a savings to the State of about $60,000. Ms. Sigman recommended the Board move forward with the contract and scope of work. Motion: Ms. Johnson moved to approve the 2005-06 Contract and Scope of Work with Harcourt Assessment, Inc., using Aprenda, 3rd Edition, and including the following provisions: CDE and Harcourt may make non-material, technical changes to the Scope of Work that have no costs associated with them; and CDE and Harcourt may make substantive changes to the Scope of Work that have no costs associated with them provided that the Harcourt Program Director, the SBE President, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction agree to them. ( Mr. Noonan seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 8-0. Board Members Fisher and Bersin were absent for the vote. ITEM W-7Petition request under Education Code (EC) sections 60421(d) and 60200(g) by Lake Tahoe Unified School District to purchase Instructional Resources (Everyday Mathematics, c. 2001, kindergarten through grade three, and c. 2002, grades four through six) using Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program (IMFRP) monies. Waiver Number: 14-5-2005 (Recommended for APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS)ACTION Tom Adams, Director, Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Materials Division, presented this waiver request. He reported that the district had submitted and then withdrawn a similar waiver in July and that during the intervening period, he had asked the district to look at areas of weakness and address professional development for teachers in those areas, which the district had done. CDE recommended approval with conditions. Ms. Bloom asked why the Board would allow this waiver when the teachers are not trained in Everyday Mathematics, and the program is not Board-adopted. The representative from the district replied that they were approved for a waiver in 2003 and have been using Everyday Math since then. With declining enrollment they are losing teachers and have to re-train, especially at grades two and three. They explained that they would only use this product for two years, until the new mathematics adoption. President Green noted that scores have jumped around a lot. She asked the district to come back and report on scores next year, in case something else is needed, and suggested that the waiver request be approved for just one year. Motion: Ms. Bloom moved to approve the waiver for one year with the condition that the district comes back and report on achievement scores next year. Mr. Noonan seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Board Members Williams, Bersin and Fisher were absent for the vote. ITEM W-12Request by San Jose Unified School District for a waiver of the elementary Physical Education statute, Education Code (EC) Section so that a portion of the lunch period for grades one through five may be used for physical education for Almaden Elementary School, which was designated as a School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) School in November 2004. Waiver Number: 6-7-2005 (Recommended for APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS)ACTION Judy Pinegar, Waivers Office, with assistance from Don Kairott, Director of the Professional Development and Curriculum Support Division, and Laura Wagner, Manager of the Intervention Assistance Office presented this item. Ms. Pinegar advised the Board that this is the first time they have heard a waiver request of this type. The district has asked the Board to waive Education Code (51210(g)) which says that the 200 minutes of required physical education may not occur at lunch. Ms. Wagner explained that the school is in the SAIT process and that, because this school has an extensive need for reading intervention, corrective action from the SAIT requires that these students receive 2-3 hours of reading each day, an hour of mathematics, and intervention. In addition, a desegregation order requires an hour of English Language Development. The district did not want to give up physical education but, in order to fit everything in, would like to offer physical education during lunch. The CDE recommends approval with the conditions that the teachers and instructional aides receive professional development for providing the PE program, that the CDE can review an implementation plan and documentation, and that the waiver be for one-year. Miguel Montes, Principal Mr. Noonan said he was inclined to approve the waiver request because the district is asking up front and they have worked very hard on the schedule. Ms. Bloom stated that she would vote against this request and suggested that the teachers’ union has a responsibility to participate in a solution. This could be the only hot meal that some of these students have all day and it is just not fair to ask them to eat it in 15-20 minutes. Ms. Johnson concurred. Ms. Chan asked the school principal for specific information on the school’s schedule, about the organization of the lunch process, and how it had been practiced. He explained that extending the day was not an option due to busing schedules. Mr. Gardner suggested that the principal go back to the teachers because it seemed as if the students were being punished for something that was not their fault. Mr. Payne reminded the Board we are sending mixed messages to districts. In one conversation we are hammering them to increase achievement but on the other hand we are not supporting a school that has an innovative solution to do just that. Individual who addressed the Board: George Martinez, California Federation of Teachers Ms. Chan suggested that some of the professional development time on Wednesdays be used for instructional time, with a minimum day every other week. The principal responded that the grade level meetings and professional development time are needed for teachers to address how to best meet the needs of these students. Ms. Pinegar suggested that a one-year waiver would give the district time to work with their collective bargaining representatives to come up with another solution. Motion: Mr. Noonan moved to approve the staff recommendation for a one-year waiver. Mr. Nuńez seconded the motion. The motion was defeated by a vote of 5-3. Board Members Bloom, Gardner, Chan, Johnson, and Williams voted in opposition. Board Members Noonan, Green, and Nuńez voted in favor of the motion. Board Members Bersin and Fisher were absent for the vote. (Note: This waiver request was re-considered on September 8 and a revised request was approved by the Board. Please see minutes for September 8, 2005, for the full action on this item.) President Green announced that the public session on Thursday would begin after closed session, at approximately 8:45 a.m., and that items 11, 12, 15, 17, 18. 20, 27, 28, 29 and waivers would be taken up. President Green adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.     Final Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2005 Wednesday, September 7, 2005 Page  PAGE 1 of 38 Ueœßé   $ 5 Į Ō 2 Š ß ‹   ō  ń%&6łżéd€‚ƒŠÆ"/5<ćäöģßģŁĻģŁĘŁßģ¼ģŁĘµĘŖģßģ • ģ¼ģŠģ €ģvģŖģlģlģ¼hHBOJQJ^Jh\“OJQJ^JhL}~OJQJ^Jh<2"5OJQJ^JhŲc‚6OJQJ^JhŲc‚OJQJ^Jh<2"OJQJ\^J h<2"\^JhŲv™OJQJ^Jh<2"5\^Jh<2"^JmH sH  h<2"^Jh<2"5OJQJ\^Jh<2"OJQJ^JhÖ%„OJQJ^J*$=TUeœØ³æŠßéü   $ % 5 z ² ļ + s · śśśśśųųųņņņņņņųųņņņļļļļļļļļ$ ĘąĄ!$a$Ź8žž· ó @ — Ū 2 € Ļ Š ß Œ    õ ö  78U,-{|DEčéüüüśüōōōōōōōśśņśķśņśśśśśśśś & F ĘąĄ!$écd€ƒŠÆ%,żżżųżņ¾ņœņ" Ę50żŠ p@ ą°€P šĄ!$`'$If4 ĘYhŠ8 pŲ @ Ø xąH°€čPø ˆšX Ą!(#$ų%`'$If$IfgdŲc‚ ,-åęüżö÷•““““‘“““““‹$Ifjkd$$If–l”°ÖF’—% övö6ööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laö 䇋&NQ[a !÷‰¼"½"®#¶#.%1%(1(Ø(©(¶(Š())~)Æ*i,…,ž-’-².Į.Ė.Ģ.Ņ.ā.Ż/į/00"060ˆ1‰1„1¦1>3öģöęöŪöŃöĒöŃö½öĒö½ö°ö½ö°ö°öŃö„ö½öŃö½öŃö½ö›‹}ö}ö„öh<2"B*OJQJ^Jphh<2"B*OJQJ\^JphhxdOJQJ^Jh<2"OJQJ]^Jh<2"6OJQJ]^JhŲv™OJQJ^Jhq =OJQJ^JhŲc‚OJQJ^Jh<2">*OJQJ^J h<2"^Jhą5 OJQJ^Jh<2"OJQJ^J1&%wx¢ī@Ż××rpnppppppekdœ$$If–l”°ÖF’™%t\vö6Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laö$If" Ę50żŠ p@ ą°€P šĄ!$`'$If ö÷‰Š ”©`sz„…åY   ” żżųżżżņņņņņżżżżekd8$$If–l”°ÖF’'½3"š–vö6Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laö$IfgdŲc‚” o#p#l%m%ń%ņ%&&4&5&X&Y&ū&ü&|)~)®*Æ*Ń+Ņ+y.z.005060żżżżżżżżżżżżżżżżųųżżżżżżīč„Š^„Š & F1$gdxdgdŲc‚60ˆ1‰122>3?3 4 4V4W4^45#5*545śóśńśęįߣßÓÓÓÓÓ$If„h^„h & F „Š„xH$^„Š`„x„šH$^„š & F >3 4 4U4V45ž566|66F9H9i9n9>;H;z;š;ķ<÷<=×=n>p>‡>ˆ>ā>å>@@Z@z@Ć@Š@ņ@ó@>A?A@AˆD‘D E EyE~EƒE›EGG$G%G€G‚G¼H¾HńęńęÜŅÜČÜŅÜČÜČܾܾÜČÜęńęń®ńęńÜę£ę£ęÜęÜęÜŅܘÜęęńęń®ńęńęh ĪOJQJ\^Jh<2"OJQJ]^Jhq =OJQJ\^Jh<2"B*OJQJ]^Jphhą5 OJQJ^JhŲv™OJQJ^Jhq =OJQJ^Jh<2"OJQJ^Jh<2"OJQJ\^Jh<2"B*OJQJ^Jph74555\7]7~77ž7Ÿ7Į7Ā7):*:ų<ł<#=$=o>š˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜“˜Ž & F & FekdŌ$$If–l”°ÖF’Ž%t\vö6Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laöo>p>ä>å>@@ó@ō@?A@AGA B,B3B:BDBłōņōņōņłņģģģģģģ$If & F„h^„hDBEBDD E E.E/EMENEqErE›EœEGG•““““““““““Ž“‰ƒ„h^„h & F & Fjkdp$$If–l”°ÖF’Ž%’vö6ööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laöGG‚G½H¾H§IØI&J(J*J3J1L=LDLśųśųśųņųųģįįį  ĘąĄ!$If$If„h^„h & F ¾H¦I§IĪI%J&J'J)J*J3JDLHNONgRmRŠR“RCTOTp?påqėqr1rv|v’x”xi~y~×~€ÅŹū‚ƒ«†®†Õ†×†‡‡S‡ˆ%ˆ³ˆøˆ¹ˆĮˆĢˆ ‰‰)‰j‰m‰n‰o‰‰śšśšśšęÜšŅšČšČš¾š“šŖš¾š¾šŖšŖš¾š¾š ¾ ¾ “¾“¾“ “š†šh<2"5OJQJ\^Jhó{äh’%×OJQJ^Jh’%×OJQJ^Jh2k7OJQJ^Jhą5 OJQJ^JhÆk OJQJ^Jhó{äOJQJ^JhEcĖOJQJ^JhŲc‚OJQJ^JhL}~OJQJ^Jh<2"OJQJ^J h<2"^J0écźcņc•dœd•$Ifjkd$$If–l”°ÖF’4Į9"§xö6ööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laöœdd¦dReZe’ŒŒŒ$Ifmkd“$$If–l4”°ÖF’4Į9"§xö6ööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laöf4Ze[ece ff•$IfjkdV$$If–l”°ÖF’(¹9"›‘€ö6ööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laöfff€f‡f•„  ĘąĄ!$If$Ifjkdņ$$If–l”°ÖF’(¹9"›‘€ö6ööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laö‡fˆffĆfŹf•„  ĘąĄ!$If$IfjkdŽ$$If–l”°ÖF’(¹9"›‘€ö6ööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laöŹfĖfÓfFgMg•$Ifjkd* $$If–l”°ÖF’(¹9"›‘€ö6ööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laöMgNgOgPg”gŠgFh®hCi¤i jZj/k•ˆˆ|tttttllt & FgdŲc‚ & FgdŲc‚ & F Ę²gdŲc‚ Ę²„h^„hgdL}~jkdĘ $$If–l”°ÖF’(Į9"›™xö6ööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laö /k‚k l¬l9mŃmŅmŚmJnVn]n^nmono÷÷÷÷īģęęęę|ģģjkdb $$If–l”žÖF’™% ōvö6ööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laö$If ĘhgdŲc‚ & FgdŲc‚ no>p@pHp­pĄpĮpģrķrätåtvv|v}v…vśųņņņˆųųųųśųƒųņgdÆk jkdž $$If–l”°ÖF’œ%t\vö6ööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laö$If & F…v%w1w9w:wixjxS{T{[|\|Ö~×~€ €Ķ€łłłŒŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ…ŠŠgdÆk mkdš $$If–l4”°ÖF’ņ½3"eĖvö6ööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laöf4$IfĶ€Ī€’ƒ“ƒX†Y†I‡J‡n‰o‰ŠŠŠ•Š”ŠØŠ©Šżżżżżżżõżżżļļļļļ$If & Fgd2k7‰€‰ž‰§‰®‰³‰µ‰Å‰Ń‰ŠŠŠ’Š‹$‹%‹?‹L‹$Œ(Œ\ŒkŒtŒ}Œ…ŒˆŒ )-LjĖŁŽ÷5Ž9Ž<ŽNŽ[ŽrŽÖŽ×ŽēŽķŽt‡‰!ÉŪÜŻ-‘D‘O‘e‘h‘i‘k‘q‘å‘õ‘’’*’öģöģöģöģöģßģÕģÕģÕģĖģÕģÕģÕģÕģÕģÕģÕģÕģÕģÕģÕģĮģÕģĮģÕģÕģÕ·ÕģÕģÕģÕģ­ģ­ģ­ģh“’OJQJ^JhŲv!OJQJ^Jhą5 OJQJ^Jh¶mńOJQJ^JhÖ%„OJQJ^Jh<2"5OJQJ\^Jh<2"OJQJ^Jh+YaOJQJ^JD©ŠŖŠčŽéŽl‘m‘““5”6”œ••c—d—Œ˜˜‡™ˆ™š˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜““gd†=ųekd< $$If–l”°ÖF’˜%t\vö6Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laö*’3’J’K’„’š’Ć’Č’É’Ī’““““F“J“Ö“Ž“č“ż“”y”€”‚”†”ˆ”‰””ž”””¢”Æ”³”ś”• •'•C•H•M•Q••–––––Ģ–Š–×–ķ–d—h—m—|—†—¦—®—“—ļ—š—˜K˜öģöģöģöāöģöģöģöģŲāģöģĪģĪģÄģĪģĪģĪģĪģĪģŗģŗģ°ģ°ā°ģ°ģ°ģ¦ģ¦ģ¦ģ¦ģ¦ģ¦hÜ6ļOJQJ^JhĪ$OJQJ^Jh4g…OJQJ^Jh¶mńOJQJ^Jh<[’OJQJ^Jhą5 OJQJ^Jh+YaOJQJ^Jh<2"OJQJ^Jh“’OJQJ^J>K˜O˜˜œšÄœÅœžœ’œ78=>±»Ēāńżžžž)žCžDžšž§ž±žĻžŠžŃžÜžŻžżž-Ÿ.ŸBŸIŸLŸSŸ–Ÿ­s­ˆ­‰­Ö­×­Ų­öģāŲöŲöŲöŲöŲöŲöŲöĪÄĪŲöŲöŲöŗŲöŲ°Ųö£ŲöŲöŲāŲ˜ŠŲ€ŲhxdOJQJ^Jhxdh<2"5OJQJ^Jhxd5OJQJ^Jhķ,Bhķ,BOJQJ^Jh+YaOJQJ^JhEcĖOJQJ^JhŖo«p«.¬/¬­­r­s­‰­Ų­B®C®K®Š®Ü®ć®ź®õ®śśśśśśśśśśśśųųųųųųųņņņņņņ$Ifgd†=ųŲ­Ü­÷®ū®Æ$Æ2ÆDÆRÆfÆ{ƁƜÆĶÆßÆčÆ°°$°S°T°[°\°m°°;±C±D±K±L±Ķ±Ī±ō±²i²s²Ž²²ę²š² ³³|³~³Ó³Ō³ “(“TµUµ¶¶'¶(¶£¶ŗ¶Å¶å¶’¶·f·j·²·»·Š·Ņ·öģāģāģāģāģāģāŲģāģāģöģĪģāģāĪģĪģāģāģāģāģöģöģöģÄģÄģŗģ°ģŗģÄŗÄģŗģÄģ¦ģÄh+Q3OJQJ^Jh†=ųOJQJ^JhQZPOJQJ^Jh\dOJQJ^Jhv!‡OJQJ^Jh¶mńOJQJ^Jh ”OJQJ^Jh<2"OJQJ^JhĄ lOJQJ^JAõ®ö®›ÆœÆŗ²»²u¶v¶e·f·ķøīø÷¹ų¹ö¼÷¼õ¾ö¾š˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜“˜gd†=ųekdŲ $$If–l”°ÖF’Ÿ%t\vö6Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laöŅ·Ó·å·ł·øÜøäøīøņø¹)¹‘¹¤¹¶¹Å¹ŗdŗ˜ŗ­ŗ·ŗ×ŗN»R»m»„»»œ»Ļ»Ū»Ž»ü» ¼¼X¼b¼©¼ø¼æ¼Į¼÷¼õ¾ö¾ś¾1æAæ—ææžæĄĀĀ.Ā/Ā2ĀAĀZĀ]Ā×ĀŪĀŽÅ]ÉaÉöģāŲāŲāĪāŲāĪāĪāÄāÄāŲāÄāÄāÄāÄāÄāÄāÄāÄāÄāŗā°ā°ā°āöā°ā°ā°ā°ā°ā¦œh¹POJQJ^JhGqäOJQJ^JhgU7OJQJ^Jh†=ųOJQJ^JhįWyOJQJ^Jh+Q3OJQJ^JhQZPOJQJ^Jh<2"OJQJ^Jh\dOJQJ^JhĄ lOJQJ^J=ö¾eĄfĄ„Į¦Į1Ā2ĀÓĆŌĆÅŽÅ\É]ÉNŹOŹµŹ¶Ź«Ģ¬ĢIŠJŠŃŃ1Ń2Ń:Ńēќѿżżżżżżżżżųųżżżżżżżżżżżżņņņ$IfgdGqäaÉĢÉĶɞɒÉGŹJŹMŹgŹ¬Ź“Ź¶ŹŗŹiĢuĢ¤Ģ„ĢŌĢÕĢHĪIĪTĪ[ĪlĪoĪØĪ²Ī¹ĪŗĪüŠżŠŃŃhÓiÓ'Õ2ÕVÕYÕyÕÅÕšÕžÕ’ÕÖÖÖ"Ö*Ö/ÖhÖpÖ£ÖŁÖņÖūÖĒ×’×#Ų$ŲFŲöģöāöģŲģöģöĪöĪöÄöĪöĪöĪöĪöĪöĪöŲöŗöŗöŗöŗö­£ö£ö£ö£ö£ö£ö£ö£ö™ö™öhßIšOJQJ^Jh¼QĪOJQJ^Jh¼QĪh¼QĪOJQJ^Jh…!’OJQJ^JhĄ lOJQJ^JhC4yOJQJ^Jh¶mńOJQJ^JhGqäOJQJ^Jh¹POJQJ^Jh<2"OJQJ^J<śŃūŃŌŌšŌńŌĘÕĒÕ’×ŲżŁžŁ%Ś;ŚPŚQŚDŪ’‹gdßIšmkdt $$If–l4”°ÖF’š%t\vö6ööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laöf4FŲKŲÅŲŠŲ]Ł^ŁƒŁ›ŁŁ ŁżŁ#Ś%Ś2Ś:ŚGŚOŚQŚUŚ·Ś×ŚŪŪ‡ŪˆŪ£Ū©ŪĶŪŌŪļŪšŪÜØÜ<Ż@Ż%į&į9āIālāmāźāć.ć2ćIćNćZćbćićöģöģöģāģŲģŲģĒ¶Ē¶Ē¬ģ¢ģ¬ģ¬ģ¬ģ¬ģ¢ģāģ¬ģ˜ģŽģŽģŽģŽģ„ģ„ģhāc)OJQJ^Jh` OJQJ^Jh -—OJQJ^JhQZPOJQJ^JhtŖOJQJ^J hßIšhßIšOJQJ^JmH sH  hßIšh<2"OJQJ^JmH sH hßIšOJQJ^JhGqäOJQJ^Jh<2"OJQJ^Jh¼QĪOJQJ^J1DŪEŪ;Ż<Ż&ß'ßXįYįaįāā$ā%āµä¶ä åżżżżżųżņņņņˆżżżjkd$$If–l”°ÖF’–%t\vö6ööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laö$If & Fićoćœć”ć¾ćĮćÉćŹćĖćŽćėć@äRä¶äŗäńäłäå å=åJåPåhånåoå‡åžåĶåĪåįåāåźåėå÷åųåfęŠę#č'č®č“čµčĢčŠčōč éé;éćéåé€ģŽģąģtīuīöģāģāģŲģāŲģāģāģāģāģāŲģöĪģāģÄģÄģÄģÄģŗģŗģöĪģŗģŗģ°ģ„ģššģh<2"H*OJQJ\^Jh<2"OJQJ\^Jh<2"H*OJQJ^JhļfUOJQJ^Jh” ÜOJQJ^JhĢaOJQJ^JhĄ lOJQJ^Jh¶mńOJQJ^Jhāc)OJQJ^Jh<2"OJQJ^JhæZšOJQJ^J6 å”åČåęIęeęfę"č#č\é]étéué}éź%ź,źżżżżżżżżżżżż÷÷÷÷$If,ź-źaģbģķŽķwīöī÷īļFš•““Ž‰‰“]W$If" Ę50żŠ p@ ą°€P šĄ!$`'$If  ĘąĄ!„Š^„Š & F & Fjkd²$$If–l”°ÖF’š%t\vö6ööÖ ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’2Ö2Ö s4Ö laö uīvīwīöī÷īļļ%ļ'ļ)ļMļoļpļ•ļ«ļ³ļ“ļFš_šŠš‘š’š“š”ššäšń†ńIņMņ*õ+õ‚õõķõöõKöUö¼öĻöA÷E÷ńēćēŲēĖēĖēŲĄēµēµēÆØŲē””ēŠēŠēŠē”ē€ē€ēŲØvØo h¢Dø\^Jh<2"6\]^Jh¶mńOJQJ^Jh” ÜOJQJ^Jh<2"5OJQJ\^J h<2"^Jh h<2"\^J h<2"^Jh<2"6OJQJ^Jh<2"5OJQJ^Jh<2"6OJQJ]^Jh<2"OJQJ\^Jh<2"h<2"OJQJ^Jh<2"B*OJQJ^Jph’’)Fš_šŠš‘š’š“šŻŻŗ“©  ĘąĄ!$If$If# Ę/0ż p@ ą°€P šĄ!$`'„H$If]„H" Ę50żŠ p@ ą°€P šĄ!$`'$If“š”šHņIņįņāņAō*õ+õJöKö}}}}}}wr} & F ĘąĄ!kdN$$If–lÖÖFTX D%TģÖ0’’’’’’öD%Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’4Ö laöl KöUö¾÷Ö÷ųų ų ųŻ»»»˜’’$If# Ę/0ż p@ ą°€P šĄ!$`'„H$If]„H" Ę50żŠ p@ ą°€P šĄ!$`'$If" Ę50żŠ p@ ą°€P šĄ!$`'$IfE÷H÷ųų ų ųųöųtłwłł—łīł ś)ś5śūūū–ū·ūōūüƒü”ü•üœüĖüŪüŽüāüźüėüģüķüż żŸż£żŲż÷żųżłżŗžĄžÕžŁžŽžäžłž,’W’X’É’Ķ’č’ųńęÜęÜŅÜŅÜęÜŅÜŅÜŅČܾܾܾ“¾Ü¾Ü¾ÜŖÜ –ŒÜŒÜ“ܓ܌܌܌܌܌܌Üh‰DPOJQJ^JhļfUOJQJ^Jh—yxOJQJ^JhtOJQJ^JhĄ lOJQJ^Jh·ŸOJQJ^Jh}SOJQJ^Jh” ÜOJQJ^Jh<2"OJQJ^Jh<2"OJQJ\^J h<2"\^J h¶mń\^J7 ų ųģüķüżżžżŸżŌžÕžČ’É’lm_}}}}}}}}}}}}}kdū$$If–lÖÖFTX D%TģÖ0’’’’’’öD%Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’Ö ’’’4Ö laölč’é’mq -2`j·ø¼QRƱ÷ü7<IO^h¦§ –ŹĖĶĪŠŃÓŌÖÜ%&öģāģŲģāģŲģĪāģöģŲģÄģŗģ°ģŗģŗģ¦ģžšžšžšžšƒƒl%jhMAchØBŅ0JOJQJU^JhØBŅhMAchØBŅOJQJ^JhĒ&OJQJ^Jhu¶jhu¶UhļfUOJQJ^JhoHOJQJ^Jh÷OJQJ^Jh ĪOJQJ^JhÓžOJQJ^JhĄ lOJQJ^Jh©R…OJQJ^Jh<2"OJQJ^JhQZPOJQJ^J*_`„·ø÷ųžŸ  ĘĒ–—ŹĢĶĻŠŅÓÕÖäżżżżżżżżųżóóóżżżżżżżżżżīīż$a$gdļfU & F &,-./3456789ńŽĶŽńĮµØ¤ –h<2"OJQJ^Jhu¶hØBŅhMAchØBŅOJQJ^Jhax0JOJQJ^JhØBŅ0JOJQJ^J!hLq[0JOJQJ^JmHnHu%jhMAchØBŅ0JOJQJU^JhMAchØBŅ0JOJQJ^J 6789õóóó  ĘĄ!$gdMAc,1h°Š/ °ą=!° "° # $ %°°Š°Š Šš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö 5Öö5Öv#v #vö#vv:V –l”°ö6ö5Ö 5Öö5Öv/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö 5Öō5Öv#v #vō#vv:V –l”°ö6ö5Öt5Ö\5Öv/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Öš5Ö–5Öv#vš#v–#vv:V –l”°ö6ö5Öš5Ö–5Öv/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö5Ö’5Öv#v#v’#vv:V –l”°ö6ö5Öt5Ö\5Öv/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö5Ö’5Öv#v#v’#vv:V –l”°ö6ö5Ö5Ö’5Öv/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö 5Öō5Öv#v #vō#vv:V –l”°ö6ö5Ö 5Öō5Öv/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö 5Öō5Öv#v #vō#vv:V –l”°ö6ö5Ö 5Öō5Öv/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö²5Ö‚5Öx#v²#v‚#vx:V –l”°ö6ö5Ö²5Ö‚5Öx/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö²5Ö‚5Öx#v²#v‚#vx:V –l”°ö6ö5Ö²5Ö‚5Öx/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö²5Ö‚5Öx#v²#v‚#vx:V –l”°ö6ö5Ö²5Ö‚5Öx/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö§5֍5Öx#v§#v#vx:V –l”°ö6ö5Ö§5֍5Öx/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Ö $$If–ł’!vh5Ö§5֍5Öx#v§#v#vx:V –l4”°ö6ö5Ö§5֍5Öx/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öf4š$$If–ł’!vh5Ö›5Ö‘5Ö€#v›#v‘#v€:V –l”°ö6ö5Ö›5Ö‘5Ö€/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö›5Ö‘5Ö€#v›#v‘#v€:V –l”°ö6ö5Ö›5Ö‘5Ö€/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö›5Ö‘5Ö€#v›#v‘#v€:V –l”°ö6ö5Ö›5Ö‘5Ö€/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö›5Ö‘5Ö€#v›#v‘#v€:V –l”°ö6ö5Ö›5Ö‘5Ö€/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö›5Ö™5Öx#v›#v™#vx:V –l”°ö6ö5Ö›5Ö™5Öx/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö 5Öō5Öv#v #vō#vv:V –l”žö6ö5Ö 5Öō5Öv/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö5Öń5Öv#v#vń#vv:V –l”°ö6ö5Öt5Ö\5Öv/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Ö $$If–ł’!vh5Öe5ÖĖ5Öv#ve#vĖ#vv:V –l4”°ö6ö5Öe5ÖĖ5Öv/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öf4š$$If–ł’!vh5Ö 5Öõ5Öv#v #võ#vv:V –l”°ö6ö5Öt5Ö\5Öv/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö5Öī5Öv#v#vī#vv:V –l”°ö6ö5Öt5Ö\5Öv/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Ö $$If–ł’!vh5Ö 5Öó5Öv#v #vó#vv:V –l4”°ö6ö5Öt5Ö\5Öv/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öf4š$$If–ł’!vh5Ö 5Ö÷5Öv#v #v÷#vv:V –l”°ö6ö5Öt5Ö\5Öv/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Öš$$If–ł’!vh5Ö 5Öó5Öv#v #vó#vv:V –l”°ö6ö5Öt5Ö\5Öv/Ö ’2Ö2Ö s4Ö«$$If–l!vh5ÖT5Ö5Öģ#vT#v#vģ:V –lÖ0’’’’’’öD%ö5ÖT5Ö5Öģ4Öaöl«$$If–l!vh5ÖT5Ö5Öģ#vT#v#vģ:V –lÖ0’’’’’’öD%ö5ÖT5Ö5Öģ4Öaöl†œ@@ń’@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH :@: Heading 1$@&5\DA@ņ’”D Default Paragraph FontVi@ó’³V  Table Normal :V ö4Ö4Ö laö (kō’Į(No List 6U@¢ń6 Hyperlink >*B*ph’@@@ Header  ĘąĄ! OJQJhRC@R Body Text Indent „ŠH$^„Š B*ph4 @"4 Footer  ĘąĄ!.)@¢1.  Page NumberH™BH  Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ9’‚’’’’$=TUeœØ³æŠßéü$%5z²ļ+s·ó@—Ū2€ĻŠßŒ õö  78U, - { | D E č é c d € ƒ Š Æ %,-åęüżö÷&%wx¢ī@ö÷‰Š ”©`sz„…åY ”oplmńņ45XYūü|!~!®"Æ"Ń#Ņ#y&z&((5(6(ˆ)‰)**>+?+ , ,V,W,^,-#-*-4-5-\/]/~//ž/Ÿ/Į/Ā/)2*2ų4ł4#5$5o6p6ä6å688ó8ō8?9@9G9 :,:3:::D:E:<< = =.=/=M=N=q=r=›=œ=???‚?½@¾@§AØA&B(B*B3B1D=DDDEDÕEÖE¦G§GņJóJÄKÅKŪKÜKćKCLOLVLWL•N–N7Q8QwRxR…T†T¢U£UWW1W2W?W@WöX÷XHYIY7Z8Z–Z—ZžZ[ [ [[A[B[I[J[R[[€[‡[ˆ[[ā[é[ź[ņ[•\œ\\¦\R]Z][]c] ^^^^€^‡^ˆ^^Ć^Ź^Ė^Ó^F_M_N_O_P_”_Š_F`®`Ca¤a bZb/c‚c d¬d9eŃeŅeŚeJfVf]f^fmgng>h@hHh­hĄhĮhģjķjälålnn|n}n…n%o1o9o:oipjpSsTs[t\tÖv×vx xĶxĪx’{“{X~Y~IJno‚‚‚•‚”‚Ø‚©‚Ŗ‚č†é†l‰m‰‹‹5Œ6ŒœcdŒ‡‘ˆ‘›’œ’k“l“1”2”a”b”ļ” •"•^•ä•–›–Ń–ķ–/—•—–—Ŗ™«™W›X›œ€œšž›žæŸĄŸc =¢>¢o£p£.¤/¤„„r„s„‰„Ų„B¦C¦K¦Š¦Ü¦ć¦ź¦õ¦ö¦›§œ§ŗŖ»Ŗu®v®eÆfÆķ°ī°÷±ų±ö“÷“õ¶ö¶eøfø„¹¦¹1ŗ2ŗÓ»Ō»½Ž½\Į]ĮNĀOĀµĀ¶Ā«Ä¬ÄIČJČÉÉ1É2É:ÉēÉśÉūÉĢĢšĢńĢĘĶĒĶ’ĻŠżŃžŃ%Ņ;ŅPŅQŅDÓEÓ;Õ<Õ&×'×XŁYŁaŁŚŚ$Ś%ŚµÜ¶Ü Ż”ŻČŻŽIŽeŽfŽ"ą#ą\į]įtįuį}įā%ā,ā-āaäbäåŽåwęöę÷ęēFč_čŠč‘č’č“č”čHźIźįźāźAģ*ķ+ķJīKīUī¾ļÖļšš š š šģōķōõõžõŸõŌöÕöČ÷É÷lųmų_ł`ł„ł·łøł÷śųśžūŸū ż żĘżĒż–ž—žŹžĢžĶžĻžŠžŅžÓžÕžÖžäž’’6’7’:’˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€€0€€˜0€ö€˜ 0€ö˜0€ö0€€˜0€8˜0€8˜0€8˜0€8˜0€8˜0€8˜0€8˜0€8˜0€8˜0€8˜0€8˜0€8€˜0€8©0€8Š ©0€8Š©0€8Š ©0€8Š©0€8Š ™0€8Ō ˜0€8€˜0€8€˜0€8€˜0€8€0€€˜0€ę˜0€ę˜0€ę˜0€ę˜0€ę©0€ęŠ ©0€ęŠ©0€ęŠ ©0€ęŠ ™0€ęŌ ˜0€ę0€€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜0€˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜0€˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š©0€Š©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š ™0€Ō ©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š ©0€Š ™0€Ō ©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š ©0€Š ™0€Ō ©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š ™0€Ō ©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š ™0€Ō ©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š ™0€Ō ©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š ™0€Ō ©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š ™0€Ō ©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š ™0€Ō ©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜ 0€˜ 0P_˜ 0P_˜ 0P_˜ 0P_˜ 0P_˜ 0Ca˜ 0Ca˜ 0P_˜ 0P_˜ 0P_˜ 0P_˜ 0 P_˜0€˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜0€˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜0€˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š©0€Š©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜ 0 €˜ 0€˜ 0€˜0€˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜ 0 €˜0€©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š©0€Š ©0€Š©0€Š©0€Š ™0€Ō ˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜ 0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€˜0€€˜@0€€€øŽ00°˜@0€€€øŽ00°˜@0€€€øŽ00°˜@0€€€øŽ00°˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€€˜@0€€˜@0€€øŽ00Č °$=TUeœØ³æŠßéü$%5z²ļ+s·ó@—Ū2€ĻŠßŒ õö  78U, - { | D E č é c d € ƒ Š Æ %,-åęüżö÷&%wx¢ī@ö÷‰Š ”©`sz„…åY ”oplmńņ45XYūü|!~!®"Æ"Ń#Ņ#y&z&((5(6(ˆ)‰)**>+?+ , ,V,W,^,-#-*-4-5-\//ž/Ÿ/Į/Ā/)2*2ų488ó8ō8?9@9G9 :D:E:¾@§AØA&B*B3B1DDDEDÕEÖE¦G§GņJÄKÅKŪKÜKćKCLVLWL•N–N7Q8QwRxR…T£UWW1W2W@WöX÷XHYIY7Z8Z–Z—ZžZ[ [ [[A[B[I[J[R[[€[‡[ˆ[[ā[é[ź[ņ[•\œ\\¦\R]Z][]c] ^^^^€^‡^ˆ^^Ć^Ź^Ė^Ó^F_M_N_”_Š_F`®`Ca¤a bZb/c‚c d¬d9eŃeŅeŚeJf]f^fmgng>h@hHh­hĄhĮhķjälålnn|n}n…n%o9o:oipjpSsTs[t\tÖv×vx xĶxĪx’{“{X~Y~IJno‚‚‚•‚”‚Ø‚©‚Ŗ‚č†é†l‰m‰‹‹5Œ6ŒœcdŒ‡‘ˆ‘›’œ’k“l“1”2”a”b”ļ” •"•^•ä•–›–Ń–ķ–/—•—–—Ŗ™«™W›X›œ€œšž›žæŸĄŸc =¢>¢o£p£.¤/¤„„s„‰„Ų„B¦C¦K¦Š¦Ü¦ć¦ź¦õ¦ö¦›§œ§ŗŖ»Ŗu®v®eÆfÆķ°ī°÷±ų±ö“÷“õ¶ö¶eøfø„¹¦¹1ŗ2ŗÓ»Ō»½Ž½\Į]ĮNĀOĀµĀ¶Ā«Ä¬ÄIČJČÉÉ1É2É:ÉēÉśÉūÉĢĢšĢńĢĘĶĒĶ’ĻŠżŃžŃ%Ņ;ŅPŅQŅDÓEÓ;Õ<Õ&×'×XŁYŁaŁŚŚ$Ś%ŚµÜ¶Ü Ż”ŻČŻŽIŽeŽfŽ"ą#ą\į]įtįuį}įā%ā,ā-āåŽåwęöę÷ęēFč_čŠč‘č’č“č”čHźIźįźAģ*ķ+ķJīKīUī¾ļÖļšš š š šģōķōõõžõŸõŌöÕöČ÷É÷lųmų_ł`ł„ł·łøł÷śųśžūŸū ż żĘżĒż–ž—ž:’˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜0€€€0€€€˜0€ö€š 0€ö€˜0€ö€0€€€˜0€¢€˜0€¢€˜0€¢€˜0€¢€˜0€¢€˜0€¢€˜0€¢€˜0€¢€˜0€¢€˜0€¢€˜0€¢€š0€¢š0€¢€«0€¢ ©0€¢€©0€¢ ©0€¢€©0€¢ ™0€¢ š0€¢€˜0€¢€˜0€¢€˜0€¢€0€€€˜0€C€˜0€C€˜0€C€˜0€C€˜0€C€©0€C ©0€C€©0€C ©0€C ™0€C ˜0€C€0€€€š0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€š0€s˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€©0€s ©0€s ©0€s€©0€s€©0€s ™0€s ˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€š0€sš0€sš0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€˜0€s€š0€s€˜0€s€˜ 0€s€˜0€s€˜ 0€s€˜0€s€˜ 0€s€˜0€s€˜ 0€s€˜0€s€š 0€s€y‰0š0K›TĀy‰0š0J€y‰00€y‰00 y‰0 0J y‰0 0I€y‰0 0H€y‰00 y‰00 y‰002€y‰0Ø0I©ÜĀy‰0Ø0H€y‰0Ø0F€y‰000€y‰002€y‰002€y‰0®0F€y‰002€y‰002 <ö”y‰000€y‰00€y‰0µ0F¶HĀy‰0µ0E€y‰0µ0C€y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 <)ćy‰00¤ {‰0¼0H½ Āy‰0¼0D€y‰0¼0C€y‰00€y‰0 0€y‰00 y‰0 0 y‰0 0 äćy‰00 y‰0Ē0F€y‰0Ē0D€y‰0Ē0A€y‰0Ē0B€y‰0Ē0B€y‰0Ļ0®€y‰0Ļ0¬€y‰0Ē0A€y‰0Ē0B€y‰00 y‰0 0 y‰0 0 ģ‘ćy‰00 y‰00€y‰00€y‰00€y‰0ą0¤€{‰0ą0£€y‰0ą0”€y‰0Ų0?€y‰0Ų0?€{‰00€y‰0Ž0@ßŲ"Āy‰0Ž0?€y‰0Ž0=€{‰00€{É00€y‰0ņ0–ó%Āy‰0ņ0•€y‰0ä0@€{É00€{É00€y‰0ä0?€y‰0ä0=€y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰0ė0; y‰00€y‰0ž0 y‰00 y‰00 y‰0ļ09 y‰00€y‰01ˆ y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰00 y‰0 0 y‰0 0 y‰0 0 y‰00 {É00€{É00€{É00€{É00€{É00€{É00€{É00€{É00€{É00€{É00€{É00‚{É00€{É00€{É00€{‰01/€y‰00 y‰0"0 y‰0"0#œ–ćy‰00¤ y‰0#1G€y‰0#1*€y‰0#1)€y‰0#1'€y‰00 y‰0$0 y‰0$0%¦ćy‰00¤ y‰0*1-+(+Āy‰0*1,€y‰0*1*€y‰0*1'€y‰0*1(€{É00€y‰0*1%€y‰00 y‰0&0 y‰0&0'@¦ćy‰00¤ y‰0K1B€y‰051&€y‰051%€y‰051#€y‰0-0|€y‰0-0}€y‰0-0}€y‰0-0}€{É00€y‰0=1&€y‰0=1%€y‰0=1#€{‰0-0}€y‰0C1#€y‰0-0|€y‰0-0}€{‰0-0}€y‰0G1#€{‰0-0|€y‰0-0z€y‰0-0€y‰0-0€y‰0-0 y‰0-0 y‰0-0€y‰00€y‰0(0 y‰00 y‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€{‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€{‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0A0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€{É00€{É00€{É00€{É00€y‰0M0€y‰0M0€y‰00€y‰0*0€{‰00€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0*0€y‰0d0€{É00€{É00€{É00€{É00€{É00€{É00‚{É00‚{É00‚{É00‚{É00‚{É00‚{É00‚{É00‚{É00‚{É00‚{É00€{É00€{É00€{É00€{É00€{‰0*0€y‰0ŗ1µ»č:Āy‰0ŗ1²€y‰0ž0€y‰0ž0€y‰0ž0€y‰00 y‰0*0 y‰0£0€y‰0£0€y‰0£0€y‰0*0 y‰00 y‰0,0€y‰0,0€y‰0,0€y‰0¬0€{‰0¬0€y‰0¬0 €y‰0,0€y‰0,0€y‰0µ0€y‰0µ0€y‰0µ0€y‰0ø0€y‰0µ0€y‰0µ0 €{É00€y‰0,0€y‰0,0€y‰0Ą0€y‰0Ą0€y‰0Ą0 €y‰0,0€y‰0,0€y‰0,0€y‰0Õ1xÖŠ=ģy‰0Õ1w€y‰0Č0€{É00€{É00€{‰00€y‰00€{‰0,0€y‰0Ó0€y‰0Ó0€y‰0Ó0 €y‰0,0€y‰0Ł0€y‰0Ł0€y‰0Ł0€y‰0Ł0€y‰0Ł0 €y‰00 y‰0,0 y‰0,0 y‰00 y‰0.0€y‰0ä0 €y‰00€y‰0.0€y‰0.0€y‰0.0€yÉ0.0€y‰0.0€{‰0.0€y‰0.0€y‰0.0€y‰0.0€y‰0.0€y‰0.0€y‰0.0€y‰0ö0 €{‰00€y‰0.0€y‰0.0€y‰0ś0 €y‰00€{‰0.0€y‰0.0 y‰0.0 y‰0’0 €y‰0.0 y‰00 {‰000€y‰000€{‰000€y‰01€y‰01€y‰00€y‰0 1 €y‰0 1 €y‰0 1 €y‰0 1 €y‰0 1 €{‰0 1 €y‰0 1€y‰00€y‰000€y‰000 y‰000 y‰000€y‰0001ˆ­ćy‰00¤ y‰01 @$…y‰01€{‰01€y‰00€y‰020€y‰020 y‰01 €y‰01€y‰01 y‰00€y‰020€y‰020 y‰00 y‰040€y‰0&1€y‰00€y‰0(1)&…y‰0(1€y‰0(1€y‰00€y‰040€y‰0/1  y‰0-1€y‰0-1€y‰0-1 y‰00€y‰040€y‰040 y‰00 ˜0€€˜0€€š0€€š0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€š0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€y‰0E1€y‰0E1€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€y‰0o2€˜0€€€y‰00€{‰00€y‰0s2€{É00€{É00€{É00€š0€€š€€€ 88mmmpä>3¾Hc‰*’K˜Ų­Ņ·aÉFŲićuīE÷č’&9„Š”š¦Ø©¬®°²“·»½æ· é,” 6045o>DBGDLVT@_Ac‡cécœdZef‡fŹfMg/kno…vĶ€©Šˆ™„õ®ö¾śŃDŪ å,źFš“šKö ų_9…‡ˆ‰‹ŒŽ‘’“•–—˜™›œžŸ ”¢£¤„§Ŗ«­Æ±³µ¶ø¹ŗ¼¾Ą8†[bdp!’•€š8š@ń’’’€€€÷š’šš0š( š ššB šS šæĖ’ ?š’’q'Q0äb(Q0Äņ’)Q0$c*Q0¼=@+Q0,-B,Q0ü£-Q0ŒūA.Q0dØ/Q0t¦Ž0Q0„!1Q0$!2Q04©3Q0äb64Q0l]5Q0ŌŸŽ6Q0$śA7Q0„R8Q0ü©9Q0ģ«:Q0„S;Q0“’Q0<ö?Q0“&A@Q0ĢfAQ0ó’BQ0y6CQ04DQ0¤BEQ0ĢūAFQ0Ä GQ0ģ~ŒHQ0„ŒIQ0ō£AJQ0<:#KQ0”8LQ0\9MQ0/BNQ0\)BOQ0Ō'PQ0‡ŽQQ0„c#RQ0܉SQ0$’TQ0DŽUQ0ģœŽVQ0ü=@WQ0?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghjiklmnopGSS]dd ''®¶ĀĀ¼ČȆ†ķ'?tŒó¹¹?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghjiklmnop8q*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€City€9p*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€9o*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€State€=n*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceName€=l*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceType€ M–qponplqpooqpoonploppqpqppqpopopnplqpqqqnplnpllnlnpnlqplpnqpqpqpqpnplnplqpopnplnlqpqppqpqpopopqpnplnplqponpnlqpopqįéĶÕA1L1ˆ<‘<®G²G7PGP"_._ƒ$ƒķ†ó†q‰w‰J‹P‹ŠŽÖŽd•k•§•¬•é•ļ•!–)–+–3–6—;—žžµž»žüžŸō¤ł¤°¹ŗ¹6ŗ@ŗŲ»ā»’½œ½SĀ]Ā°Ä¼Ä%Ņ,Ņ4Ņ:ŅIŅOŅiŪoŪhŻnŻĖŻĻŻŽŽMŽRŽ®ą“ąAļHļŹžŹžĢžĢžĶžĶžĻžŠžŅžÓžÕžÖž7’:’"3*3¼yÉyÆzµz·ˆĮˆGžQžŹžŹžĢžĢžĶžĶžĻžŠžŅžÓžÕžÖž7’:’33333ö ƒ Š -÷%Š©`…W,^,-5-@9G9 :E:*B3B1DEDÅKćKCLWL—ZžZ[[ā[ņ[•\¦\R]c] ^^€^^Ć^Ó^F_N_ŅeŚeJf^f@hHh­hĮhėmn}n…n%o:o‚‚•‚Ŗ‚C¦K¦Š¦ö¦É:ÉēÉūÉ*ŁXŁYŁaŁŚ%Ś…ܶÜ]į}įā-āuęwę÷ęēŠč”čKīUīš šÉžŹžŹžĢžĢžĶžĶžĻžŠžŅžÓžÕžÜž’’%’/’4’5’7’:’ŹžŹžĢžĢžĶžĶžĻžŠžŅžÓžÕžÖž7’:’ ŗO›@2É’’’’’’’’’ `ĻJ”6t’’’’’’’’’Ä5űš|’’’’’’’’’?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~€‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ‘’“”•–—˜™š›œžŸ ”¢£¤„¦§Ø©Ŗ«¬­®Æ°±²³“µ¶·ø¹ŗ»¼½¾æĄĮž’’’ĆÄÅĘĒČÉŹž’’’ĢĶĪĻŠŃŅÓŌÕÖ×ŲŁŚŪÜŻŽßąįāćäåęēčéźėģķīļšńņóōõö÷ųłśūüżž’      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456ž’’’89:;<=>ž’’’@ABCDEFž’’’ż’’’ż’’’ż’’’Kž’’’ž’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’Root Entry’’’’’’’’ ĄF@X™AČM€Data ’’’’’’’’’’’’ĀØ1Table’’’’ĖJÖWordDocument’’’’.‚SummaryInformation(’’’’’’’’’’’’7DocumentSummaryInformation8’’’’’’’’?CompObj’’’’’’’’’’’’q’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ ’’’’ ĄFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8ō9²q