 |
| ESPC Home | | | 2003 LAP* Book | | | Background | | | Legislator Profiles | | | Key Votes | | | LAP* Book Home |
|
|
| Numeric List |
|
|
| Accountability |
|
|
|
Health & Human Services |
|
|
| Justice System |
|
|
| Education |
|
|
| State Employees |
|
|
|
Taxation & Revenue |
|
|
|
Wildlife & Environment |
|
|
|
Worker & Public Safety |
|
|
| Tribal Affairs |
|
|
| Senior Citizens |
|
|
2003 General Session
|
HB 78 was intended to incorporate information from most of the 2002 interim studies into the school funding model.
But, instead of proposing changes to the funding model that would address problems identified in recent court decisions, HB 78 continued all of the interim studies for another year. Those studies are outlined below.
Funding for at-risk students depends on how the funding model estimates the number of at-risk students in each school district. In Campbell II, the Court held that schools must be "…fully reimbursed for the funds necessary to educate at-risk students with the most effective and current methods possible." The funding model used the number of students eligible for free or reduced-price school lunches and the number of limited English proficiency students as proxies to allocate funding for the education of at-risk students. The Court directed full reimbursement because of the lack of evidence linking the proxy numbers to actual numbers of at-risk students.
The interim study was supposed to determine if participation in the free or reduced-price lunch program and limited English speaking program was accurate as a proxy for at-risk students. The study was to be completed by November 2002.
The education community contends that there are a number of at-risk students not necessarily covered by the proxy numbers, such as students with drug-related or psychological problems who are neither low-income nor limited English speaking. They have advocated the use of class performance and behavior criteria to classify at-risk students.
HB 78 did not come to any conclusion on the question of how to accurately quantify at-risk students, but instead chose to continue to study the problem. This time, the state Department of Education is ordered to study the use of mobility or other similar measures as a possible supplement to use in conjunction with the number of students using the free or reduced-price lunch and limited English speaking programs. Mobility is undefined in the bill.
The state Department of Education was also directed to design a grant program to help school districts with summer school intervention and remediation programs for at-risk children, with separate funding from the education resource block grant model. This program would begin in the summer of 2004.
In 2002, the legislature added an adjustment to the funding model for regional cost-of-living differences, based on averaged data from the preceding three years of Wyoming's cost-of-living reports. The Legislature has used three-year averages in other areas, such as declining enrollments, recognizing that districts need time to accommodate change because they cannot lay off part of a teacher. But concern was raised about using the same principle for cost-of-living adjustments, because districts have to buy at today's prices, not the average price of the past three years.
To answer these concerns, the Legislature directed the Division of Economic Analysis (within the Department of Administration and Information) to develop a way to measure differences in regional costs that would replace or refine the existing Wyoming cost-of-living index in the funding model. A variety of different indices could be used instead of the three year averaged cost-of-living index, each of which would result in a different factor in the funding formula. The study was due before the end of 2002, so it could be incorporated into legislation for the 2003 General Session.
HB 78 did not resolve this question, but instead chose to continue to study the issue. Specifically, the bill directed the Division of Economic Analysis to report its final recommendations on how best to measure regional cost differences by November 2003. The Joint Education Interim Committee will then submit the recommendations and accompanying legislation in time for the 2004 budget session of the Legislature.
Funding for small rural schools and for small (population) school districts comprises a recurring thread through the litigation of the last 30 years. Many legislators believe that small schools and small school districts are entitled to additional funding because they suffer diseconomies of scale. However, the data to substantiate this belief has yet to materialize.
Last year, the Legislature directed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop criteria for defining small schools for the funding model by November 2002. An unspecified joint interim committee was then supposed to study the small school adjustment and economy of scale issues, and report their findings to the Joint Education Interim Committee in December 2002.
Once again, HB 78 did nothing more than direct the Joint Education Interim Committee to continue to study the question of how best to fund small schools and small population school districts, and to make some sort of recommendations to the 2004 budget session of the legislature.
HB 78 did contain some provisions not related to the various studies that were initiated last year.
In the area of special education, HB 78 required the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop guidelines for adequate special education staffing levels that would be used to assess special education programs statewide.
The Superintendent was directed to monitor special education practices of school districts statewide, to assess district variations in programs, and to monitor special education students' performance over time as a measure of school district performance in this area.
HB 78 extended the current special education funding component of the funding model through the school year 2004-2005.
The bill also initiated a new study, to determine how to implement a regionalized approach to special education programs.
HB 78 modified the statewide assessment system for measuring student progress (i.e., standardized student testing). Students in Wyoming are now tested in reading, writing and mathematics in grades four, eight and 11.
As introduced, HB 78 required that students would be tested in those same subjects every year from grades three through eight and grade 11, starting in school year 2004-2005. Starting the following year ('05-'06), students would be tested in science at least once from grades three to five, once from grades six through nine, and once again in grades 10 through 12.
HB 78 also provided an additional $600,000 for reading assessment and intervention programs.
As introduced, the total appropriation contained in HB 78 was $2,203,382, to fund the continuation of all these studies and implementation of various other components of the bill.
During House debate, numerous amendments were proposed and debated. One significant change in the bill was the deletion of specific increases in the statewide student assessment system (student testing). This was paired with the creation of a task force, funded at $250,000, to assess the testing system, modify it if necessary, and to make sure it can be used to meet year-to-year improvements that are required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
An amendment to provide funding for all schools that receive federal Title 1 funding for full day kindergarten was initially rejected. Later, an amendment to provide funds for all day kindergarten for schools with the highest numbers of children from low-income families passed. These would be schools in which 60 % or more of the students qualify as Title 1 students.
The House passed HB 78 on Third Reading, 56-4.
In the Senate, the appropriations for the various continued interim studies was changed to come from the budget reserve account instead of from the general fund. The Senate then specified that any appropriation coming from the budget reserve account was a one-time-only appropriation. They also specified that any unexpended, unobligated funds would revert to the fund of origin in June 2004.
The Senate also deleted $150,000 for funding model maintenance and training for school districts on how the model works.
The Senate deleted a review, which had been approved by the House, of an alternative funding model being promoted by school districts from around the state.
Senators modified HB 78 to say that standardized tests must include some open- ended questions (i.e., essay questions).
The Senate then passed HB 78, 27-3.
The House voted not to concur with the Senate changes to the bill, which sent the bill to a conference committee to develop a compromise between the two versions of the bill.
The conference committee reported the bill back out with all the significant Senate amendments still in place. The bill was then accepted by both the House and Senate.
The votes listed below are Third Reading (final passage) votes in the House and Senate.
A YES vote means the legislator supported the education provisions contained in this bill, including continuation of all the interim studies in the bill, development of special education guidelines, and modest funding to start full day kindergarten in a few schools. A YES vote by senators also means the senator supported funding for continued interim studies for one more year only.
A NO vote means the legislator did not support these measures.
| Bighorn Basin Legislators | House 3rd 2/13/03 | Senate 3rd 2/28/03 |
|
| S 18 | Hank Coe (R) | Yes | |
| H 24 | Colin Simpson (R) | Yes | |
| H 50 | Pat Childers (R) | Yes | |
| S 19 | Laness D. Northrup (R) | Yes | |
| H 25 | Alan Jones (R) | Yes | |
| H 26 | Elaine Harvey (R) | Yes | |
| S 20 | Gerald E. Geis (R) | No | |
| H 27 | Jane Wostenberg (R) | Yes | |
| H 28 | Micheal Baker (R) | Yes | |
| Casper-Area Legislators | House 3rd 2/13/03 | Senate 3rd 2/28/03 |
|
| S 27 | John Barrasso (R) | Yes | |
| H 35 | Roy Cohee (R) | Yes | |
| H 36 | Liz Gentile (D) | Yes | |
| S 28 | Keith Goodenough (D) | Yes | |
| H 56 | Tom Walsh (R) | Yes | |
| H 57 | Thomas A. Lockhart (R) | Yes | |
| S 29 | Bill Hawks (R) | Yes | |
| H 37 | Steve Harshman (R) | Yes | |
| H 59 | Mary Gilmore (D) | Yes | |
| S 30 | Charles K. Scott (R) | Yes | |
| H 38 | Bob Brechtel (R) | Yes | |
| H 58 | Ann Robinson (D) | Yes | |
| Cheyenne-Area Legislators | House 3rd 2/13/03 | Senate 3rd 2/28/03 |
|
| S 4 | April Brimmer Kunz (R) | Yes | |
| H 7 | Tony Ross (R) | Yes | |
| H 41 | Becket Hinckley (R) | Yes | |
| S 5 | John Hanes (R) | Yes | |
| H 8 | Larry Meuli (R) | Yes | |
| H 42 | Pete Illoway (R) | Yes | |
| S 6 | Rich Cathcart (D) | Yes | |
| H 9 | Wayne Johnson (R) | Yes | |
| H 10 | Rodney "Pete" Anderson (R) | Yes | |
| S 7 | Kathryn Sessions (D) | Yes | |
| H 11 | Wayne Reese (D) | Yes | |
| H 43 | Ed Prosser (R) | Yes | |
| S 8 | E. Jayne Mockler (D) | Yes | |
| H 12 | Layton Morgan (D) | Yes | |
| H 44 | Floyd Esquibel (D) | Yes | |
| Gillette-Area Legislators | House 3rd 2/13/03 | Senate 3rd 2/28/03 |
|
| S 23 | John Hines (R) | Yes | |
| H 31 | Jene Jansen (R) | Yes | |
| H 52 | George McMurtrey (R) | Yes | |
| S 24 | Richard A. Erb (R) | Yes | |
| H 32 | Jeff Wasserburger (R) | No | |
| H 53 | Frank Latta (R) | Yes | |
| Lander/Riverton-Area Legislators | House 3rd 2/13/03 | Senate 3rd 2/28/03 |
|
| S 25 | Cale Case (R) | No | |
| H 33 | Harry Tipton (R) | Yes | |
| H 54 | Del McOmie (R) | Yes | |
| S 26 | Robert A. Peck (R) | Yes | |
| H 34 | Frank Philp (R) | No | |
| H 55 | David Miller (R) | Yes | |
| Northeast/East Central WY Legislators | House 3rd 2/13/03 | Senate 3rd 2/28/03 |
|
| S 1 | Bill Barton (R) | No | |
| H 1 | Mark Semlek (R) | Yes | |
| H 2 | Ross Diercks (D) | Yes | |
| S 2 | Jim Anderson (R) | Yes | |
| H 5 | James C. Hageman (R) | No | |
| H 6 | Dave Edwards (R) | Yes | |
| S 3 | Curt Meier (R) | Yes | |
| H 3 | Deborah Alden (R) | Yes | |
| H 4 | Edward A. Buchanan (R) | No | |
| Sheridan-Area Legislators | House 3rd 2/13/03 | Senate 3rd 2/28/03 |
|
| S 21 | Bruce Burns (R) | Yes | |
| H 29 | Jerry Iekel (R) | Yes | |
| H 51 | Rosie Berger (R) | Yes | |
| S 22 | John Schiffer (R) | Yes | |
| H 30 | Jack Landon (R) | Yes | |
| H 40 | Doug Osborn (R) | Yes | |
| South Central WY Legislators | House 3rd 2/13/03 | Senate 3rd 2/28/03 |
|
| S 9 | Mike Massie (D) | Yes | |
| H 13 | Jane Warren (D) | Yes | |
| H 45 | Lorna Johnson (D) | Yes | |
| S 10 | Irene Devin (R) | Yes | |
| H 14 | Phil Nicholas (R) | Yes | |
| H 46 | James Slater (R) | Yes | |
| S 11 | Bill Vasey (D) | Yes | |
| H 15 | George Bagby (D) | Yes | |
| H 47 | Kurt Bucholz (R) | Yes | |
| Southwest WY Legislators | House 3rd 2/13/03 | Senate 3rd 2/28/03 |
|
| S 12 | Rae Lynn Job (D) | Yes | |
| H 48 | Marty Martin (D) | Yes | |
| H 16 | Pete Jorgensen (D) | Yes | |
| S 13 | Tex Boggs (D) | Yes | |
| H 17 | Fred Parady (R) | Yes | |
| H 60 | Bill Thompson (D) | Yes | |
| S 14 | Larry Caller (D) | Yes | |
| H 18 | Mick Powers (R) | Yes | |
| H 39 | Chris Boswell (D) | Yes | |
| S 15 | Ken Decaria (D) | Yes | |
| H 19 | Owen Petersen (R) | Yes | |
| H 49 | Saundra Meyer (D) | Yes | |
| West Central WY Legislators | House 3rd 2/13/03 | Senate 3rd 2/28/03 |
|
| S 16 | Delaine Roberts (R) | Yes | |
| H 20 | Stan Cooper (R) | Yes | |
| H 21 | Randall Luthi (R) | Yes | |
| S 17 | Grant Larson (R) | Yes | |
| H 22 | Monte Olsen (R) | Yes | |
| H 23 | Clarene Law (R) | Yes | |
See Southwest Region for H 16 and S 12 | |||