[BLANK_AUDIO] Welcome to the Senate Education or Higher Education Policy Committee. I'd like to start by giving a notice to some of our proposed speakers, we asked you to sign up back there in the back but if you could, if you wanna speak please indicate which Bill that you are wanting to speak on. We are gonna be taking two bills before us today. So if you wanna be recognized, if you'll go back to those sheets and just indicate which bill you are planning to speak on so that we can recognize you properly,the Chair would appreciate that. First I'd like to recognize our Sergeant of Arms Dale Huff, Charles Marsellas, and Howl Rotch, thanks for all your help today in this committee. Next we would like to recognize our pages, Daniel Lee from Riley with Senator Bellinger, Anna Ojo from Fayetteville with senator Meredith, Jake Fein from Winston With Senator Kraylic/g, Caroline Patches/g from Raleigh, with Senator Bagger, Mason Roberts from Durham with Senator Bagger, Jack Mitchell from Durham with Senator Bagger, Jordan Bumfield from Monroe with Senator Tucker and Calvin Konts/g from From Raleigh with Senator Alexander, thank you for being with us in the committee today. [BLANK_AUDIO] So the first bill that we are going to bring before us is House Bill 242 entitled, various charter school law changes Is there a PCS before us? There is? Do I have a motion from the committee to adopt the PCS? I have a motion from Senator Curtis an a second from Senator Cook. All those in favor of adopting the PCS signify by saying aye. >> Aye.>> All those opposed say no. Okay, the PCS PCS is before you and I recognize Senator Tillman to explain his bill. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill is simply a bill to update some of the policy regulation on charter schools. There's several parts to the bill, and I would ask our staff draftee or carer, they both worked Diligently to run through the bill and I'll take questions and we'll take questions when he's finished >> Draftee. >> So this new PCS has a few changes from last week if you'll read with me on Section 1.2, it makes a couple of changes to existing law. It does recodify some things into new statutes, so that is all the same from last week. So in terms of the review and renewal of charters the PCS would direct the State Board to review the operations of a charter at least once prior to the expiration of the charter, rather than what the current law requires of once every five years. The PCS would make, basically clarifying technical change that, for renewal requests the information that is to be considered is from the From the immediately preceding three years from the date of the renewal request. And then the PCS in this section provides that if one of the conditions that applies in the case of a renewal request such as, the charter doesn't have financially sound audits, the academic outcomes are not comparable to the LEA or the Charter is not in compliance with laws, then the State Board may renew the charter for a period of less that 10 years or not renew the charter at all. Current law does not lay out that additional information about what the state board is supposed to do if one of the conditions is not met. [BLANK_AUDIO] Section 1.3 of the bill is the same as last week. The material revision section it adds subsection 3 as was explained last week, that allows a State Board discretion to use in capital expansions, it allows the state board to request additional information in making the determination of whether the material or vision would be granted. Section 1.4 of the bill, the PCS again like last week would make no changes to the existing law. It just re-codifies non-[UNKNOWN] visions into it's own new statute. Section 1.5 of the bill, also is the same from last week. It allows charter schools the authority to give enrollment priority in two additional new categories Section 1.7 of the bill is also the same from last week.
The LEA would provide the state board all the information that the LEA is recurrently having to provide to the charters that they are sending per pupil local current expense funds to. And then section 2 of the bill is also the same as last week, which makes some revisions to the fast track application process that the state board has to have and it does speed up the process. The state board has to grant the, they have to make a decision on whether or not they're gonna grant a charter through this fast track process in 90 days rather than 150 days. Again that's the same as the PCS that you saw last week. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Mr. Chair? >> Senator Tillman. >> Thank you at this point I have an amendment to put forth, Mr. Chairman. >> You may send forth your amendment. Does the committee have that? Has it been passed out to our members? Okay, members, you have the amendment before you. Senator Tillman, would you like to explain your amendment? >> This amendment simply reinstates section 1.6 dealing with below performing schools and the process thereby which they may be involved with the state board of education and the process is outlined in this section, and if you need some that in detail, I would ask Cara, who worked on that this morning or either one. If you have questions, we'll take them. Might wanna go through that sample. >> I'm having trouble finding the amendment. >> I do too. Did we make sure we got those passed out? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Just please raise your hand for the sergeant at arms if you do not have one or it's not easy for you to find in your [UNKNOWN]. We'll get those to you real quick. Yes, draftee is both going to read out the number and then walk you through the amendment. >> The amendment you should be looking at is H242ATC -163 version four. What this does is that it actually under current law, charter schools are under an inadequate performance standard. This amendment would change that to having them be identified in the same manner as traditional public schools, as low-performing or continually low-performing charter schools. And low-performing charter schools would be those that receive a school performance grade of D or F and a school growth score of met expected growth or not met expected growth which is the same standard that we have in place for the traditional public schools. And then the continually low-performing charter schools would be one that has been designated as low-performing for at least two of the three consecutive years. And then the amendment would further then change the process of what the state board has to do. Currently, the state board has to identify criteria for adequate performance and identify charter schools that have inadequate performance. And inadequate performance is, the charter school which demonstrates no growth in student performance and has annual performance composites below 60% in any two years of a three year period. And then, what the amendment would do is change that and basically say that if a charter school is continually low-performing, the state board is authorized to terminate, not renew or seek applicants to have seen the charter through a competitive deed process that they have established. But the state board could not terminate or not renew the charter of a continually low performing chartered school just because it was continually low performing if the charter school has met growth in each of the immediately preceding three school years or if the charter has implemented a strategic improvement plan that was approved by the board and was making some measurable progress towards those performance goals. >> Does any other members of the committee have questions. Is there any- >> Mr Chair >> Senator Robinson. >> Thank you. Thank you Mr Chair. Senator Tillman on that last part in terms of the state board shall not terminate because before they had the authority to, if it has continuous low performing if there are some growth. Now is that consistent with our LEAs in terms of other public schools. Is that consistent with current language? >> Senator, yes I love that question. You know charter schools,
and I have a chart that I would share with you in a minute about their progress, but yes. If you are a low performing continuously, you're gonna be identified. It's like voting. But if you're meeting growth and growth means these kids are growing at an acceptable rate. And if you're meeting growth, you're not gonna shut down any school that's meeting growth. I don't care if you're low-performing, if you're meeting growth, your students are learning. Growth that means learning. I'm not talking about achievement scores, I'm talking about taking them at a low level and adequate or better growth. >> Follow up Mr. Chair? >> Follow up. >> Yeah, Senator Tillman does that also mean that the state board would have the authority to send in a team to assess, in terms of helping to improve the performance of the schools who are low-performing? continuously as well? >> No ma'am. The reason for that being, we've got public schools that have been low-performing and failing for years and years and years and they're all still open. Charter schools will close themselves, they've got a charter board and they will fix the problem. We're gonna let them first fix that problem. No, state board will not go and intervene with their plans, we know how far their plans have gotten us with low-performing schools already. Let's try it with the charters. >> Follow up Mr. Chair. >> Follow up. >> Now do I remember incorrectly Senator Tillman, that we just put in place a provision for the state board for a low performing schools that are continuously that there is the LEA [UNKNOWN] The state board would send another team. Tell me about that. I may be recalling wrong. >> I don't know about that. I really don't. I'm not the one to answer that. I know what they've done when they have found low performing schools. >> I'm gonna let Senator Tillman answer his phone but before he answers. >> He's not gonna answer that and it's not gonna ring anymore either Mr. Chairman. I don't know how they knew where I was anyway. >> Are there any other questions from the committee on this amendment? Senator Bryant. >> I'm just reading fast and maybe missing something. I'm trying to figure out what section 1.8 [UNKNOWN] does. If staff or Senator Tillman could tell me that. I think I got the right paper in front of me. Talks about the board of trustees I presume it's about a charter application. >> Senator Tillman, let's let staff answer that. >> I'm not sure what board he's talking about. >> Senator Bryant, will you let staff explain that please? >> Senator Bryant, 1.8 C is a conforming change that we're using to write the wording since we're changing inadequate to low performing We're just having to change it in other statutes so the wording is the same. It's a conforming change. >> I understand but followup Mr Chair- >> It deals with the retirement system. 0135, okay? >> Okay. Thank you. Followup. >> Followup. >> And maybe Senator Robinson got this cleared but I was multitasking over here trying to read. How does this compare, staff, the low performing, continually low performing compare with this 60% composite? Because it's hard for me to keep these different schemas in my head for comparison. Is it higher standard, lower standard. Is it compare or what? >> It's just a different standard. We don't have the capacity to run those numbers so if you wanted a comparison that would be something the department would have to do under the different standards. >> Follow up. >> Follow up. >> Could you describe it to be as best as you can what the 60% meant. What system were we using then and I know that the low performing is the ABCD thing, and what is this composite compared to? It's hard for me to remember what the two systems were. >> Staff. >> So Senator Bryant, under the previous standard, the state board had to develop >> [COUGH] >> a criteria for inadequate performance but the statutes specifically said that inadequate performance, that standard had to include that the chartered school had demonstrated no growth in student performance and had an annual performance composite of below 60% for two out of three years. This new standard is going to put them basically on par with other schools. Under that they're going to use the school report cards. So the school report card has a combination of performance and growth, that't an 80:20 split that ranks schools on an A, B, C, D or F. So if they fall into the D or F category which. I apologize I may have this wrong because we've gone to 15 points [UNKNOWN]. I think that would be below a 65. Yeah, for those schools if they had that plus they also had only
met growth or had not met growth. That would trigger them being identified as low performing. So it is a different measure and then the continually low performing would be if for two out of three years, they continued to fall into the low performing category. >> Senator Bingham. >> Actually 55 not 65. >> Senator Bingham >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Tillman, I think I heard you say that you're going to leave this up to the charter school board to resolve these problems if they have they are low performing. Is that correct? >> Yes sir, Senator Bingham. That's a good question. Yes, we are. >> Okay that's good. I just wanted to make sure we understood that correctly because I'd hate to see the stake close with one of these schools and not have the board involved in any process at all. >> I'll explain in a moment why that's a good question, and it is. >> So at this point the Chair is looking for a motion to adopt the amendment. I have a motion from Senator Rayburn, second from Senator Cook. All those in favor of adopting the amendment before you signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> All those opposed say no. The amendment passes. Senator Tillman. >> If you would recognize the senator currently believe she has [COUGH] an amendment. >> Senator [UNKNOWN] you're recognized to send forth your amendment. >> Thank you Mr Chairman. I move to amend the bill. This is more technical than substantive.- >> Let me interrupt you real quick. We've got your amendment, it's been passed out, the members have it before you, yet there is, let me read the number. >> We/g do not have an amendment. >> Hang on Senator Bright/g let me read you the number. What you're looking for is H242 ARQ. If you don't have it raise your hand. That's 63 version one. [SOUND] Sergeant-at-arms if you can help us. [BLANK_AUDIO] That's ARQ-63 version one. Sponsored by Senator Craigwood/g. [BLANK_AUDIO] Does everybody have that amendment? [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] Here will you help him pass that out very quickly? Waddell help me pass these out >> I've got one [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] Okay, now that everybody has Has a copy, Senator Craywick/g, you're recognized to explain your amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to amend the bill on page six line 14 by deleting the following, September 30th and changing it to October 15th. And on page six line 17 rewriting that line just to have Have conforming language that's just a grammatical correction. And their is one more correction that is not on the amendment and that is line 22 and 23 on page six. Change the date 2018 to 2019 and this was at the request of the state board of add and the. The charter school advisory board to give him time. >> Let's hold on a second we cant read things that aren't on the amendment as part of the amendment. So let's just stick to the amendment that's before as and if their is something else we need to address may be can do it in the committee or on the floor. But let's stick to what is before us. Senator Bryan. >> I was just wondering if their is an error in this amendment I'm not sure how it duct tailed with page six line 17 but I might be missing something. Then you will explain what it means. >> Yeah staff is gonna explain. So in the PCS on line 17 their is a by and then their is also a within so the senates would read the committee by within the 120 days which doesn't make any sense so what the amendment does is
it strikes out the buy so it just says report to the committee within a 120 days. Had to bring in the senate to strike out the by, the BY. [BLANK_AUDIO]>> Does that satisfy you senator Bryan. >>Oh I'm sorry I realized I have got dint look at the line it should be line. six, well no>> 16 and 17 we've got the same error, 16 and 17 >> That can be fixed >> You got the same error on 16 ->> On 16 as well okay I apologize yes to the By needs to be struck on line 16 as well on line 10. If the committee allows I can just. That's a technical change if you all are okay I can make that. >> I have no objection if the committee has no objection then please make that change. >> So when if it's adopted we will incorporate that in. >> The technical changes to the amendment yes. That's right. Are there any questions or discussion on what the amendment does. Senator Davis. >> Thanks Mr. chair I was just wondering if the amendment sponsor could just briefly explain the rationale behind sliding the date back a couple of weeks. >> The states board of add usually meets the first few days of the month and his just gives time for them to coordinate all of that. By doing it pushing it back a couple of weeks. >> Okay I'm looking for motion. Is there a motion to adopt the, I have a motion from senator Rabin and second from senator Cook. All those in favor of adopting the amendment with technical changes signify by saying Aye. All those oppose signify by saying no. It appears to me that the Aye's have it. And the amendment with technical changes passes in the bill is back before you. >> Senator Tillman >> I'm looking for a motion. >> All right we have a motion from Senator Raven and a second from senator Krawiec and the motion is that favorable to the proposed committee substitute as amended rolled in to a new proposed committee substitute and an unfavorable report to the original. bill. All those in favor please signify by saying Aye. >> Aye. >> All those oppose say No. And the motion passes it's. >> Mr. Chairman comment before we move on. >> You are recognized. >> I have a little document here that's done by EPI. please get your hands on it if their are provisional [INAUDIBLE AUDIO] all that were tested. All of the charter school that were tested. We've got the summary I think. Charter school students. >> Senator Tillman why don't you use the microphone. >> I'm so excited about this I just gonna run completely away. I will do this. All students this is a percent provision for all integrate and of course testing. 66.6% proficiency charter student, 56.2 traditional female 67.9 charter. 58.3 traditional, Male 65.3 charter 54.1 traditional. American Indian 44.9 charter 41.2, Asian 89. 3 versus 76,8. Black 46.8 versus 37%. Hispanic 58.6 verses 44.9, Whites 75.1 verses 68.5, AIG students 95.5 verses public 96.0. That was one point a place that were having by just a small fraction. Economically disadvantaged. 49.9% charter, 41.5 percent. English second language 31.2%, charter 22.2%. Public traditional. Migrant 75% of charter 35% public. Students with disabilities. 30.9% charter 20.6%. You didn't see this widely published I had trouble getting my hands on it. You need to take a look at this this is all versus all. All classification that's why charters can fix themselves thank you. >> And members of the committee we will make sure that senator Tillman's piece of paper get circulated to all the members. Now the two bills that we are discussing today were both brought up for discussion last week we need a motion to adopt PCS to consider the next bill do I have a motion.
I've got a motion from senator Cook and a second from senator Tillman. And so the PCS for house bill 657 math standard course of study provisions is before us. One of the things I would like to do is I will give senator Tillman an opportunity to introduce the bill. We also like to have staff walk through this bill is very different than the one that was brought up in the committee for discussion last week. And so the floor is yours Senator Tillman. >> And I wanna thank DPI and whoever did this they sent my phone out and said everybody call senator Tillman if you don't like this bill. Well I had over 200 people call me. And said they liked it. Anyway thank you for that public free advertising. What this bill simply does it say's we recognize that Math one, two and three has some great advantages and it's a good program especially for those that are in the top half of top qua style of students. They do well, the bottom 60% have trouble with the new merge math. Their is nothing wrong with merging it. Math transpose never change. The way you present the way you teach it the way you congile it in to this that and the other. That's the only difference. One says we are gonna combine it and merge it math one , two and three. The old way that we've done for a hundred or more years is algebra one, geometry algebra two. Many students who struggle in math can do well with this. All I'm saying is you got a choice and if you find something wrong with choice, and I know you will shoot holes in a few things that I have had some of making this excuse in that and the other, let's give them a choice. I'm talking to teachers and parents that you are evidently not talking to. The once I'm hearing from say my kids are struggling they don't understand it we cant help them at home. If you hadn't heard that. Let's have a a flying student they are doing well. All I'm saying let's give them a choice let's see where they flourish they know they will be handle either and will give a year of transition and your standard. This is for higher standards. Some of are famous for putting out that you are lowering standards. No Math principles never change. A good math teacher can teach any of this folks, it doesn't mater those principle are the same. Whether you merge it or whether you pick in a sequential manner and we've all been taught that math is building blocks subject area. And you have to start the basics and move forward is a sequential manner. I'm just saying that sequential works good for those students choice that's it. >> Thank you senator Tillman, I think one thing that will be helpful for the committee is if staff can walk through this bill but also help us understand how it's different from the one was that we discussed before the committee last week. So Staff you are recognized. >> James Reader from legislative analysis. In section one of the bill it requires the state board of education to revise and reorganize the Math standard course of study adopted in June 2016 to allow students and parents choice between the traditional sequence of algebra one, geometry. Algebra two or the integrated Math one, two, and three. For students beginning high school math in 2017/2018 alias must offer options aligned with the traditional sequence of math. For assessment offer to students in 2017/2018 standards must be supplement for students enrolling in algebra one to make sure they are successful on the current assessment. In section two it requires the state board of education and the state board of community colleges to conduct the comprehensive review of the math standard course of study engraves c K12 that increases rigger focus and career readiness, The newly revised standards must be supplemented in the 2018/2019 school year. In section three of the bill it prohibits the use of career in technical education course to satisfy the forth math for graduation unless a students has an individualized education program that identifies the student as learning disabled in math and that the student has a learning disability that will prevent the student from mastering Algebra one, Section four requires the state board of education. And the state board of community colleges to report to the general assembly and the joint legislative. Education oversight committee by March 15 of 2018 that includes revised standards and notes any changes that have been made to the math standard course of study. Section five makes the math standard course of study and sequence option effective June 1st 2018 unless the bill is introduced to either house of the general assembly. That disapproved the math standard course of study.
And of course the bill will become effective when it becomes law and applies beginning with 2017/2018 school year, and they are after. >> Thank you staff. And the chair would just like to point out for this bill, that in the original PCS that we brought up for discussion only. The bill replace the current standards and integrated math with traditional math sequencing and reverted back to the old standard until we could get new ones. This bill is very different. this bill provides allows this current standard to stay in place, it allows for integrated math stay in place. What it does is it looks to the future and it directs the State board of education to re-impliment traditional math sequencing in addition to the integrated map under those higher standards but offering a choice for students to choose whichever math sequence better better ones with the path way in high school. And so with that, our chair winner technique questions or discussion on the PCS senator Cook. >> Just unclear when does this choice become effective? When can I choose the more traditional approach to math?. >> Senator Tillman would you like to answer that or have staff answer. >> We have given that my year reduce the standard You wanna buff those standards up I'm all for it. We need to take a look at the standards that did apply to the house on the [UNKNOWN] lets increase so the standard, lets make them [UNKNOWN] for and I believe we have to see that done. So we given a year and transition so the fall of the 2018 I believe is the start date on this. >> And this can be very complicated look. Let me add to that when Senator Tillman says redo the standards what he means is as we phase in the traditional path way, the state board of education has to do new standard for that pathway. He's not talking about redoing standards for the integrated pathway and that the standards will come wide then the 2017, 18 [UNKNOWN] year and that's two year is what they department ask for to get through that process to have all they needed to get through the process. Follow up. >> Follow up please, I'm I'm a little disappointed I have been trying to get rid of [INAUDIBLE AUDIO], for four years now, still not there. >> I wrote that bill senator with transitioning it's hard and slow hen you're working with the government. >> Senator. We learn from how we got into common court is that our children should not be a social experiment and the shock in all that our public school system was put through by the flipping of the switch of changing every standard in the state North Carolina was wrong, and so what this bill attempts to do is move in a more Thoughtful way to providing pathways for students to have choice to receive the type of education they need that will best help them succeed. Senator Barringer. >> At the appropriate time I'd like to move to amend the PCS please. >> Now is the appropriate time. You can send forth your amendment. >> Thank you. The staff has it and it should be before all the members. Do all the members have the amendment numbered ATC162 Version 1. Okay, Senator Barringer you're recognized to explain your amendment. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. What this does, and I'll just read from the amendment. What this does and it says that if a student has an Has an IEP, in individual education plan that's identifies if the student is learning disabled in the area of algebra one that the student shall be allowed to construct a form course mathematics sequence that includes one or more career in technical education courses as appropriate based on the students individual education plans and The secondary goals. My comment to this, or my argument for this is that, I do not want the changes that we are implementing or potentially implementing today, to impede someone being able to get a high school diploma as they can now. There are many students who can learn Math but they need to do it in In a tangible way, not in an abstract way. They will do so in classes where they are building something, touching something, feeling something and actually applying the math to that, and so that's why I bring forth this amendment and ask for your support. >> Senator Barringer I think your amendment reinforces the philosophy of this bill and I and that is that, students learn differently, in different ways but we all want higher standards.
Is there any objection to the amendment? The amendment before you, if you're in favor please signify by saying aye >> Aye >> All those oppose say no. In my opinion, the aye's have it, the amendment passes and Next I recognize senator Smith. >> Thank you Mr. chairman. I just had a question as to why when we are changing to go back to something or at least offer the choice of going back. Has their been any kind of study on whether this live this is needed. I understand some people called the office or something. I do not profess to be a math expert by any means but I kind of doubt most of us in the legislator are math experts, and it would seem to me that this ought to be something that we have, some basis of study in that it's actually is needed. >> Senator Tillman Senator Smith if weren't giving a choice I would say yes Amen to that, that would do. You take what choice you want, but Math principles do not change, that's the reason the transition will not be that hard regardless of what you may here from those in the Ivory tower. A good math teacher can teach it either way and some of them have been merging this and teaching both already for the last four years. Many of them have had to adapt and not get into one, two and three as quickly as they thought, so that wont be a hard problem at all, we are given a choice. >> Follow up Mr. chairman. >> Follow up. And I'm just wondering whether giving that choice is that make it a little more complicated for the schools and the teachers to be able to. Our teachers are gonna have to teach two different kind of math. Even possibly well I understand that but two different ways of doing it. It just seems like that might be a little bit complicated. >> Just to provide some historical perspective. When the common course standards came out states had the ability to choose whether they wanted to deliver math traditionally or through integration. North Carolina was one of the first and only at the time. Time states that decided to change all of their math to fully integrated math. What you've seen in a lot of states, to give you an example towards the studying piece, there's a lot of states that went into full integration like North Carolina did, have started to pull back from that and approach it in more of a hybrid way, recognizing that integrated math meets the needs Meets the needs and challenges of a lot of students, but in many ways is very complicated for a whole other section and I'll give you an easy example. I have a high school in my district that had a very successful CTE program where the math department would align the traditional sequencing of math delivery with CTE classes for For example, aligning a geometry math class with a drafting class. Under Integrated Math they don't have the ability to do that any more. The other thing that supports Common Core, Common Core says that you can deliver traditional and Integrated Math, that it doesn't lower the standards. The standards are and the standards and how you deliver it is totally up to the state and so what this bill is proposing is that our students have an option of how they receive it. >> Senator Craylee. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I've heard some concerns that the ACT and SAT are now geared toward the new integrated math, Senator Tillman can you tell us how that is going to affect those students that are in transition. Do you think that it will have an impact on them? >> Statistics show that there is a little higher level of achievement in test scores, in SAT and ACT with the students that are in the integrated math and that simply can be explained by many of those students, higher level students that have taken those tests that are in those courses. I don't think it will make any difference at all, math is still math. Now there is some of them that will tell you that, that makes a big difference, I'd beg to differ, I don't think so. >> We currently don't meet any of our benchmarks for the SAT under the integrated math. Senator Robinson. >> Thank you Mr. Chair, I have a few questions regarding this. First is, Senator Tillman you have explained this is an option but even with that option, you know how I think about boards. We appoint a State board of Education with authority to make decisions because they have the educators and always question us making those decisions beyond the policy and the So the first question is if this and it does say require local boards to offer the option.
So if local boards are required to offer the option that means that they have to do professional development of teachers to be able to make the transition because. They gotta do the standard course and then they've got to do the sequence in the different way. Also recruit math teachers. And we currently don't have enough teachers in math in the state as it is. So how are we going to support. Them, in terms of the additional course in terms of the recruit and in terms of professional development. How we as a general assembly going to do that for our LEA's. >> We do that all the time in service development is a continues thing. Can teach math your same certification are required, same student same allotment of teachers not gonna change. >> Follow up Mr. chair. >> Follow up. >> Are we going to appropriate additional funding to for these or the incoming years, so that they can do the professional development for those teachers. And maybe find some more math teachers. Math isn't an easy thing to teach. >> We find in math teacher now for what we can and that we will look for the same number of teacher this does not change your allotment does not change so we are still looking for a good math teacher. Certification does not change, so the problem is already there. One more follow up Mr. chair >> Follow up. >> I have a concern to about the graduation requirements because I know as you know that if you give students the choice to choose and their are not parents involved and for a lot of our kids I heard your staff that you read even for the charter. Charters in terms of African American kids. Some kids are from low income neighborhood parents don't have the ability to get to school to be involved and making those choices and high school is a very critical time middle and the high school . So if the student makes the choice as opposed. to have and that parent there. Some may choose the alternative, the option and may not be prepared for higher education. So my question is, how is that going to impact graduation requirements in terms of going to two and four year colleges. Have we looked Looked at that had we studied that? >> No ma'am there is no change, there is no change in that the parent and student always select their schedule with their adviser, their guidance counselor they will do the same thing they've always do there is no change. >> I think one thing that's important to point out we have a lot of children coming to the state of North Carolina from other states that do not do Integrated Math. So when they transition into our school system they go through a night mare process of trying to find out where they are at in the system. This bill will allow those students who are heading college to continue on the track that they came here with and not have to tussle or spend wasted time in the classroom dealing with standards That are aligned to a math delivery system that doesn't exist in other states. And I would also remind this committee that $70 million that was supposed to be appropriated to our teachers in North Carolina for the roll out of Integrated Math never hit the classroom. So you have many teachers Across the state of North Carolina who are delivering Integrated Math, who are just one chapter ahead of their students. In many ways, some of them being able to deliver it in the traditional way, will be able to go back to a way they were professionally developed to achieve those things. We flipped the light switch in North Carolina and turned math into a dark place and now we're trying to bring some light back in. I'm looking at our clock. I'm gonna take two more questions from the committee, and then I have a motion on the table. We will hear very short public comment on this. Senator Woodard you're recognized. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Thank you Mr. Chair. I guess I'm trying to follow on Senator Robinson's question about the practical applications of this choice, the option that's now been introduced into the bill. What does that mean for an individual high school that's got to offer essentially two tracks of math. How do we track the enrollment? How does a principal staff his or her math department? Department. Can you give me some insights into that cuz it seems to me you are creating some more cost. And if we are I'd like to know what those costs are. >> Mr. chairman there's is no cost you got the same number of students you don't have new students we are not creating another ADM we are not creating another ADM we are not changing any allotment, so your number of teacher and your number of students are the very same. What you do is you take the teaching staff you've got and you take the registration of students, and put them into those courses.
You may have a teacher for example teaching algebra one along side those in math one. You can have that with a good teacher you can do it. >> Quick follow up Mr. chair. >> Follow up. >> Well, I would challenge that it wouldn't cost cuz you're splitting things up. But let me get to another question that I would like to hear the sponsor address. And that's the status of the Academic Standard Review Commission. We charge them, task them with bringing us back these standards. Aren't we putting the cart before the horse? We haven't seen what they are Their recommendations are yet have we? >> Yes sir we have. They were one two and three and they aren't anything. >> They are willing to recommend in Minnesota standard and they got plain politics and ended up with all most nothing. >> Just to directly answer this bill does nothing to change that process or the process that the State Board of Education has been through over the past year in developing modifications to the integrated standards. I would also remind Senator Woodard and the committee that as Integrated Math was phased in, schools had to teach both traditional and Integrated Math after the same time to face those students out. And so it's been done before and they will just face it right back in. Senator Apodaca. Okay I have got the motion from senator Bingham will hold it for just one second, I'm gonna here from. I don't have time to hear from everyone but we are gonna here from some people from the public who showed up today, the way I'm gonna do this is I have a pro and con list I'm gonna call two of you from each side. And you have two minutes to speak our sergeant of arms is gonna let you know when you are cut of. So the first person that we want to recognize. is Christina Hoi. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Hello, I'm so excited to be here. I'm actually a teacher. I was in a classroom this time last year doing Readers Theater with fifth graders before the school ended. I'm not with an organization and I'm self-funded. I'm here to share teacher insight and support in forming policy. I wanna thank Senator Tart for coming to my classroom during my government unit in coaching my kids on consensus building, which I hope we can do with Integrated Math. I am for Integrated Mathematics. Seeing you guys business-thinking forward-thinking Senators know that a lot of what the tech leaders are saying is Is that there's this data horizon. And on the data horizon is all the information businesses need to get growth. So what this one economist told me when I asked him, what am I coaching my students toward in math. He said, you need to be able to teach kids to look at a horizon of data, pull data off Integrate it and put it into a narrative. That's what businesses need to get growth and to be strategic. So Integrated Mathematics supports businesses. And I also wanna say in serving students, so I don't know if you know this, but when I went to school you have 45 minutes of teacher lecture and then 15 minutes they would give you the worksheet. And I was so So excited for this 15 minutes to get the worksheet. But today we flipped it so I don't know if you know about when I go in front of my students one I have already diagnostic pre-assessment them and know what skills they need. So then I'm with them in front of them for 10 to 15 minutes in the mini lesson and then I push them out to for 45 minutes in to strategic data driven small groups. And then I coach and I coach And I coach. This group might be a low grade level so it's skills. This group over here might be above grade level so it's higher level thinking. This group in the middle might be just on grade level, so I'm doing something with them. But we differentiate in the class for kids to help them get growth and that's actually how you get growth as a teacher. And the last thing I wanna say. If you saw struggle with the change here is why. In North Carolina we did common core all at once on my teacher team we are teachers from all over the nation who also are doing integrative artfatics and they were said it was implemented much more slower. >> Thank you Miss Cole. The next person we would like to call is Julie Shaloszky. And when you came to the microphone if you can just state your name and. >> Julie Shalosky. And Good morning. I'll give you a little of my background, I taught high school mathematics in Wake county for 39 years. I served as a facilitator at an elementary school to help elementary teacher implement common core. I have heard add jump. Positions at NC state and Merit teaching math and supervising students teachers. I have worn numerous teaching award including the presidential award. I offer that simply to hope give a little credibility to my comment since morning because I have brought range of experience come through university. First of all some of the things that common core. Advocate for a rigger and critical thinking. No one is against that but those are products of teachers and instructional
practice. Rigger means do I challenge my students, has nothing to do with which curriculum you choose. Critical thinking. I read where a common core teacher said she asked her students what 4*-9 was and the student said -36. And she said how, and he said well 4*9 is 36, there is a negative so we say -36. And the teacher said we never did that before common core. Really asking critical questions. Asking critical questions depends on the teacher. Rigger depends on the teacher. And there is research out there and statistics common core was never vetted. Even the author of common core speak to that it is not college ready material. We are not serving our top kids as well as it should be. Be in Kentucky, which has done common core for the longest amount of time 21% of the students were college ready, 5% of the black students where college ready. That is not serving our students well. I support this house bill, I think giving the option of choice is excellent but we. To remember that many of the proponents are a result of strong instruction practice and not curriculum. Thank you. >> The next speaker I would like to recognize is Wendy Burcklet. [BLANK_AUDIO] Thank you so much for this opportunity to share my thoughts with the high school mathematics curriculum in North Carolina. I've been teaching at Forsyth County for 19 years and I taught both the traditional pathway, and the integrated math pathway. I'd like to encourage you to just offer one pathway for our students. The newly adopted high school mathematics standards, it is what is best for our children. Many of you had questions about the practical implementation of offering two pathways, I'm also department chair of my high school. Unfortunately I did not know of the changes of the bill before I arrived today, but I'd love to discuss with you the large number of challenges these creates for our high schools. However, I'm going to continue with my prepared comments. Although the rolling out of the common course standards was challenging and frustration at time. North Carolina Teachers have been working countless hours to make standards unique to North Carolina, not Common Core standards, that prepare our students for 21st century jobs. The standards were obviously created math teachers and professionals that listened to our feedback. They have improved an already good set of standards, and placed them in appropriate sequencing they make sense for the North Carolina students and how they need to learn mathematics. These standards are the best I have seen in the 19 years. Students like the integrated math sequence. It gives students the opportunity to master different topics in the course. Not everyone is good at algebra, so many students love the statistic unit for its real life applications. Students enjoy the opportunity to master different topics within the course as the school year progresses. Finally I'm gonna put my parent had a on. My daughter currently if fourth grade I'm gonna get teary aye, and her public school mathematics education has been phenomenon. Her teachers has been braced our new standards and her number [UNKNOWN] [UNKNOWN] problem solving. Sorry, very passionate is impressive. Thanks for her teacher for delivering Mathematics topics in their classroom. In addition, my nine grade son just completed math one. To interrupt sequencing at this point which I know may be is the bill changing once we create significant holds in mathematics education. Many Many people think of integrated maths as a piece mill of different math topics thrown together, its not just true. Thank you for your time. I employ that you listen to teachers when you make these decisions. >> Thank you and. >> [APPLAUSE] >> For a press folks out there no on sequences or gonna get interrupted to this bill unless they choose to. The next person we would like to recognize is Hope Harrington, is Hope Harrington here? Just state your name and where you from. >> Hi, I'm Hope Harrington. I'm a student at [UNKNOWN] High school. I'm a rising IB senior and I have a 4.7 GPA. I have taken biochemistry and microbiology at NT State as a sophomore. So I'm a higher level student as you would call it. I just wanted to say thank you for allowing me to come speak on behalf of students and their perspective on this. So with my past experience I can also say common core has only had negative effects on my education, I learnt common core methods and I had trouble understanding those methods and so my father could not help me with them, and he decided to teach me traditional methods. And when I use those traditional methods cuz they made sense I was penalized for the method I used, and I got the correct answer but I was still penalized. And they say you are just unlucky it happened.
Well it should have happened in the first place. And I have had teachers who have taught me common core and also a traditional math way both times and it has gone wonderful. They spend half the class teaching one one way they have your class to say choice your method. And I don't see it as an issue. And common core complicates things for our past than what they need to be. They take a two step problem and turns it into a 10 step problem. I'm also a tutor for common core one or and my student struggles greatly with the methods taught to him and his teacher just didn't get through to him so I decided to teach him traditional math way and it worked better for him and he improved his grade about to from an F to a B, he made an 86 on her final and it greatly helped him therefore I think it is possible to do traditional and common core math on both scales. So in other issues learning one method, one day having homework and then taking that method and having a new topic the next day even if you didn't understand it which isn't fair because the teacher would say sorry we're moving on, so the student should be allowed to pick their way to serve higher level kids like me, thank you. >> Thank you Hope, okay we're well pat our time, I have a motion from senator [INAUDIBLE], the motion should be favorable to the proposed committee substitute as amended, rolled into a new proposed committee substitute with a favorable report to the new committee substitute and an unfavorable report to the original bill, all those in favor please signify by saying aye, >> Aye. >> All those oppose say no, >> No. >> It appears to the chair that the ayes have it and the bill passes thank you this meeting is adjourn